These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
4. These are the generations created ] These words, as they stand here, seem to form a summary of the preceding account of the Creation. Elsewhere, however, the phrase “These are the generations, &c.” is the formula employed in P as a heading, title, or superscription, to introduce the passage that follows. Cf. Gen 5:1, “The generations of Adam,” Gen 6:9 (Noah), Gen 10:1 (The Sons of Noah), Gen 11:10 (Shem), 27 (Terah), Gen 25:12 (Ishmael). The conjecture has been made that the formula “These are the generations, &c.” originally stood at the beginning of ch. 1, and was transferred to its present place, either, in order that the book might begin with the word b’rshth (= “In the beginning”), or to obtain a sentence which would serve both as an epitome of the opening section and as a link with the one that follows.
generations ] Heb. t-l’-dth = “successions by descent,” usually meaning “the chronicles,” or “genealogies,” of persons and families, is here metaphorically applied to “the heaven and the earth” in the sense of the “history” of their origin and their offspring. LXX, therefore, gives an explanatory rendering, .
It is quite a different word from that found, e.g. in Gen 15:16, “in the fourth generation ” (Heb. dr, LXX ).
created ] This word closes the first section of the book, and there should be a full stop after it. The next section, giving another narrative, at of the creation of man and of Paradise, opens with the words “In the day that.”
The first section has been derived from the materials of the Priestly Code (P), the second is from the Prophetic Writing (J). The styles which characterize the two sources offer a marked contrast.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
4b 7. The Creation of Man
4. in the day that ] There is no allusion here to the Days of Creation. It is simply the vivid Hebrew idiom for “at the time when.”
the Lord God ] The Hebrew words “Jahveh Elohim” are used in this section for the Almighty. On the Sacred Names, see Introduction. The use of JHVH, the Name of the God of Israel (Exodus 3) which the Jews in reverence forbore to pronounce, and which received, in the 16th century, the wholly erroneous pronunciation of “Jehovah,” is one of the characteristics of the writing of J. In the previous section, Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:4 a, the Sacred Name is “Elohim” = “God”; and the use of “Elohim” is prevalent in the P Narratives of Gen. In the present section, Gen 2:4 b 3:24, the Sacred Name is a combination of Jahveh and Elohim, i.e. Jehovah (= Lord) and “God.” In the next section, the story of Cain and Abel, Jehovah alone is used; throughout the rest of Genesis we find either Jehovah or Elohim alone. The combination of the two Sacred Names is elsewhere of exceedingly rare occurrence. How to account for it in the present passage, is a problem to which no certain answer can be given. The theory that “God” (Elohim) is used for the God of Nature, and Lord (Jehovah) for the God of Revelation, in unsupported by the facts: e.g. “God” (Elohim) is the name used of the Deity in ch. 17 at the establishment of the covenant of circumcision: the Lord (Jahveh) is the name used at the destruction of the cities or the Plain (Gen 19:1-28, see note on Gen 19:29). There seems no reason to assign any doctrinal ground for the exceptional usage.
It should most probably be attributed to the handiwork of the compiler. On the first occasion in which the sacred title of the God or Israel was used, he wished to emphasize the fact that Jehovah and the Elohim of Creation were one and the same.
Another suggestion has been made, that the Paradise Narrative was current in two versions, in one of which the Sacred Name was Jahveh, in the other Elohim, and that the compiler who was acquainted with both versions left a trace of the fact in the combined names. But the compiler has not resorted to any such expedient elsewhere.
earth and heaven ] An unusual order of words, found only in Psa 148:13.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
– Part II. The development
– Section II – The Man
– X. The Field
4. toledot generations, products, developments. That which comes from any source, as the child from the parent, the record of which is history.
yehovah. This word occurs about six thousand times in Scripture. It is obvious from its use that it is, so to speak, the proper name of God. It never has the article. It is never changed for construction with another noun. It is never accompanied with a suffix. It is never applied to any but the true God. This sacred exclusiveness of application, indeed, led the Jews to read always in place of it ‘adonay, or, if this preceded it, ‘elohym, to intimate which the vowel points of one of these terms were subscribed to it. The root of this name is chavah, an older variety of hayah, which, as we have seen, has three meanings, – be in the sense of coming into existence, be in that of becoming, and be in that of merely existing. The first of these meanings has no application to God, who had no beginning of existence.
The last applies to God, but affords no distinctive characteristic, as it belongs equally to all objects that have existence. The second is proper to God in the sense, not of acquiring any new attribute, but of becoming active from a state of repose. But he becomes active to the eye of man only by causing some new effect to be, which makes its appearance in the world of sensible things. He becomes, then, only by causing to be or to become. Hence, he that becomes, when applied to the Creator, is really he that causes to be. This name, therefore, involves the active or causative force of the root from which it springs, and designates God in relation with the system of things he has called into being, and especially with man, the only intelligent observer of him or of his works in this nether world. It distinguishes him as the Author of being, and therefore the Creator, the worker of miracles, the performer of promise, the keeper of covenant. Beginning with the (y) of personality, it points out God as the person whose habitual character it has become to cause his purpose to take place. Hence, ‘elohym designates God as the Everlasting, the Almighty, in his unchangeable essence, as he is before as well as after creation. .noitaer yehvah distinguishes him as the personal Self-existent, and Author of all existing things, who gives expression and effect to his purpose, manifests himself thereby as existing, and maintains a spiritual intercourse with his intelligent creatures.
The vowel marks usually placed under the consonants of this word are said to belong to ‘adonay; and its real pronunciation, which is supposed to be lost, is conjectured to have been yehovah. This conjecture is supported by the analogy of the supposed antique third singular masculine imperfect of the verb havah, and by the Greek forms IAW and IABE which are found in certain authors (Diod. Sic. i. 19; Macrob. Saturn i. 18; Theodoret, Quaest. xv. ad Exod.). It is true, indeed, when it has a prefix all its vowels coincide with those of ‘adonay. But otherwise the vowel under the first letter is different, and the qamets at the end is as usual in proper names ending in the Hebrew letter (h) as in others. yehovah also finds an anology in the word yerocham. In the forms IAW and IABE the Greek vowels doubtless represent the Hebrew consonants, and not any vowel points. The Hebrew letter (h) is often represented by the Greek letter (a). From yaheovah we may obtain yehu at the end of compounds, and therefore, expect yehu at the beginning. But the form at the beginning is yeho or yo, which indicates the pronunciation yehovah as current with the punctuators. All this countenances the suggestion that the casual agreement of the two nouns Yahweh and Adonai in the principal vowels was the circumstance that facilitated the Jewish endeavor to avoid uttering the proper name of God except on the most solemn occasions. yehovah, moreover, rests on precarious grounds. The Hebrew analogy would give yhveh not yehovah for the verbal form. The middle vowel cholem (o) may indicate the intensive or active force of the root, but we lay no stress on the mode of pronunciation, since it cannot be positively ascertained.
5. sadeh plain, country, field, for pasture or tillage, in opposition to gan, garden, park.
7. nesamah breath, applied to God and man only.
We meet with no division again in the text till we come to Gen 3:15, when the first minor break in the narrative occurs. This is noted by the intervening space being less than the remainder of the line. The narrative is therefore so far regarded as continuous.
We are now entering upon a new plan of narrative, and have therefore to notice particularly that law of Hebrew composition by which one line of events is carried on without interruption to its natural resting-point; after which the writer returns to take up a collateral train of incidents, that are equally requisite for the elucidation of his main purpose, though their insertion in the order of time would have marred the symmetry and perspicuity of the previous narrative. The relation now about to be given is posterior, as a whole, to that already given as a whole; but the first incident now to be recorded is some time prior to the last of the preceding document.
Hitherto we have adhered closely to the form of the original in our rendering, and so have made use of some inversions which are foreign to our prose style. Hereafter we shall deviate as little as possible from the King James Version.
The document upon which we are now entering extends from Gen 2:4 to Gen. 4. In the second and third chapters the author uses the combination yehovah ‘elohym the Lord God, to designate the Supreme Being; in the fourth he drops ‘elohym God, and employs yehovah the Lord, alone. So far, then, as the divine appellation is concerned, the fourth chapter is as clearly separable from the second and third as the first document is from the present. If diversity of the divine name were a proof of diversity of authorship, we should here have two documents due to different authors, each of them different also from the author of the first document. The second and third chapters, though agreeing in the designation of God, are clearly distinguishable in style.
The general subject of this document is the history of man to the close of the line of Cain and the birth of Enosh. This falls into three clearly marked sections – the origin, the fall, and the family of Adam. The difference of style and phraseology in its several parts will be found to correspond with the diversity in the topics of which it treats. It reverts to an earlier point of time than that at which we had arrived in the former document, and proceeds upon a new plan, exactly adapted to the new occasion.
The present section treats of the process of nature which was simultaneous with the latter part of the supernatural process described in the preceding document. Its opening paragraph refers to the field.
Gen 2:4
This verse is the title of the present section. It states the subject of which it treats – the generations of the skies and the land. The generations are the posterity or the progress of events relating to the posterity of the party to whom the term is applied Gen 5:1; Gen 6:9; Gen 10:1; Gen 11:10; Gen 37:2. The development of events is here presented under the figure of the descendants of a parental pair; the skies and the land being the metaphorical progenitors of those events, which are brought about by their conjunct operation.
It then notes the date at which the new narrative commences. In their being created. This is the first or general date; namely, after the primary creation and during the course of the secondary. As the latter occupied six days, some of the processes of nature began before these days had elapsed. Next, therefore, is the more special date – in the day of Yahweh Gods making land and skies. Now, on looking back at the preceding narrative, we observe that the skies were adjusted and named on the second day, and the land on the third. Both, therefore, were completed on the third day, which accordingly is the opening date of the second branch of the narrative.
The uniqueness of the present section, therefore, is, that it combines the creative with the preservative agency of God. Creation and progress here go hand in hand for a season. The narrative here, then, overlaps half the time of the former, and at the end of the chapter has not advanced beyond its termination.
yehovah ‘elohym the Lord God. This phrase is here for the first time introduced. ‘elohym, as we have seen, is the generic term denoting God as the Everlasting, and therefore the Almighty, as he was before all worlds, and still continues to be, now that he is the sole object of supreme reverence to all intelligent creatures. Yahweh is the proper name of God to man, self-existent himself, the author of existence to all persons and things, and manifesting his existence to those whom he has made capable of such knowledge.
Hence, the latter name is appropriate to the present stage of our narrative. God has become active in a way worthy of himself, and at the same time unique to his nature. He has put forth his creative power in calling the universe into existence. He has now reconstituted the skies and the land, clothed the latter with a new vegetation, and peopled it with a new animal kingdom. Especially has he called into being an inhabitant of this earth made in his own image, and therefore capable of understanding his works and holding conversation with himself. To man he has now come to be in certain acts by which he has discovered himself and his power. And to man he has accordingly become known by a name which signalizes that new creative process of which man forms a prominent part. Yahweh – he who causes the successive events of time to come to pass in the sight and in the interest of man – is a name the special significance of which will come out on future occasions in the history of the ways of God with man.
The union of these two divine names, then, indicates him who was before all things, and by whom now all things consist. It also implies that he who is now distinguished by the new name Jehovah ( yehovah) is the same who was before called Elohiym. The combination of the names is specially suitable in a passage which records a concurrence of creation and development. The apposition of the two names is continued by the historian through this and the following chapter. The abstract and aboriginal name then gives way to the concrete and the historical.
The skies and the land at the beginning of the verse are given in order of their importance in nature, the skies being first as grander and higher than the land; at the end, in the order of their importance in the narrative, the land being before the skies, as the future scene of the events to be recorded.
This superscription, we see, presupposes the former document, as it alludes to the creation in general, and to the things made on the second and third days in particular, without directly narrating these events. This mode of referring to them implies that they were well known at the time of the narrator, either by personal observation or by testimony. Personal observation is out of the question in the present case. By the testimony of God, therefore, they were already known, and the preceding record is that testimony. The narrator of the second passage, therefore, even if not the same as that of the former, had to a moral certainty the first before his mind when composing the second.
Gen 2:5
This verse corresponds to the second verse of the preceding narrative. It describes the field or arable land in the absence of certain conditions necessary to the progress of vegetation. Plant and herb here comprise the whole vegetable world. Plants and herbs of the field are those which are to be found in the open land. A different statement is made concerning each.
Not a plant of the field was yet in the land. – Here it is to be remembered that the narrative has reverted to the third day of the preceding creation. At first sight, then, it might be supposed that the vegetable species were not created at the hour of that day to which the narrative refers. But it is not stated that young trees were not in existence, but merely that plants of the field were not yet in the land. Of the herbs it is only said that they had not yet sent forth a bud or blade. And the actual existence of both trees and herbs is implied in what follows. The reasons for the state of things above described are the lack of rain to water the soil, and of man to cultivate it. These would only suffice for growth if the vegetable seeds, at least, were already in existence. Now, the plants were made before the seeds Gen 1:11-12, and therefore the first full-grown and seed-bearing sets of each kind were already created. Hence, we infer that the state of things described in the text was this: The original trees were confined to a center of vegetation, from which it was intended that they should spread in the course of nature. At the present juncture, then, there was not a tree of the field, a tree of propagation, in the land; and even the created trees had not sent down a single root of growth into the land. And if they had dropped a seed, it was only on the land, and not in the land, as it had not yet struck root.
And not an herb of the field yet grew. – The herbage seems to have been more widely diffused than the trees. Hence, it is not said that they were not in the land, as it is said of field trees. But at the present moment not an herb had exhibited any signs of growth or sent forth a single blade beyond the immediate product of creative power.
Rain upon the land – and man to till it, were the two needs that retarded vegetation. These two means of promoting vegetable growth differed in their importance and in their mode of application. Moisture is absolutely necessary, and where it is supplied in abundance the shifting wind will in the course of time waft the seed. The browsing herds will aid in the same process of diffusion. Man comes in merely as an auxiliary to nature in preparing the soil and depositing the seeds and plants to the best advantage for rapid growth and abundant fruitfulness. The narrative, as usual, notes only the chief things. Rain is the only source of vegetable sap; man is the only intentional cultivator.
Gen 2:6
As in the former narrative, so here, the remaining part of the chapter is employed in recording the removal of the two hinderances to vegetation. The first of these is removed by the institution of the natural process by which rain is produced. The atmosphere had been adjusted so far as to admit of some light. But even on the third day a dense mass of clouds still shut out the heavenly bodies from view. But on the creation of plants the Lord God caused it to rain on the land. This is described in the verse before us. A mist went up from the land. It had been ascending from the steaming, reeking land ever since the waters retired into the hollows. The briny moisture which could not promote vegetation is dried up. And now he causes the accumulated masses of cloud to burst forth and dissolve themselves in copious showers. Thus, the mist watered the whole face of the soil. The face of the sky is thereby cleared, and on the following day the sun shone forth in all his cloudless splendor and fostering warmth.
On the fourth day, then, a second process of nature commenced. The bud began to swell, the tender blade to peep forth and assume its tint of green, the gentle breeze to agitate the full-sized plants, the first seeds to be shaken off and wafted to their resting-place, the first root to strike into the ground, and the first shoot to rise towards the sky.
This enables us to determine with some degree of probability the Season of the year when the creation took place. If we look to the ripe fruit on the first trees we presume that the season is autumn. The scattering of the seeds, the falling of the rains, and the need of a cultivator intimated in the text, point to the same period. In a genial climate the process of vegetation has its beginnings at the falling of the early rains. Man would be naturally led to gather the abundant fruit which fell from the trees, and thus, even unwittingly provide a store for the unbearing period of the year. It is probable, moreover, that he was formed in a region where vegetation was little interrupted by the coldest season of the year. This would be most favorable to the preservation of life in his state of primeval inexperience.
These presumptions are in harmony with the numeration of the months at the deluge Gen 7:11, and with the outgoing and the turn of the year at autumn Exo 23:16; Exo 34:22.
Gen 2:7
The second obstacle to the favorable progress of the vegetable kingdom is now removed. And the Lord God formed the man of dust from the soil. This account of the origin of man differs from the former on account of the different end the author has in view. There his creation as an integral whole is recorded with special reference to his higher nature by which he was suited to hold communion with his Maker, and exercise dominion over the inferior creation. Here his constitution is described with marked regard to his adaptation to be the cultivator of the soil. He is a compound of matter and mind. His material part is dust from the soil, out of which he is formed as the potter moulds the vessel out of the clay. He is ‘adam Adam, the man of the soil, ‘adamah adamah. His mission in this respect is to draw out the capabilities of the soil to support by its produce the myriads of his race.
His mental part is from another source. And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. The word neshamah is invariably applied to God or man, never to any irrational creature. The breath of life is special to this passage. It expresses the spiritual and principal element in man, which is not formed, but breathed by the Creator into the physical form of man. This rational part is that in which he bears the image of God, and is suited to be his vicegerent on earth. As the earth was prepared to be the dwelling, so was the body to be the organ of that breath of life which is his essence, himself.
And the man became a living soul. – This term living soul is also applied to the water and land animals Gen 1:20-21, Gen 1:24. As by his body he is allied to earth and by his soul to heaven, so by the vital union of these he is associated with the whole animal kingdom, of which he is the constituted sovereign. This passage, therefore, aptly describes him as he is suited to dwell and rule on this earth. The height of his glory is yet to come out in his relation to the future and to God.
The line of narrative here reaches a point of repose. The second lack of the teeming soil is here supplied. The man to till the ground is presented in that form which exhibits his fitness for this appropriate and needful task. We are therefore at liberty to go back for another train of events which is essential to the progress of our narrative.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Gen 2:4
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth
The primeval condition of the earth, and of man as a sentient, spiritual, and social being
I.
The economy of the kingdom of Inanimate nature, or of the vegetable world, was fitted at once to maintain the sovereignty of God, and to provide for the welfare of man; viewing mall as a compound being, having both body and soul (Gen 2:5-7). Three things, it is here implied, are ordinarily necessary to the growth of plants and herbs–soil, climate, and culture. The vital energy of the earth itself, in which all various seeds are lodged, is the first element (Gen 2:5). The influence of rain and dew from heaven comes next (Gen 2:6). And lastly, there must be superadded the labour of the hand of man (Gen 2:7 compared with Gen 2:5). This is the law of nature, or rather of natures God.
II. The moral world also–the spiritual kingdom was rightly adjusted.
1. Man, as a sentient being, was placed in an earthly paradise (Gen 2:8-15).
2. As a rational and religions being, he was subjected to a Divine law (Gen 2:16-17).
3. As a social or companionable being, he was furnished with human fellowship (Gen 2:18-25). (R. S. Candlish, D. D.)
Observations
I. HE THAT GIVES THINGS THEIR BEING MAY DISPOSE AND ORDER THEM AS HE WILL
II. WHENSOEVER WE MENTION AND REMEMBER THE BEING OF THE CREATURES, WE OUGHT WITHAL TO SET BEFORE US AND REMEMBER HIM THAT MADE THEM. (J. White, M. A.)
A new section of creation history
A new section of creation history now begins, and the fourth verse is the title or heading: The following are the details of what took place when God created heaven and earth. The fifth is intended to state that all that was done was entirely Gods doing, without the help of second causes, without the refreshment of rain, without the aid of man, There had been no power in action hitherto but Gods alone. His hand, directly and alone, had done all that was done, in making plants and herbs to grow. The soil was not of itself productive; no previous seed existed; there was no former growth to spring up again. All was the finger of God. He is the sole Creator. Second causes, as they are called, are His creations: they owe their being, their influence to Him. The operations of nature, as men speak, are but the actings of the invisible God. God is in everything. Not as the Pantheist would have it, a part of everything, so that nature is God; but a personal Being, in everything, yet distinct from everything; filling, quickening, guiding creation in all its parts, yet no more the same with it than the pilot is with the vessel he steers, or the painter with the canvas on which he flings all the hues of earth and heaven. Let us beware of this subtle delusion of the evil one, the confounding of the creature with the Creator; of God, the King eternal, immortal, and invisible, with the hills, and plains, and forests, and flowers which He has made. To deify nature seems one of the special errors of the last days. And no wonder; for if nature be deified, then man is deified too. Man becomes God, and nature is the throne on which he sits. Let us not lose sight of God in nature. Let not that which is the manifestation of His glory be turned by us into an obscuration of Himself. Let us look straight to the living God. Not nature, but God; not providence, but God; not the law, but the Lawgiver; not the voice, but the Speaker; not the instrument and its wide melodies, but the Master who formed the lyre, and whose hands are drawing the music out of its wondrous chords! (H. Bonar, D. D.)
In Eden and out
The heading of this passage might not be inappropriate as the title of all the rest of the Bible. We have had the origin in the first chapter, and all the rest of the Bible gives the development–the development of the heavens and the earth, until at last, after all the changes of time are over, we shall witness the inauguration of the new heavens and the new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. In the meantime we shall limit our view to the little book of Generations, with its sad record of fall and failure, gilded, however, with a gleam of hope at the close.
I. First, then, there is a different name for God introduced here. All through the Genesis it has been, God said, God made, God created. Now it is invariably, Jehovah God (Lord God in our version). And this is the only continuous passage in the Bible where the combination is used. How is this explained? Very easily. In the apocalypse of the Genesis, God makes Himself known simply as Creator. Sin has not yet entered, and so the idea of salvation has no place. In this passage sin is coming in, and along with it the promise of salvation. Now the name Jehovah is always connected with the idea of salvation. It is the covenant name. It is the name which indicates Gods special relation to His people, as their Saviour and Redeemer. But lest anyone should suppose from the change of name that there is any change in the person; lest anyone suppose that He who is to redeem us from sin and death, is a different being from Him who created the heavens and the earth, the two names are now combined–Jehovah God. The combination is retained throughout the entire narrative of the Fall to make the identification sure. Thereafter either name is used by itself without danger of error.
II. Look next at the way in which Nature is spoken of here. When you look at it aright, you find there is no repetition. Nature in the Genesis is universal nature. God created all things. But here, nature comes in, as it has to do immediately with Adam. Now see the effect of this. It at once removes difficulties, which many speak of as of great magnitude. In the first place it is not the whole earth that is now spoken of, but a very limited district. Our attention is narrowed down to Eden, and the environs of Eden, a limited district in a particular part of the earth. Hence the difficulty about there not being rain in the district (earth) disappears. Again, it is not the vegetable kingdom as a whole that is referred to in the fifth verse, but only the agricultural and horticultural products. The words plant, field, and grew (verse 5) are new words, not found in the creation record. In Gen 1:1-31. the vegetable kingdom as a whole was spoken of. Now, it is simply the cereals and garden herbs, and things of that sort; and here, instead of coming into collision with the previous narrative, we have something that corresponds with what botanists tell us, that field and garden products are sharply distinguished in the history of nature, from the old flora of the geological epochs. In the same way it is not the whole animal kingdom that is referred to in verse nineteen, but only the domestic animals, those with which man was to be especially associated, and to which he was very much more intimately related than to the wild beasts of the field. It may be easy to make this narrative look ridiculous, by bringing the wild beasts in array before Adam, as if any companionship with them were conceivable. But when we bear in mind that reference is made here to the domestic animals, there is nothing at all inappropriate in noticing, that while there is a certain degree of companionship possible between man and some of those animals, as the horse and dog, yet none of these was the companion he needed.
III. Passing now from nature to man, we find again a marked difference. In Gen 1:1-31 we are told, God created man in His own image; in the image of God created He him. And here: The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground (Gen 2:7). Some people tell us there is a contradiction here. Is there any contradiction? Are not both of them true? Is there not something that tells you that there is more than dust in your composition? When you hear the statement that God made man in His own image, is there not a response awakened in you–something in you that rises up and says, It is true? On the other hand, we know that mans body is formed of the dust of the earth. We find it to be true in a more literal sense than was formerly supposed, now that chemistry discloses the fact that the same elements enter into the composition of mans body, as are found by analysis in the dust of the ground. And not only are both these statements true, but each is appropriate in its place. In the first account, when mans place in universal nature was to be set forth–man as he issued from his Makers hand–was it not appropriate that his higher nature should occupy the foreground? His lower relations are not entirely out of sight even there, for he is introduced along with a whole group of animals created on the sixth day. But while his connection with them is suggested, that to which emphasis is given in the Genesis is his relation to his Maker. But now that we are going to hear about his fall, about his shame and degradation, is it not appropriate that the lower rather than the higher part of his nature should be brought into the foreground, inasmuch as it is there that the danger lies? It was to that part of his nature that the temptation was addressed; and so we read here, God formed man of the dust of the ground. Yet here too there is a hint of his higher nature, for it is added, He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, or as we have it in another passage, The inspiration of the Almighty gave him understanding. In this connection it is worth while to notice the use of the words created and formed. God created man in His own image. So far as mans spiritual and immortal nature was concerned it was a new creation. On the other hand, God formed man out of the dust of die ground. We are not told He created mans body out of nothing. We are told, and the sciences of today confirm it, that it was formed out of existing materials. Then, in relation to woman, there is the same appropriateness in the two narratives. In the former her relations to God are prominent: God created man in His own image. In the image of God created He him; male and female created He them–man in His image; woman in His image. In the latter, it is not the relation of woman to her Maker that is brought forward, but the relation of woman to her husband. Hence the specific reference to her organic connection with her husband. And now, is there anything irrational in the idea that woman should be formed out of man? Is there anything more mysterious or inconceivable in the formation of woman out of man, than in the original formation of man out of dust? Let us conceive of our origin in any way we choose, it is full of mystery, Though there may be mystery connected with what is said in the Bible, there will be just as much mystery connected with any other account you try to give of it. (J. M. Gibson, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 4. In the day that the Lord God made, c.] The word Yehovah is for the first time mentioned here. What it signifies see on Ex 34:5-6. Wherever this word occurs in the sacred writings we translate it LORD, which word is, through respect and reverence, always printed in capitals. Though our English term Lord does not give the particular meaning of the original word, yet it conveys a strong and noble sense. Lord is a contraction of the Anglo-Saxon [A.S.], Hlaford, afterwards written [A.S.] Loverd, and lastly Lord, from [A.S.] bread hence our word loaf, and [A.S.] ford, to supply, to give out. The word, therefore, implies the giver of bread, i.e., he who deals out all the necessaries of life. Our ancient English noblemen were accustomed to keep a continual open house, where all their vassals, and all strangers, had full liberty to enter and eat as much as they would; and hence those noblemen had the honourable name of lords, i.e., the dispensers of bread. There are about three of the ancient nobility who still keep up this honourable custom, from which the very name of their nobility is derived. We have already seen, Ge 1:1, with what judgment our Saxon ancestors expressed Deus, the Supreme Being, by the term God; and we see the same judgment consulted by their use of the term Lord to express the word Dominus, by which terms the Vulgate version, which they used, expresses Elohim and Jehovah, which we translate LORD GOD. GOD is the good Being, and LORD is the dispenser of bread, the giver of every good and perfect gift, who liberally affords the bread that perisheth to every man, and has amply provided the bread that endures unto eternal life for every human soul. With what propriety then does this word apply to the Lord Jesus, who is emphatically called the bread of life; the bread of God which cometh down from heaven, and which is given for the life of the world! Joh 6:33; Joh 6:48; Joh 6:51. What a pity that this most impressive and instructive meaning of a word in such general use were not more extensively known, and more particularly regarded! See the postscript to the general preface. I know that Mr. H. Tooke has endeavoured to render this derivation contemptible; but this has little weight with me. I have traced it through the most accredited writers in Saxony and on Saxon affairs, and I am satisfied that this and this only, is its proper etymology and derivation.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
i.e. These things mentioned in Gen 1 are a true and full relation of their generations, i.e. of their original or beginnings.
In the day; not strictly so called, but largely taken for the time, as it is Gen 2:17; Rth 4:5; Luk 19:42; 2Co 6:2.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
4. These are the generations of theheavens and of the earththe history or account of theirproduction. Whence did Moses obtain this account so different fromthe puerile and absurd fictions of the heathen? Not from any humansource, for man was not in existence to witness it; not from thelight of nature or reason, for though they proclaim the eternal powerand Godhead by the things which are made, they cannot tell howthey were made. None but the Creator Himself could give thisinformation, and therefore it is through faith we understand that theworlds were framed by the word of God (Heb11:3).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
These [are] the generations of the heavens and the earth, when they were created,…. That is, the above account, delivered in the preceding chapter, is a history of the production of the heavens and earth, and of all things in them; the creation of them being a kind of generation, and the day of their creation a sort of birthday; see Ge 5:1
in the day that the Lord God made the earth, and the heavens; meaning not any particular day, not the first day, in which the heavens and the earth were created; but referring to the whole time of the six days, in which everything in them, and relating to them, were made. Here another name is added to God, his name “Jehovah”, expressive of his being and perfections, particularly his eternity and immutability, being the everlasting and unchangeable “I am”, which is, and was, and is to come: this name, according to the Jews, is not to be pronounced, and therefore they put the points of “Adonai”, directing it so to be read; and these two names, “Jehovah Elohim”, or “Adonai” and “Elohim”, with them make the full and perfect name of God, and which they observe is here very pertinently given him, upon the perfection and completion of his works.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The historical account of the world, which commences at the completion of the work of creation, is introduced as the “ History of the heavens and the earth,” and treats in three sections, ( a) of the original condition of man in paradise (Gen 2:5-25); ( b) of the fall (Gen 3); ( c) of the division of the human race into two widely different families, so far as concerns their relation to God (Gen 4).
The words, “ these are the tholedoth of the heavens and the earth when they were created,” form the heading to what follows. This would never have been disputed, had not preconceived opinions as to the composition of Genesis obscured the vision of commentators. The fact that in every other passage, in which the formula “these (and these) are the tholedoth ” occurs (viz., ten times in Genesis; also in Num 3:1; Rth 4:18; 1Ch 1:29), it is used as a heading, and that in this passage the true meaning of precludes the possibility of its being an appendix to what precedes, fully decides the question. The word , which is only used in the plural, and never occurs except in the construct state or with suffixes, is a Hiphil noun from , and signifies literally the generation or posterity of any one, then the development of these generations or of his descendants; in other words, the history of those who are begotten or the account of what happened to them and what they performed. In no instance whatever is it the history of the birth or origin of the person named in the genitive, but always the account of his family and life. According to this use of the word, we cannot understand by the tholedoth of the heavens and the earth the account of the origin of the universe, since according to the biblical view the different things which make up the heavens and the earth can neither be regarded as generations or products of cosmogonic and geogonic evolutions, nor be classed together as the posterity of the heavens and the earth. All the creatures in the heavens and on earth were made by God, and called into being by His word, notwithstanding the fact that He caused some of them to come forth from the earth. Again, as the completion of the heavens and the earth with all their host has already been described in Gen 2:1-3, we cannot understand by “the heavens and the earth,” in Gen 2:4, the primary material of the universe in its elementary condition (in which case the literal meaning of would be completely relinquished, and the “ tholedoth of the heavens and the earth” be regarded as indicating this chaotic beginning as the first stage in a series of productions), but the universe itself after the completion of the creation, at the commencement of the historical development which is subsequently described. This places its resemblance to the other sections, commencing with “these are the generations,” beyond dispute. Just as the tholedoth of Noah, for example, do not mention his birth, but contain his history and the birth of his sons; so the tholedoth of the heavens and the earth do not describe the origin of the universe, but what happened to the heavens and the earth after their creation. does not preclude this, though we cannot render it “after they were created.” For even if it were grammatically allowable to resolve the participle into a pluperfect, the parallel expressions in Gen 5:1-2, would prevent our doing so. As “the day of their creation” mentioned there, is not a day after the creation of Adam, but the day on which he was created; the same words, when occurring here, must also refer to a time when the heavens and the earth were already created: and just as in Gen 5:1 the creation of the universe forms the starting-point to the account of the development of the human race through the generations of Adam, and is recapitulated for that reason; so here the creation of the universe is mentioned as the starting-point to the account of its historical development, because this account looks back to particular points in the creation itself, and describes them more minutely as the preliminaries to the subsequent course of the world. is explained by the clause, “ in the day that Jehovah God created the earth and the heavens.” Although this clause is closely related to what follows, the simplicity of the account prevents our regarding it as the protasis of a period, the apodosis of which does not follow till Gen 2:5 or even Gen 2:7. The former is grammatically impossible, because in Gen 2:5 the noun stands first, and not the verb, as we should expect in such a case (cf. Gen 3:5). The latter is grammatically tenable indeed, since Gen 2:5, Gen 2:6, might be introduced into the main sentence as conditional clauses; but it is not probable, inasmuch as we should then have a parenthesis of most unnatural length. The clause must therefore be regarded as forming part of the heading. There are two points here that are worthy of notice: first, the unusual combination, “earth and heaven,” which only occurs in Psa 148:13, and shows that the earth is the scene of the history about to commence, which was of such momentous importance to the whole world; and secondly, the introduction of the name Jehovah in connection with Elohim. That the hypothesis, which traces the interchange in the two names in Genesis to different documents, does not suffice to explain the occurrence of Jehovah Elohim in Gen 2:4-3:24, even the supporters of this hypothesis cannot possibly deny. Not only is God called Elohim alone in the middle of this section, viz., in the address to the serpent, a clear proof that the interchange of the names has reference to their different significations; but the use of the double name, which occurs here twenty times though rarely met with elsewhere, is always significant. In the Pentateuch we only find it in Exo 9:30; in the other books of the Old Testament, in 2Sa 7:22, 2Sa 7:25; 1Ch 17:16-17; 2Ch 6:41-42; Psa 84:8, Psa 84:11; and Psa 50:1, where the order is reversed; and in every instance it is used with peculiar emphasis, to give prominence to the fact that Jehovah is truly Elohim, whilst in Psa 50:1 the Psalmist advances from the general name El and Elohim to Jehovah, as the personal name of the God of Israel. In this section the combination Jehovah Elohim is expressive of the fact, that Jehovah is God, or one with Elohim. Hence Elohim is placed after Jehovah. For the constant use of the double name is not intended to teach that Elohim who created the world was Jehovah, but that Jehovah, who visited man in paradise, who punished him for the transgression of His command, but gave him a promise of victory over the tempter, was Elohim, the same God, who created the heavens and the earth.
The two names may be distinguished thus: Elohim, the plural of , which is only used in the loftier style of poetry, is an infinitive noun from to fear, and signifies awe, fear, then the object of fear, the highest Being to be feared, like , which is used interchangeably with it in Gen 31:42, Gen 31:53, and in Psa 76:12 (cf. Isa 8:12-13). The plural is not used for the abstract, in the sense of divinity, but to express the notion of God in the fulness and multiplicity of the divine powers. It is employed both in a numerical, and also in an intensive sense, so that Elohim is applied to the (many) gods of the heathen as well as to the one true God, in whom the highest and absolute fulness of the divine essence is contained. In this intensive sense Elohim depicts the one true God as the infinitely great and exalted One, who created the heavens and the earth, and who preserves and governs every creature. According to its derivation, however, it is object rather than subject, so that in the plural form the concrete unity of the personal God falls back behind the wealth of the divine potencies which His being contains. In this sense, indeed, both in Genesis and the later, poetical, books, Elohim is used without the article, as a proper name for the true God, even in the mouth of the heathen (1Sa 4:7); but in other places, and here and there in Genesis, it occurs as an appellative with the article, by which prominence is given to the absoluteness of personality of God (Gen 5:22; Gen 6:9, etc.).
The name Jehovah, on the other hand, was originally a proper name, and according to the explanation given by God Himself to Moses (Exo 3:14-15), was formed from the imperfect of the verb = . God calls Himself , then more briefly , and then again, by changing the first person into the third, . From the derivation of this name from the imperfect, it follows that it was either pronounced or , and had come down from the pre-Mosaic age; for the form had been forced out of the spoken language by even in Moses’ time. The Masoretic pointing belongs to a time when the Jews had long been afraid to utter this name at all, and substituted , the vowels of which therefore were placed as Keri , the word to be read, under the Kethib , unless stood in apposition to , in which case the word was read and pointed (a pure monstrosity.)
(Note: For a fuller discussion of the meaning and pronunciation of the name Jehovah vid., Hengstenberg, Dissertations on the Pentateuch i. p. 213ff.; Oehler in Herzog’s Cyclopaedia; and Hlemann in his Bibelstudien. The last, in common with Stier and others, decides in favour of the Masoretic pointing as giving the original pronunciation, chiefly on the ground of Rev 1:4 and Rev 1:5, Rev 1:8; but the theological expansion cannot be regarded as a philological proof of the formation of by the fusion of , , into one word.)
This custom, which sprang from a misinterpretation of Lev 24:16, appears to have originated shortly after the captivity. Even in the canonical writings of this age the name Jehovah was less and less employed, and in the Apocrypha and the Septuagint version (the Lord) is invariably substituted, a custom in which the New Testament writers follow the lxx (vid., Oehler).
If we seek for the meaning of , the expression , in Exo 3:14, is neither to be rendered ( Aq., Theodt.), “I shall be that I shall be” ( Luther), nor “I shall be that which I will or am to be” ( M. Baumgarten). Nor does it mean, “He who will be because He is Himself, the God of the future” ( Hoffmann). For in names formed from the third person imperfect, the imperfect is not a future, but an aorist. According to the fundamental signification of the imperfect, names so formed point out a person as distinguished by a frequently or constantly manifested quality, in other words, they express a distinctive characteristic (vid., Ewald, 136; Gen 25:26; Gen 27:36, also Gen 16:11 and Gen 21:6). The Vulgate gives it correctly: ego sum qui sum , “I am who I am.” “The repetition of the verb in the same form, and connected only by the relative, signifies that the being or act of the subject expressed in the verb is determined only by the subject itself” ( Hoffmann). The verb signifies “to be, to happen, to become;” but as neither happening nor becoming is applicable to God, the unchangeable, since the pantheistic idea of a becoming God is altogether foreign to the Scriptures, we must retain the meaning “ to be;” not forgetting, however, that as the Divine Being is not a resting, or, so to speak, a dead being, but is essentially living, displaying itself as living, working upon creation, and moving in the world, the formation of from the imperfect precludes the idea of abstract existence, and points out the Divine Being as moving, pervading history, and manifesting Himself in the world. So far then as the words are condensed into a proper name in , and God, therefore, “is He who is,” inasmuch as in His being, as historically manifested, He is the self-determining one, the name Jehovah, which we have retained as being naturalized in the ecclesiastical phraseology, though we are quite in ignorance of its correct pronunciation, “includes both the absolute independence of God in His historical movements,” and “the absolute constancy of God, or the fact that in everything, in both words and deeds, He is essentially in harmony with Himself, remaining always consistent” ( Oehler). The “I am who am,” therefore, is the absolute I, the absolute personality, moving with unlimited freedom; and in distinction from Elohim (the Being to be feared), He is the personal God in His historical manifestation, in which the fulness of the Divine Being unfolds itself to the world. This movement of the person God in history, however, has reference to the realization of the great purpose of the creation, viz., the salvation of man. Jehovah therefore is the God of the history of salvation. This is not shown in the etymology of the name, but in its historical expansion. It was as Jehovah that God manifested Himself to Abram (Gen 15:7), when He made the covenant with him; and as this name was neither derived from an attribute of God, nor from a divine manifestation, we must trace its origin to a revelation from God, and seek it in the declaration to Abram, “I am Jehovah.” Just as Jehovah here revealed Himself to Abram as the God who led him out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give him the land of Canaan for a possession, and thereby described Himself as the author of all the promises which Abram received at his call, and which were renewed to him and to his descendants, Isaac and Jacob; so did He reveal Himself to Moses (Ex 3) as the God of his fathers, to fulfil His promise to their seed, the people of Israel. Through these revelations Jehovah became a proper name for the God, who was working out the salvation of fallen humanity; and in this sense, not only is it used proleptically at the call of Abram (Gen 12), but transferred to the primeval times, and applied to all the manifestations and acts of God which had for their object the rescue of the human race from its fall, as well as to the special plan inaugurated in the call of Abram. The preparation commenced in paradise. To show this, Moses has introduced the name Jehovah into the history in the present chapter, and has indicated the identity of Jehovah with Elohim, not only by the constant association of the two names, but also by the fact that in the heading ( Exo 3:4) he speaks of the creation described in Gen 1 as the work of Jehovah Elohim.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Creation. | B. C. 4004. |
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
In these verses, I. Here is a name given to the Creator which we have not yet met with, and that is Jehovah–the LORD, in capital letters, which are constantly used in our English translation to intimate that in the original it is Jehovah. All along, in the first chapter, he was called Elohim–a God of power; but now Jehovah Elohim–a God of power and perfection, a finishing God. As we find him known by his name Jehovah when he appeared to perform what he had promised (Exod. vi. 3), so now we have him known by that name, when he had perfected what he had begun. Jehovah is that great and incommunicable name of God which denotes his having his being of himself, and his giving being to all things; fitly therefore is he called by that name now that heaven and earth are finished.
II. Further notice taken of the production of plants and herbs, because they were made and appointed to be food for man, Gen 2:5; Gen 2:6. Here observe, 1. The earth did not bring forth its fruits of itself, by any innate virtue of its own but purely by the almighty power of God, which formed every plant and every herb before it grew in the earth. Thus grace in the soul, that plant of renown, grows not of itself in nature’s soil, but is the work of God’s own hands. 2. Rain also is the gift of God; it came not till the Lord God caused it to rain. If rain be wanted, it is God that withholds it; if rain come plentifully in its season, it is God that sends it; if it come in a distinguishing way, it is God that causeth it to rain upon one city and not upon another, Amos iv. 7. 3. Though God, ordinarily, works by means, yet he is not tied to them, but when he pleases he can do his own work without them. As the plants were produced before the sun was made, so they were before there was either rain to water the earth or man to till it. Therefore though we must not tempt God in the neglect of means, yet we must trust God in the want of means. 4. Some way or other God will take care to water the plants that are of his own planting. Though as yet there was no rain, God made a mist equivalent to a shower, and with it watered the whole face of the ground. Thus he chose to fulfil his purpose by the weakest means, that the excellency of the power might be of God. Divine grace descends like a mist, or silent dew, and waters the church without noise, Deut. xxxii. 2.
III. A more particular account of the creation of man, v. 7. Man is a little world, consisting of heaven and earth, soul and body. Now here we have an account of the origin of both and the putting of both together: let us seriously consider it, and say, to our Creator’s praise, We are fearfully and wonderfully made, Ps. cxxxix. 14. Elihu, in the patriarchal age, refers to this history when he says (Job xxxiii. 6), I also am formed out of the clay, and (v. 4), The breath of the Almighty hath given me life, and (ch. xxxii. 8), There is a spirit in man. Observe then,
1. The mean origin, and yet the curious structure, of the body of man. (1.) The matter was despicable. He was made of the dust of the ground, a very unlikely thing to make a man of; but the same infinite power that made the world of nothing made man, its master-piece, of next to nothing. He was made of the dust, the small dust, such as is upon the surface of the earth. Probably, not dry dust, but dust moistened with the mist that went up, v. 6. He was not made of gold-dust, powder of pearl, or diamond dust, but common dust, dust of the ground. Hence he is said to be of the earth, choikos—dusty, 1 Cor. xv. 47. And we also are of the earth, for we are his offspring, and of the same mould. So near an affinity is there between the earth and our earthly parents that our mother’s womb, out of which we were born, is called the earth (Ps. cxxxix. 15), and the earth, in which we must be buried, is called our mother’s womb, Job i. 21. Our foundation is in the earth, Job iv. 19. Our fabric is earthly, and the fashioning of it like that of an earthen vessel, Job x. 9. Our food is out of the earth, Job xxviii. 5. Our familiarity is with the earth, Job xvii. 14. Our fathers are in the earth, and our own final tendency is to it; and what have we then to be proud of? (2.) Yet the Maker was great, and the make fine. The Lord God, the great fountain of being and power, formed man. Of the other creatures it is said that they were created and made; but of man that he was formed, which denotes a gradual process in the work with great accuracy and exactness. To express the creation of this new thing, he takes a new word, a word (some think) borrowed from the potter’s forming his vessel upon the wheel; for we are the clay, and God the potter, Isa. lxiv. 8. The body of man is curiously wrought, Psa 139:15; Psa 139:16. Materiam superabat opus–The workmanship exceeded the materials. Let us present our bodies to God as living sacrifices (Rom. xii. 1), as living temples (1 Cor. vi. 19), and then these vile bodies shall shortly be new-formed like Christ’s glorious body, Phil. iii. 21.
2. The high origin and the admirable serviceableness of the soul of man. (1.) It takes its rise from the breath of heaven, and is produced by it. It was not made of the earth, as the body was; it is a pity then that it should cleave to the earth, and mind earthly things. It came immediately from God; he gave it to be put into the body (Eccl. xii. 7), as afterwards he gave the tables of stone of his own writing to be put into the ark, and the urim of his own framing to be put into the breast-plate. Hence God is not only the former but the Father of spirits. Let the soul which God has breathed into us breathe after him; and let it be for him, since it is from him. Into his hands let us commit our spirits, for from his hands we had them. (2.) It takes its lodging in a house of clay, and is the life and support of it. It is by it that man is a living soul, that is, a living man; for the soul is the man. The body would be a worthless, useless, loathsome carcase, if the soul did not animate it. To God that gave us these souls we must shortly give an account of them, how we have employed them, used them, proportioned them, and disposed of them; and if then it be found that we have lost them, though it were to gain the world, we shall be undone for ever. Since the extraction of the soul is so noble, and its nature and faculties are so excellent, let us not be of those fools that despise their own souls, by preferring their bodies before them, Prov. xv. 32. When our Lord Jesus anointed the blind man’s eyes with clay perhaps he intimated that it was he who at first formed man out of the clay; and when he breathed on his disciples, saying, Receive you the Holy Ghost, he intimated that it was he who at first breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life. He that made the soul is alone able to new-make it.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 4-17:
“The generations of the heavens and of the earth” does not refer to any genealogical list of antecedents, but of consequence, to their movements from the time of their creation onward. In the latter clause of verse 4, the order is reversed, to read “the earth and the heavens.” This specifies the earth and its atmospheric firmament, and is identified with Day Three when God made the vegetation to appear. This was a step in getting Earth ready for man.
“Lord God” is Jehovah Elohim. The frequency of the use of “Jehovah” and the absence of the definite article indicate this to be His personal Name. Etymologically the name is a future form of havah, an old form of hayah, and signifies “One Who Will Come,” or the “Eternal One.” So sacred did the Hebrews regard this Name that they did not utter it. They adopted the custom to write it in the sacred text with the vowel points of Adonai, or Elohim. Thus the correct pronunciation today is uncertain.
Jehovah is YAWEH in some texts. The meaning appears to be the same, however; and doubtless refers to the coming incarnation of. God in the Person of Jesus.
Rain, as we know it today, did not fall upon the earth. A mist ascended each day, likely in the early morning hours, which watered the ground and gave sustenance to plant and animal life.
Jehovah Elohim formed (yatsar, fashion, constitute) man “from the dust of the ground.” This could be translated, “Jehovah Elohim fashioned or constituted man as the dust of the ground.” The idea appears to be: God did not take a handful of mud and make a human form and breathe life into it. He fashioned man from the same elements He used to form the earth itself. Physiologically, man’s body contains the same elements which make up the dust or earth: iron, calcium, zinc, copper, magnesium, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen – and other elements – are all found in various amounts. This denotes man’s kinship with Earth, his right to represent and rule the material creation.
Verse 7 indicates that at the same moment God constituted man from the same elements as those of Earth, He breathed into His nostrils the “breath of life,” literally, “the breath of lives,” and man became a “soul of life.” The formation of man and the in-breathing of life-breath occurred simultaneously. Man’s life came from a definite act of God, not from the fact that he breathed Earth’s air. Man became a “living soul,” nephesh chayyah, whose life-principle was in the image and likeness of his Creator.
God provided-the first man with an ideal setting,, He planted a garden “eastward in Eden,” where He placed him. The exact location of this garden is unknown today. It was in the Middle East, and the Euphrates River was one of the four rivers which flowed from it. Some interpret “Hiddekel” as the Tigris River. The setting was perfect, ideal for man’s enjoyment and benefit.
“The Lord God commanded the man.” This reveals much about the nature and capabilities of the first man. He had the power of understanding language; he could conceive in his mind the meaning of concepts and ideas; he had an innate sense of right and wrong, knowing the distinction between “thou shalt” and “thou shalt not;” he had the power of choice, to obey or disobey the voice of God. He was a moral being, with a sense of moral responsibility a part of his very being, see Rom 1:19; Rom 2:14-15.
God gave the first man a set of rules or laws to live by. These included only one negative command: he must not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It is futile to speculate as to what kind of tree this was. There appears to have been nothing noxious in the actual fruit itself. The lethal consequences of partaking of the fruit was from the act of eating, not from the fruit itself. The tree was symbolic of what God’s law required. God did not forbid the eating of the fruit of this tree because He did not want man to be ignorant of right and wrong, see Eze 44:23.
The meaning of God’s prohibition of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is this: God did not want man to decide for himself what is good and what is evil. God is the only One qualified to determine right and wrong. Man is to accept God’s determination, by faith. The consequences of man’s determining right and wrong for himself were death – today, as in Eden. “Thou shalt surely die,” literally, “dying you shall die.” The consequence of disobedience involves death of all aspects of human life: physical, mental, and spiritual. That the sentence of physical death was not immediately executed does not obviate its reality. When the first human pair violated this command, they began to realize its full consequences. Humanity today is still reaping the fruit of this disobedience.
The “tree of life” was one of the trees in Eden. Its size, shape, color, and content of fruit are unknown. The Scriptures indicate that it will be a featured attraction of the New Heaven and the New Earth, Rev 22:1-2. Just what would have been the result if Adam had eaten first of the fruit of the tree of life, before partaking of the forbidden fruit, cannot be known. Thus, there is no need to speculate on this.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
4. These are the generations (108) The design of Moses was deeply to impress upon our minds the origin of the heaven and the earth, which he designates by the word generation. For there have always been ungrateful and malignant men, who, either by feigning, that the world was eternal or by obliterating the memory of the creations would attempt to obscure the glory of God. Thus the devil, by his guile, turns those away from God who are more ingenious and skillful than others in order that each may become a god unto himself. Wherefore, it is not a superfluous repetition which inculcates the necessary fact, that the world existed only from the time when it was created since such knowledge directs us to its Architect and Author. Under the names of heaven and earth, the whole is, by the figure synecdochee, included. Some of the Hebrews thinks that the essential name of God is here at length expressed by Moses, because his majesty shines forth more clearly in the completed world. (109)
(108) A new section of the history of Moses commences at this point; and, from the repetition which occurs of some facts — such as the creation of man — which had been recorded in the preceding chapter, as well as from certain peculiarities of phraseology, many learned men have inferred, that the early portion of the Mosaic history is older than the time of Moses, and that he, under the infallible direction of the Spirit of God, collected and arranged the several fragments of primeval annals in one consistent narrative. One chief argument on which such a conclusion rests is, that from the commencement of the first chapter to the end of the third verse of the second chapter, God is spoken of only under the name of Elohim; from the fourth verse of the second to the end of the third chapter, he is uniformly styled Jehovah Elohim; and in the fourth and fifth chapters, the name of Elohim or of Jehovah stands alone. This, it is argued, could scarcely have occurred without some cause; and the inference has been drawn, that different records had different forms of expression, which Moses did not alter, unless truth required him to do so. See Dathe on the Pentateuch, Professor Bush on Genesis, and Robertson’s Clavis Pentateuchi, where reference will be found to Vitringa and others. Against this view, however, Hengstenberg argues with considerable force, in his Dissertation “on the Names of God in the Pentateuch;” and if some of his reasonings in the use of these names seem too refined for the simplicity of the Holy Scriptures, and for the comprehension of those to whom the Scriptures are chiefly addressed, yet we may discover the germ of very important truths, thought they may be, in some degree, hidden beneath a variety of fanciful developments.
By a very careful examination of the passages in which the terms אלהים ( Elohim), יהוה ( Jehovah), and יהוה אלהים ( Jehovah Elohim), occur, he thinks he has ascertained a reason for the use of each in its place, so that, with some exceptions, in which he allows that one term might have been exchanged for the other, the sense of the passage absolutely requires the introduction of the very appellation, and no other, which is there employed. Believing that a theory so general cannot, with all the author’s ingenuity and learning, be applied in every case, we may still admit the importance of the distinction he makes, and may readily allow that these names are intended to present the Divine character under different aspects to our view. For instance, we may suppose that Elohim and Jehovah have different meanings, arising from their derivations; but we are not to infer, that, in reading the Scriptures, we must have this diversity, or any diversity at all, in our view, when we meet with these different names of Deity.
“
These are the generations.” תולדות, ( toledoth), “ modo origines ejus rei de qua sermo est, modo posteros eorum de quibus agitur, significat. Priori sensu hoc loco sumitur posteriori, cap. 5:1.” “The term signifies, sometimes, the origin of the thing spoken of, sometimes the posterity of those who are mentioned. It is taken here in the former of those senses; and in chap. 5:1, in the latter.” — Dathe
(109) The word יהוה, Jehovah, here first occurs, — that most sacred and incommunicable name of Deity, called tetragrammaton, because it consisted of four letters, which the Jews, through reverence or superstition, refuse to pronounce. The principal meaning of the term is self-existence; which is, in truth, necessary existence, as opposed to that which is derived from, or is dependent upon, another. It has been supposed by some that Moses here introduces this title of Deity by anticipation; because, in Exo 6:3, God declares that he had not been previously known by the name of Jehovah. But this, as Dathe forcibly reasons, is to increase difficulties rather than to remove them; for the patriarchs, Abraham and Jacob, are represented as using the name; and God himself, in speaking to them, also makes use of it. The true solution of the passage in Exodus seems to be, that God had not made known to the patriarchs the full import of his name, as he was now about to do. An elaborate investigation of the origin and import of the name יהוה ( Jehovah,) will be found in the work of Hengstenberg, referred to in the preceding note. He begins with putting aside the notion of an Egyptian origin, which has been put forth with much confidence by those who would trace all the religious peculiarities of the Israelites to their connection with Egypt. He then disposes of the fancied Phoenician pedigree of the name, founded upon spurious fragments ascribed to Sanchoniathon; and concludes the negative part of his argument, by showing that the name was not derived from any heathen source whatever. Consequently, it is to be traced to “a Hebrew etymology.” We need not follow him into the discussion on the right pronunciation of the word, and the use of the vowel points belonging to אדנ, ( Adonai); it may suffice to state, that he deduces the name היה ( Jehovah,) from the future of the verb הוה or היה, to be. Hence the meaning of the appellation may be expressed in the words, “He who is to be (for ever).” This derivation of the name Jehovah he regards as being confirmed “by all the passages of Scripture, in which a derivation of the name is either expressly given or simply hinted.” And, beginning with the Book of Revelation, at the title ὁ ὡν καὶ ὁ ἤν καὶ ὁ ερχόμενος, “who is, and was, and is to come,” he goes upward through the sacred volume, quoting the passages which bear upon the question, till he comes to the important passage in Exodus in. 13-16, in which God declares his name to be, “I am that I am.” “Everything created,” he adds, “remains not like itself, but is continually changing under circumstances, God only, because he is the being, is always the same; and because he is always the same, is the being.” See Dissertations, p. 231-265.
“
The Lord God.”-Jehovah Elohim. The two titles of Deity are here combined. “Elohim,” says Hengstenberg, “is the more general, and Jehovah the deep and more discriminating name of the Godhead.” This may well be admitted, without accepting all the inferences which the author deduces. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES.
Gen. 2:4. Generations] Heb. births = birth-facts, birth-stages = genesis: Sept., This is the book of the genesis, &c. Lord God] Heb. Jehovah Elohim. The correct pronunciation of J. is prob. Yahweh; formed of the 3 sing. mas. imperf. Hiphil, of hawah, to be, or rather to become, to come to pass; and therefore meaning, He causes to become, He brings to pass; The Fulfiller. This explanation
(1.) altogether removes the difficulty from Exodus 6, since God was known to Ab., Is., and Ja. rather as PROMISER than as FULFILLER;
(2.) puts a most pertinent force into the name as Israels encouragement to leave Eg. for Canaan, Exodus 3;
(3.) invests innumerable passages with a most striking beauty, e.g., Psa. 23:1, J.the Fulfilleris my Shepherd: I shall not want;
(4.) provides for the occasional application of the name to the Messiah, as in Is. 40:10-11, cf. John 10, Is. 6 cf. Joh. 12:41; and
(5.) by bringing out the gracious covenant power of this name, furnishes some clue to the reason (or feeling) leading to its omission in some cases (as in ch. Gen. 3:1-5; Job. 31:37; Psa. 19:1-6; Psa. 119:15) and its insertion in others (Genesis 2 and fol., Job 1-2, 38-42; Psa. 19:7-14). To dwell for a moment on the opening of Gen., how natural that in the first sec. (Gen. 1:1 to Gen. 2:3) the name Elohim should suffice, but that when man is to stand out in his moral relation to his Creator, in sec. second (Gen. 2:4, etc.), Jehovah Elohim should be employed. And surely it speaks a volume that neither the serpent, nor the woman under the shadow of entertained temptation, should care to utter a name so replete with grace and love. The name J. occurs about 7,500 times in O.T.
Gen. 2:7. Breath] Heb. neshamah, nearly = ruach, spirit (cf. Ecc. 12:7), occurs only in ch. Gen. 7:22; Deu. 20:16; Jos. 10:40; Jos. 11:11; Jos. 11:14; 2Sa. 22:16; 1Ki. 15:29; 1Ki. 17:17; Job. 4:9; Job. 26:4; Job. 27:3; Job. 32:8; Job. 33:4; Job. 34:14; Job. 37:10; Psa. 18:15; Psa. 150:6; Is. 2:22; Is. 30:33; Is. 42:5; Is 57:16; Dan. 10:17. The study of these will richly repay. Life] Heb. chayyim, prop. lives, or still better, living ones, hence, by abstraction the condition peculiar to living ones = LIFE. Cf. on Elohim ch. Gen. 1:1. The use of the Heb. pl. as an abstract has received too little notice. (Ges. Gr. 108,
2. a.; Ewald, Gr. 179). Living Soul] That is, soul became the characteristic of his being. Hence he is denominated from that why is prominent in him; as the glorified Christ is called a life-giving spirit (1Co. 15:45), without making him all spirit or destroying the distinction between body and spirit. Soul lives, spirit makes alive: this is the teaching of Scripture. Our present body is a psychical body, our future b. will be a pneumatical b. Little by little we may hope to build up a biblical psychology; i.e., if we are willing both to learn and to unlearn just as truth may demand. Cf. C. N. on ch. Gen. 1:20.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Gen. 2:4-7
THE WORLD WITHOUT A MAN
The text suggests three thoughts:
I. The worlds independency of man. The terraqueous globe, embosomed in those wonderful heavens, and filled with every species of vegetable and animal life, existed before man appeared.
1. The world can do without him. The heavens would be as bright, the earth as beautiful, the waves of the ocean as sublime, the song of the birds as sweet; were man no more.
2. He cannot do without the world. He needs its bright skies, and flowing rivers, and productive soil, &c. He is the most dependent of all creatures. The text suggests:
II. The worlds incompleteness without man. Without man the world would be a school without a pupil, a theatre without a spectator, a mansion without a resident, a temple without a worshipper. Learn from this subject:
1. The lesson of adoring gratitude to the Creator. Adore Him for the fact, the capabilities, and the sphere of your existence.
2. The lesson of profound humility. The world can do without thee, my brother; has done without thee; and will do without thee. The text suggests:
III. The worlds claims upon man. The earth He hath given to the children of men. The nature of this gift proclaims the obligation of the receiver.
1. The world is filled with material treasures; develop and use them.
2. The world is fertile with moral lessons; interpret and apply them.
3. The world is filled with the presence of God; walk reverently [Homilist].
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
Gen. 2:4-6. Not only the mercies of God in general, but each particular gift must be recognized as from Him. There can be no rain on the earth unless God send it. It is by rain from Heaven that all the herbs and plants grow and are nourished.
Though God be pleased to make use of mans labour in producing the fruits of the earth; yet He can increase and preserve them without it. This should make man:
1. Thankful, as it gives him employment.
2. Humble, as it gives him to feel his dependence.
3. Hopeful, as fruit will reward his diligence.
The labour of man:
1. Should be obedient to Gods command.
2. Dependent upon Gods blessing.
3. Productive of general good.
God has a variety of means to accomplish His will:
1. The rain.
2. The mist.
3. He is rich in resources.
The world without a man:
1. To admire its beauty.
2. To praise its Creator.
3. To cultivate its produce.
4. To complete its design.
God can preserve His creatures without ordinary means.
Gen. 2:7. THE HUMILITY AND DIGNITY OF MAN
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.
I. Then man ought not to indulge a spirit of pride. Mans body was formed out of the dust of the earth. A remembrance of this fact ought to inspire a feeling of genuine humility within the heart of the race. It should keep men from pride in reference to their renowned ancestry, their apparel, or their wealth.
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.
II. Then man ought not to indulge a spirit of hostility to God.
1. Because they are the workmanship of His hands. God has made us; we are His workmanship. Shall we then contend with our Maker, the finite with the Infinite? Rather it will be our wisdom to cultivate a loving, prayerful spirit, than to provoke Him by impenitence and sin. We are of the dust of the earth, and are therefore unequal to contend with that Being who has all the armies of heaven at His command.
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.
III. Then man should remember His mortality. As man was taken from the dust, so certainly will he return to it before long. Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return, will be spoken at the grave of the world. Our bodies are daily sinking into their original elements. Teach me the measure of my days, that I may know how frail I am. This should be our constant prayer. Here, then, we have presented one aspect of the being of man; take another:
And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
I. Then man is something more than physical organization. Man is not merely dust, not merely body; he is also a living soul. His bodily organization is not the seat of thought, emotion, volition, and immortality; these are evoked by the inspiration of the Almighty. From this text we learn that the soul of man was not generated with, but that it was subsequently inbreathed by God into, his body. We cannot admit the teaching of some, that the soul of man is a part of God; this is little better than blasphemy. It is only a Divine gift. The gift is priceless. It is responsible.
And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
II. Then man should cultivate a moral character, pursue employments, and anticipate a destiny commensurate with this Divine inspiration. Men gifted with immortal souls should endeavour to bring them into harmony with their Author and Giver, to make them pure as He is pure, and benevolent as He is benevolent; they should never be degraded by sin. Our souls ought to live in communion with God. They ought to be employed in the grandest pursuits of the universe. They ought to anticipate a heavenly destiny, where their powers will be unfettered, their happiness complete, and their devotion eternal.
However base the matter of mans body, God hath formed it into an excellent piece of work:
1. Let us praise God for our bodies.
2. Let us use them to His glory.
3. Let us not defile them by sin.
4. Let us await their transformation.
The soul of man, by which he lives, comes immediately from God.
1. A gift Divine.
2. Valuable.
3. Responsible.
The life of man consisting in the union of the soul with the body hath but a weak foundation.
Life:
1. Rich in its source.
2. Weak in its channel.
3. Eminent in its degree.
4. Noble in its capabilities.
5. Immortal in its continuance.
ILLUSTRATIONS
BY THE
REV. WM. ADAMSON
Vapour! Gen. 2:4. It interposes as a friendly shield between the sun and the earth, to check excessive evaporation from the one, and to ward off the rays of the other. This mist was drawn from the earth by the sun, and hovered over it. Probably for mans creation, a change took place. Clouds rose higher; and from them descended the fertilizing rains. The life of many is like the foul vapour which hangs all day over the mouth of a pit, or over the ceaseless wheels of some dingy manufactory. It is a low earthborn thingever brooding over worldly business. Whereas nowhere is the cloud so beautiful as whensuspended by unseen forcesit hangs high in the serene sky. Never is mans life so beautiful as whenspiritually-minded, heavenly-mindedit is lifted up above the selfishness and sordidness of a world lying in wickedness of the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. It becomes brighter and grander as it nears the gate of the west. It makes the world fairer by its presence while it lasts. It makes the twilight horizon of death ablaze with its splendour when it vanishes into the eternal world:
For when he comes nearer to finish his race,
Like a fine setting sun he looks richer in grace,
And gives a sure hope, at the end of his days,
Of rising in brighter array.Watts.
Human Origin! Gen. 2:5. M. Boudon, says Percy, was one day sent for by Cardinal de Boisthe Prime Minister of Franceto perform a very serious surgical operation upon him. The cardinal on seeing him enter the room, said: Remember that you are not to treat me in the same rough manner you would treat the poor miserable wretches at your hospital. To this the eminent surgeon responded with great dignity that every one of those miserable wretches was a prime minister in his eyes. What a rebuke to pride! We are all the same flesh and blood; for
Man is one;
And he hath one great heart. It is thus we feel,
With a gigantic throb athwart the sea,
Each others rights and wrongs; thus are we men.Bailey.
Immortality! Gen. 2:6. Professors Tyndal and Huxley say that man is nothing more than a combination of molecular atoms held together by certain forces which they call organisms. If so, what becomes of personal identity? And when they dissolved, did they get rid at once and for all by death of their identity, responsibilities, hopes and fears? These men will not answer such inquiries. Till they do, the Bible view of the future life is infinitely preferable to Tyndals vague and hazy infinite azure of the pasteven on the low ground that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, or, as the Arabic, a thousand cranes in the air are not worth one sparrow in the hand. These men had no right to lead us to the edge of an abyss, and, bidding us look down in the deep dark chasm, tell us never to mind, but do our duty. Do our duty, indeed! How could a combination of molecular atoms do its dutyany more than a magnet? According to their view, man had no duty to discharge; at least, he had no responsibility by the non-discharge of it. But we view man otherwise than that.
Trust me, tis a clay above your scorning,
With Gods image stamped upon it, and Gods kindling breath within.Browning.
Living Soul! Gen. 2:7. About forty-five years ago a funeral was passing through the streets of Carlisle, Pennsylvania. It was the burial procession of John Hall Mason, the son of the eminent Dr. Mason, President of Dickinson College, one of the most powerful and eloquent preachers in America. The son was distinguished for his piety and talents, and his death had cast a gloom over many hearts. Many gathered to the funeral, from far and near, and especially young men. After the services at the house had been performed, and the pall-bearers had taken up the bier, a great concourse obstructed the entrance, and great confusion and noise ensued. The bereaved Doctor, observing the difficulty, and following closely the pall-bearers, exclaimed in solemn sepulchral tones: Tread lightly, young men! tread lightly! You bear the temple of the Holy Ghost. These sentiments, as though indited by the Holy Spirit, acted like an electric shock; the crowd fell back and made the passage way clear. Through the influence of these words a most powerful revival of religion sprung up, and swept through the college, and extended over the town.
Since then, my God, thou hast
So brave a temple built; O dwell in it,
That it may dwell with Thee at last.Herbert.
Human Mind! Gen. 2:7. Adams understanding was like a golden lamp kindled at the great fountain of light. It was subject to no dimness or eclipse. Over it there never passed the shadow of darkness; and all around, over the whole region of duty, it shed a cloudless light; so that man was in no danger of losing his path, or of mistaking the limits which His Maker had set. Thus his understanding was perfect. A child may be perfect although it has not reached the stature of a man; and so Adams mind was perfectwith a blissful tendency to enlarge, and daily to open up new sources of wonder and delight to itself.
On! said God unto his soul,
As to the earth, for ever. And on it went,
A rejoicing native of the infinite
As a bird of airan orb of heaven.Anon.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
PART EIGHT: THE BEGINNING OF HOMO SAPIENS
Gen. 2:4-7
1. Diagrammatic Review of Gen. 1:1 to Gen. 2:3
Day
Day
1.
Energy,
Matter-in Motion,
Light
CREATION
4.
Chronology,
or Measurement
of Time
2.
Atmosphere
THE
5.
Water and
Air Species
BEGINNINGS
6.
Land Animals,
Man,
3.
Lands and Seas Plant Life
Naming of Animal
Species,
Woman
2. Antiquity of the Pentateuch. There are three outstanding marks of uniqueness in the Pentateuch (Torah) which certainly support the conclusion that it is more ancient, by centuries, than the rest of the Old Testament canon. (1) The name of Jerusalem is not found in the Pentateuch. This is inconceivable on the supposition that it was compiled after the Davidic reign or during the period of Captivity. (Cf. Jos. 10:5; Jos. 10:23; Jos. 15:8 (note the significance of the parenthesis here); 2Sa. 5:5-10; cf. Gen. 14:18). (2) The Divine title, Lord of hosts (Jehovah of hosts), occurring in 1Sa. 1:3 for the first time, is absent from the Pentateuch. Yet it is a title common to the other books of the Old Testament. (3) There is no mention whatever in the Pentateuch of the ministry of sacred song. This would be a strange omission if any part of the fivefold volume had been written in post-exilic times, when sacred song was the pre-eminent part of the Hebrew ritual. As a matter of fact psalmody seems to have been a form of ritual worship which had its beginning in the Davidic reign.
3. The Internal Unity of Genesis is striking evidence that the book was ultimately the product of one hand. The thread of thought, the motifnamely, the Messianic developmentis unbroken throughout. Beginning with the Creation and the Fall of man, the promise that the Seed of the woman should bruise the Serpents head, the institution of sacrifice as the beginning of religion, the spread of sin and death as a consequence of the intermarriage of the pious Sethites with the irreligious Cainites, the Deluge, the subsequent dispersion, the Call of Abraham to become the progenitor of the people of the Old Covenant, the lives of the patriarchsin fact, everything points forward (1) primarily, in point of time, to the organization of the Jewish Theocracy and the ratification of the Old Covenant at Sinai with Abrahams fleshly seed; and (2) secondarily, again in point of time, to the death and resurrection of Christ, and the establishment of the New Covenant at Jerusalem, with Abrahams spiritual seed (Gal. 3:16; Gal. 3:23-29; Joh. 1:17; Col. 2:13-15; Heb. 9:11-12; Heb. 9:23-28; Heb. 8:1-13; Heb. 9:11-22). It is inconceivable that such a unity of theme could have been achieved at the hands of numerous uninspired men or as a consequence of frequent editorial revision. In support, therefore, of the traditional Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, I should like to insert here two excerpts from scholars whose conclusions deserve full consideration, as follows: (1) William Henry Green (UBG, Preface, v): All tradition, from whatever source it is derived, whether inspired or uninspired, unanimously affirms that the first five books of the Bible were written by one man and that man was Moses. There is no counter-testimony in any quarter. From the predominant character of their contents these books are commonly called the Law. All the statutes contained in them are expressly declared to have been written by Moses or to have been given by the Lord to Moses. And if the entire law is his, the history, which is plainly preparatory for, or subsidiary to, the law, must be his likewise. (2) W. H. Bates, writing in The Bible Champion, issue of July, 1920: Genesis treats of matters which took place ages before Moses was born. The account which it gives of many events, is circumstantial, descending even to details of conversations and descriptions of personal attitudes and incidents which none could be cognizant of but the parties concerned. The very latest event mentioned in it had occurred, at the shortest estimate, more than half a century before Moses was born, and the rest of its human history covered a period extending to more than a thousand years of a prior antiquity, the earlier parts of it standing in relation to Moses as the times of Homer, Hesiod, and Thales stand to ours. As evidence connects Moses with all the books of the Pentateuch, the conclusion to which we are brought is that Genesis was compiled by him, The proper statement for us to make is this: Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are of Mosaic authorship, while Genesis is of Mosaic editorship, he having compiled it from pre-existing books: and so all has Mosaic authority. It should be noted, however, that later editorial hands may have supplied a slight touch here and therepossibly put upon the margin of manuscripts as explanatory commentswhich subsequent copyists have incorporated into the body of the work. (The student should be cautioned here that books and articles defending the Mosaic authorship of the Torah, which were written soon after the turn of the century, are frequently more reliable in their content than works on the same general subject written in recent years. It should be noted also that Green, by the term counter-testimony, referred, of course, to external evidence, of which there is very little to confirm the JEDP theory: that theory is based almost exclusively on alleged internal evidences of composite authorship.)
I see no reason for denying that Moses may have used traditions, or even documents (rolls), which had been handed down from earlier generations, in establishing the framework of the book of Genesis. (Note here the testimony of Jesus Himself to the Torah and its Mosaic origin: Mat. 19:3-9; Mar. 10:3-4; Luk. 16:29; Luk. 20:37; Luk. 24:27; Luk. 24:44; Joh. 1:17; Joh. 3:14; Joh. 5:45-46; Joh. 7:19-23, etc.) Certainly, of all the Hebrew leaders of great antiquity, Moses was the one man most thoroughly equipped, both by education and by personal faith, for preserving in writing for future generations the early history of mankind, the history of the beginnings of the Hebrew nation, and the eternal principles of the Moral Law.
The internal unity of Genesis is too obvious to be questioned. This is true, regardless of any theory of authorship that might have, been put forward. Gen. 1:1 to Gen. 2:3 gives us a sketch, in broad outlines, of the arrangement of the universe at large, with particular emphasis, of course, on the earth and its manifold forms of life, all designed to serve as mans permanent abode. Gen. 2:4-25 is a brief sketch, graphic in its simplicity of detail, of the fitting up of Eden as the temporary home of this first human family prior to their first violation of the moral law and the consequent birth of conscience in them. With this introduction, the narrative launches, very properly, into the account of mans expulsion from the Garden (his loss of innocence), and his subsequent history in the two diverging lines of piety (the Sethites) and irreligion (the Cainites). Whitelaw (PCG, 3940): The internecine struggle between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, which the fratricidal act of Cain inaugurated (ch. 4), is the legitimate and necessary outcome of the sin and grace revealed in Eden (ch. 3), while the melancholy story of the temptation and the fall presupposes the paradisaical innocence of the first pair (ch. 2). Thus homogeneous in itself, it likewise connects with the preceding section through ch. 2, which as a monograph on man, supplies a more detailed account of his creation than is given in the narrative of the six days work, and, by depicting mans settlement in Eden as a place of trial, prepares the way for the subsequent recital of his seduction and sin, and of his consequent expulsion from the garden. All this, in turn, prepares the reader for the account of the cause and consequences of the Deluge (the revelation of Divine Judgment that inevitably overtakes human arrogance, licentiousness, and violence), and then for the account of the election of the fleshly seed of Abraham to the Divine tasks of preserving the knowledge of the living and true God in the world, and of preparing the way for the advent of the Messiah, the note on which it terminates in certain aspects of the death-bed prophetic utterances of Israel (ch. 49). The one motif of this progressive revelation throughout is redemption in Christ Jesus. And so the book of Genesis as a whole becomes linked inseparably to the content of the Bible as a whole, and Paradise Lost of Genesis becomes Paradise Regained of the book of Revelation.
4. Relation of Genesis 2 to Genesis 1 : the Separate Document Theory. On the ground of certain obvious, yet readily explainable characteristics which distinguish Gen. 2:4-25 from the preceding chapter 1, recent destructive criticism has alleged diversity of authorship. We have already conceded that the hypothesis, frequently advanced, that Moses, in writing the book, may have made use of pre-existing traditions and documents (books, rolls) is neither incredible nor impossible. But the peculiarities of different parts do not justify the reckless abandon with which the book has been analyzed and separated into different hypothetical original codes by the advocates of the so-called Analytical or Documentary Theory. The authorship, subject-matter, and even the existence of these alleged Codes are largely matters of conjecture.
The question before us at this point is the following: Is Gen. 2:4-25, which we are now studying, a section from another original document (to be specific, from the alleged J (Jahvist) Code, so called because of its general use of the Name Yahweh (Jehovah) for Deity, as distinguished from the E (Elohist) Code, so called because of its general use of the Name Elohim for the Deity, as in Gen. 1:1 to Gen. 2:3)? Or, is the content of Gen. 2:4-25 designed to be an explanatory amplification of the content of Gen. 1:1 to Gen. 2:3, the Hebrew Cosmogony, with both originating from, or at least woven together by, the same author, none other than Moses the great lawgiver? The advocates of the separate-document (analytical) theory argue that Genesis 2 could not have been written by the author of the Cosmogony which precedes it, for the following reasons:
(1) That it is a second and superfluous account of the Creation. This is an unwarranted assumption. The business of taking two different parts of any narrative, relating to matters which are distinct and having different themes, and wresting them from their intended meaning into two alleged variant accounts of the same thing, is a vicious critical method. The first chapter of Genesis treats of the Creation in its broad outlines, in a panoramic fashion as we have noted previously, and as reaching its climax in mans appearance on the earth; the second chapter, however, treats of man specifically, as the object of Gods gracious providence, in the preparation of Eden for his habitation in his original state of innocence, and in the institution of marriage by means of which domestic society had its beginning and human history began its march down the corridors of time.
(2) That there are discrepancies between the two sections. (The student should keep in mind that we are considering here only the relation between the first two chapters of Genesis, nothing more.) Of course, on the supposition that Gen. 2:4-25 is a separate account of the Creation, there are apparent discrepancies. But, that Gen. 2:4-25 is a separate account of the Creation is precisely the thing these critics have set out to prove: and every rule of logic is violated when the thing to be proved is used as the pre-supposition from which one must take off, in order to arrive at the proof. (This is the fallacy of begging the question, petitio principii.) However, on the hypothesis that Genesis 2 is a recapitulation, with specific details as to the nature of man, his primitive moral state, and the circumstances of his primitive environment, there are no discrepancies of any note. The creation of the universe, the heavens, the earth, the sea, and the kinds of creatures they include, is roughly sketched in chapter 1, but is taken for granted in chapter 2. The latter provides details which were unavoidably passed over in the former, such as the dual nature of man, his original innocence, the preparation of Eden as his first habitation, the creation of woman, and the institution of marriage. From this point of view, there are no dissonances between the two chapters: rather, the second is complementary to the first.
(3). That the style and diction of the two sections are different. Wellwhy not? Their respective themes demand differences in terminology. All such differences arise not only from the personality and habits of the author, but also from the character of the subjects treated. It has been argued that ch. 1 is systematic, chronological, scientific; that it abounds in stereotyped phrases; that it moves in a solemn and impressive monotone; that its author restricts himself to the great facts without entering in an explanatory way into particular details; and that he uses a ceremonious, solemn, formal style of writing, including many expressions that savor of remote antiquity; that chapter 2, on the other hand, is topical in its order of presentation, free and flowing in diction; that its author writes with a delicacy, pathos, and evenness of style that is entirely wanting in chapter 1. Does not diversity of themes readily account for these contrasts? Green (UBG, pp. 741): Ch. 1 is monumental, conducted on a scale of vastness and magnificence, and its characters are massive and unyielding as if carved in granite. Chs. 2 and 3 deal with plastic forms of quiet beauty, the charms of paradise, the fateful experiences of Adam and Eve. In the onward progress of creation all is conducted by the words of Omnipotence, to which the result precisely corresponds . . . There is no call for such a style in a simple narrative like ch. 2, where it would be utterly out of place and stilted in the extreme . . . It is said that ch. 1 proceeds from the lower to the higher, ending with man; while, on the contrary, ch. 2 begins with the highest, viz., with man, and proceeds to the lower forms of life. But as ch. 2 continues the history begun in ch. 1, it naturally starts where ch. 1 ends, that is to say, with the creation of man, especially as the whole object of this chapter is to depict his primitive condition. In a word, then, ch. 1, being an epitome of the Creation as a whole, is epical in character; ch. 2, being an account of early mans first kind of environment, is essentially pastoral in character.
I cite here the statements of the well-known German critical analyst, Kalisch (as quoted in PCG, 3940), in re the alleged irreconcilable differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2what he calls the two cosmogoniesas excellent examples of the recklessness with which the early destructive critics and the more recent demythologizers conjure up discrepancies which actually do not exist at all. I shall quote Kalischs statements and call attention to the obvious fallacies involved in them, as follows: (1) In the first cosmogony vegetation is immediately produced by the will of God; in the second its existence is made dependent on rain and mists and the agricultural labours (K). ButGen. 1:11-12 does not require us to believe that vegetation was first produced immediately by the will of God. Indeed the word immediately is an arbitrary assumption. As a matter of fact, the very Divine decree, Let the earth bring forth grass, herbs, trees, etc., indicates clearly that God was proposing to operate by means of secondary causes (laws of nature) at whatsoever time or times these various means (seeds, rain, mists, agricultural labor) should be brought into existence. (In all these Divine Decrees, the specific means and methods of actualization are not revealed, in Genesis 1.) No particular chronology is indicated. Hence, Gen. 2:4-7 simply amplifies the Gen. 1:11-12 account, by giving more detailed information as to the origin and operations of these necessary means. (2) In the first the earth emerges from the waters, and is, therefore, saturated with moisture; in the second it appears dry, sterile, and sandy (K). Butgranting that the earth did emerge from the waters (Gen. 1:9-10)and we have noted heretofore the ambiguity of the term waters, as used in these verseswhat in all likelihood was its surface condition? It must have been a veritable terrestrial mud-flat. Then certainly the cooling of the earths crust set in, bringing about solidification, and at the same time helping to establish the proper atmospheric conditions for the ultimate appearance of vegetation. All that is indicated in Gen. 2:5-6 is that, at this point in the Creation, the atmospheric conditions necessary to plant life had not yet been fully actualized and the customary agricultural operations had not yet been instituted because, as yet, there was no man to engage in Such activities. We could also assume here, reasonably I think, that a distinction is intimated between wild plant life and domesticated plant life, that which is produced by human agricultural methods. (3) In the first, man and his wife are created together; in the second, the wife is formed later, and from a part of man (K). Butthe notion that Gen. 1:26-28 teaches that the first man and his wife were created together is again a sheer, and genuinely absurd, assumption. The chronology and methodology of their origin is not even under consideration in this Scripture; as a matter of fact, the terms male and female, as used here, have only generic, not particular (individual), significance. Hence, the details of the origin and nature of our first parents are supplied in ch. 2. (4) In the former, man bears the image of God, and is made ruler of the whole earth; in the latter, his earth-formed body is only animated by the breath of life, and he is placed in Eden to cultivate and guard it (K). Butthe image of God of Gen. 1:26-27 is precisely the enduement which resulted from the inbreathing of God of Gen. 2:7, the Divine act by which the corporeal tabernacle was ensouled, that is, endowed with the essential elements of personality. Eden is an added detail to describe the mans primordial state of unhindered access to his Creator, prior to his violation of the moral law. Nor is there any statement in Genesis 2 that would in any way affect the lord tenancy of the earth with which he was divinely invested according to Gen. 1:26-30. (5) In the former, the birds and beasts are created before man; in the latter, man before birds and beasts (K). But Gen. 2:19-20 does not necessarily involve any time-sequence: it is not the time, but simply the fact, of the creation of the higher air and land animals which the writer records here. Many eminent authorities render this passage, And God brought to the man the beasts which he had formed, etc. Moreover, there is no warrant for supposing this to be the account of a second creation of animals, exclusively within, and of a kind adapted to, the Edenic environment, as some have suggested. Thus the student cannot but recognize the fact that these arguments presented by Kalisch (and other destructive critics) to show that we are dealing here with two cosmogonies characterized by irreconcilable differences, simply do not hold water. In fact, the alleged discrepancies disappear altogether under the view that the content of ch. 2 is intended to be an amplification of the broad outlines of ch. 1, a view that may well be declared self-evident on close examination. As a matter of fact, ch. 2 cannot really be designated a cosmogony at all, that is, in any true sense of that term.
5. Relation of Genesis 2 to Genesis 1 : the Complementary Theory. This is the view that Gen. 2:4-25 fills in the important details which are necessarily omitted from Gen. 1:1 to Gen. 2:3, because of the over-all structure, design, and elevated tone of the first section. The following chart will serve to illustrate, I think, the complementary relationship of these two sections:
Gen. 1:1 to Gen. 2:3 is a broad general account of the creation of energy-matter, and its subsequent arrangement into a cosmos, with special emphasis on the origin of the earth and its relation to the celestial bodies. The section concludes with the account of the origin of living species, attaining perfection in man.
Gen. 2:4-25 is a kind of recapitulation, giving important details with special reference to the origin and nature of our first parents, their primitive habitation, and the beginnings of society in general, in the forms especially of liberty, law, language, and marriage. This section is not in any sense contradictory of the firstrather, it is complementary.
Because that in it he rested from all his work which God had created and made (Gen. 2:3)a statement concluding the general panoramic Hymn of Creation.
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created (Gen. 2:4): a statement introducing specifically the history of man, first in his primitive habitation, and then in the world at large. Here we have the first use of the word toledoth (generations), the word used to introduce each of the ten sections of the book, and never used to describe antecedents, but always to introduce consequents.
In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1) In this section the Name used for Deity is Elohim, the Name that designates Him in His absoluteness (transcendence) of being and power. Elohim designates the Creator-God (Isa. 57:15).
In the day that Yahweh Elohim made earth and heaven (Gen. 2:4). In this section the Name Yahweh (Jehovah) is used, the Name which reveals the Deity in His works of benevolence, in His providential activities toward His creatures, especially man, Yahweh designates the Redeemer-God.
On the third day of Creation, according to this section, the physical features of the earth appeared: the condensation of vapors could well have resulted in the outlining of continents and oceans. And God called the dry land Earth (Gen. 1:10). This condensation resulted in rainfall, thus preparing the way for vegetation.
In the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven (Gen. 2:4), Note again the ambiguity of the word day. This statement takes us back to the second and third days of Genesis 1, to the time before there was either rainfall or vegetation. Gen. 2:6 describes the beginning of rainfall (the mists here surely indicate the condensation of vapors which resulted in rain, as suggested in Gen. 1:9-10, because rain necessarily preceded the origin of terrestrial plant life). Thus the writer, in this section, takes us back into the record of the Creation, in order to prepare us for the more detailed account of the origin, nature, and primitive history of mankind.
In the first section we read that man was created in the image of God, both male and female (Gen. 1:27).
In the second section, we are told how man was created, and of what he consists by nature; also how woman was created and what her divinely ordained relation is to man (Gen. 2:7; Gen. 2:21-25).
In the first account, we are told that man was created, but we are given no information as to his primeval environment.
The second section supplies this information with its account of the Edenic garden. Gen. 2:9 may have reference to vegetation in Eden, rather than to vegetation generally.
In the first section we are told, without any amplification, that the water and air species were created on the fifth day, and land animals on the sixth day (Gen. 1:20-25).
In this section, Gen. 2:19, literally rendered, reads: And God brought to the man the birds and beasts which He had formed out of the ground, etc. This gives us some added information as to the living matter of which these forms of life were constituted, and tells us how they received their names (Gen. 2:18-20).
RECAPITULATION: In Gen. 1:1 to Gen. 2:3, we have the account, in broad outline only, of the origin of the cosmos, and especially of the earth and its atmospheric and planetary surroundings, and the main kinds of living creatures,all this leading up to the creation of man in the image of God.
RECAPITULATION: In Gen. 2:4-25 we have the account of the beginning of society and its essential institutions, viz., liberty, law, language, and marriage. Thus it will be seen that this section is not really a cosmogony; that it is, rather a complementaryor, one might say, supplementaryaccount with an entirely different structure, content, and emphasis.
6. The Problem of the Two Divine Names. As we have noted above, there are two Names given to the Deity in the first two chapters of Genesis, that is, in the original text. The Name used in the first section (Gen. 1:1 to Gen. 2:3) is, without exception, the Name Elohim, which is translated God throughout the Old Testament. However, beginning with ch. Gen. 2:4, the Name Yahweh begins to occur (occasionally in connection with Elohim, but not generally so). This Name, which derives from the so-called Tetragrammaton, the four Hebrew letters without vowel points, YHWH, literally transliterated Yahweh (but imperfectly as Jehovah, as in the A.S.V.), but translated Lord in the Authorized Version and in the Revised Standard Version, has, from as far back as the third century B.C., been regarded by the Jewish people as too sacred to be uttered: hence, in reading, they have generally substituted the word Adonai (my Lord) for the divinely revealed great and incommunicable Name of Exo. 3:14. This distinction of Names in the first two chapters of Genesis is one of the principal arguments offered by the critics in support of their theory of two original documents or codes. A careful study of the use of these two Names throughout the Old Testament as a whole will disclose the fact that in many instances they are used interchangeably either in a single Scripture or even in a part of a Scripture verse. Conservative scholars generally take the position that the distinction of these two Names derives not from two different original accounts or documents, but from their meaning as representing the two primary phases of the Divine Activity, namely, those of creation and redemption; hence, that Elohim designates the Creator-God, Yahweh the Redeemer-God.
The problem of an adequate Name for our God has always been a most difficult one, because of the limitations of human vocabulary. Rotherham (E.B., 26): Does not name in the Bible very widely imply revelation? Mens names are throughout the Scriptures fraught with significance, enshrining historical incidents, biographical reminiscences, and so forth; and why should the Name of the Ever-Blessed be an exception to this rule? Does not the Almighty Himself employ this Name of His as though it had in it some self-evident force and fitness to reveal His nature and unfold His ways? His Name is continually adduced by Himself as His reason for what He does and what He commands: For I am Yahweh. (Exo. 3:14; Isa. 42:8; Isa. 43:3; Isa. 45:5; Isa. 46:9-11; Psa. 46:10; Heb. 11:6). Some have said that the meaning of The Name is not clear, that perhaps it has been kept so by Divine design. With this notion I cannot agree. Exo. 3:14in this passage, says Rotherham (EB, 26), I am that I am expresses the sense, I will become whatsoever I please . . . and we know He pleases to become to His people only what is wisest and best. Thus viewed, the formula becomes a most gracious promise; the Divine capacity of adaptation to any circumstances, any difficulties, any necessities, that may arise, becomes a veritable bank of faith to such as love God and keep His commandments. The frequently heard claim that Yahweh is simply the name of the tribal deity of ancient Israel is absurd, on the face of it: the very meaning of the Name invalidates such a notion. Again I quote Rotherham (EB, 24): Men are saying today that Y was a mere tribal name, and are suggesting that Y Himself was but a tribal deity. As against this, only let The Name be boldly and uniformly printed, and the humblest Sunday-school teacher will be able to show the groundlessness of the assertion. It is inconceivable that the leaders of the ancient Hebrew people, surrounded on all sides as they were by tribes all practicing the grossest polytheistic systems, could have conjured up this Namesignifying pure personality, spirituality, holiness, etc.out of their unaided human imagination. We simply cannot with reason regard Yahweh as a mere Hebrew name for Deity; we can indeed regard it only as a Divine self-revelation, as The Name by which the living and true God has really made Himself known to His people by His acts of Divine Goodness, especially those embraced in the unfolding of His Divine Plan for the redemption of His creatures who were, at the beginning, created in His image, after His likeness. (Joh. 3:16-18, Gal. 1:3-4, Tit. 2:13-14, Heb. 12:2).
The so-called analytical dissection of Scripture passages, and even of parts of such passages, to bolster theories of alleged discrepancies, is a vicious form of textual criticism. The same is true of the reckless discriminatory treatment, at the hands of the same critics, of the alleged alternation of the Divine Names, Elohim and Yahweh, and the hypothetical theories therefor. T. Lewis has stated this aspect of the case, especially with reference to the Divine Names, clearly (Lange, CDHCG, 107108), using as an example the suggestion that the Name Elohim has regard to the universalistic aspect, and the Name Yahweh to the theocratic aspect, of Gods being and activity. Lewis has written: Admitting the distinction, we may still doubt whether it has not been carried, on both sides, to an unwarranted extent. He goes on to show how the critics of both schools violate their own oft-asserted a priori contention that the Bible must be treated like all other books. The universalistic view, he says is already curing itself by its ultra-rationalistic extravagance. It reduced the Old Scriptures not only to fragments, but to fragments of fragments in most ill-assorted and jumbled confusion, Its supporters find themselves at last in direct opposition to their favorite maxim that the Bible must be interpreted as though written like other books. For surely no other book was ever so composed or so compiled. In the same portion, presenting every appearance of narrative unity, they find the strangest juxtapositions of passages from different authors, and written at different times, according as the one name or the other is found in it. There are the most sudden transitions even in small paragraphs having not only a logical but a grammatical connection. One verse, and even one clause of a verse, is written by the Elohist, and another immediately following by the Jehovist, with nothing besides this difference of names to mark any difference in purpose or in authorship. Calling it a compilation will not help the absurdity, for no other compilation was ever made in this way. To make the confusion worse, there is brought in, occasionally, a third or fourth writer, an editor, or reviewer, and all this without any of those actual proofs or tests which are applied to other ancient writings, and in the use of which this higher criticism, as it calls itself, is so much inclined to vaunt.
The theocratic hypothesis, Lewis goes on to state, is more sober, but some of the places presented by them as evidence of such intended distinction will not stand the test of examination. What first called attention to this point was the difference between the first and second chapters of Genesis. In the first, Elohim is used throughout; in the second, there seems to be a sudden transition to the name Jehovah-Elohim, which is maintained for some distance. This is striking; but even here the matter has been overstated. In the first chapter, we are told, the name Elohim occurs thirty times, without a single interruption; but it should be borne in mind that it is each time so exactly in the same connection, that they may all be regarded as but a repetition of that one with which the account commences. We should have been surprised at any variation. In this view they hardly amount to more than one example, or one use of the name, carried through by the repetition of the conjunctive particle. Thus regarded, the transition in the second passage is not so very striking. It is not well to say that anything in the composition of the scriptures is accidental or capricious, yet, as far as the Bible is written like other books, we may suppose a great variety of causes that led to it as well as the one assigned. It might have been for the sake of an euphonic variety, or to avoid a seeming tautology. It might have been some subjective feeling which the writer would have found it difficult to explain, and that, whether there was one writer or two. Again, it might have been that the single name suggested itself in the first as more simple and sublime standing alone, and, in this way, more universalistic, as it is styled; whilst in the second general resume the thought of the national name comes in, and the writer, whether the same or another, takes a holy pride in saying that it was the national God, our God, our Jehovah-Elohim, that did all this, and not some great causa causarum, or power separate from him. There might be a feeling of nearness in respect to the one name that led to its use under such circumstances. This critique speaks so eloquently for its own reasonableness that it fully serves our purpose here, namely, to demonstrate the artificiality, and indeed, the superficiality, of the mass of conjecture which has been built up in theological circles in the name of consensus of scholarship with respect to the unity of Genesis and the bearing thereupon of the alternating use of the two Divine Names.
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven. And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Jehovah God had not caused it to rain upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the ground; but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7. Reversion to Gen. 1:6-13. (1) Gen. 2:4generations, literally begettings. This, as we have noted, is the key word by which Genesis divides naturally into sections. Cf. Gen. 5:1; Gen. 6:9; Gen. 10:1; Gen. 11:10; Gen. 11:27; Gen. 25:12; Gen. 25:19; Gen. 36:1; Gen. 37:2. Note that in all these passagesthose in which this key word (toledoth) occursthe reference is not to antecedents, but to consequents, i.e., not to ancestors, but to posterity. We see no reason for making an exception of the use of the word here (Gen. 2:4): hence, the generations of the heavens and of the earth undoubtedly refers to the historical developments that followed the cosmic Creation itself (Gen. 1:1 to Gen. 2:3); and the added statement, in the day that Yahweh Elohim made earth and heaven, must take us back to what was taking place on the second and third days of the Creation Weekthe days on which the atmospheric firmament and the earth with its lands and seas made their appearance (Gen. 1:6-13). All this was preparatory, of course, to the account of the beginnings of human society in its essential aspects such as those of liberty, law, language, and marriage. (2) Again, the yom (day) of Gen. 2:4 designates an indefinite period of time (cf. Num. 3:1, Ecc. 7:14, Psa. 95:8, Joh. 8:56, Rom. 13:12, Heb. 3:15), apparently commensurate with that of the second and third stages of Mosaic Cosmogony (Gen. 1:6-13). (There are those, of course, who hold that the day of Gen. 2:4 designated the whole Creation Week, that of the preceding Cosmogony: Gen. 1:1 to Gen. 2:3). (3) Moreover, this surely is evidence that Gen. 2:4 does not belong to the account which precedes it (regardless of the meaning of the word day), but is the statement that is designed to introduce that which follows, throughout the rest of ch. 2. Does the phrase, earth and heaven, then, suggest the psychosomatic structure of the human being, whose body is from the physical world but whose spirit (interior life) was originally inbreathed by direct Divine action (1Co. 15:45-47, Job. 33:4, Ecc. 12:7, Act. 17:25, Heb. 12:9)? Green (UBG, 1112): This title, the generations of the heavens and of the earth, must announce, as the subject of the section which it serves to introduce, not an account of the way in which the heavens and the earth were themselves brought into being, but an account of the offspring of the heavens and the earth; in other words, of man, who is the child of both worlds, his body formed of the dust of the earth, his soul of heavenly origin, inbreathed by God Himself. And so the section proceeds regularly. First, Gen. 1:1, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, the title announcing that the theme of the first chapter is the Creation. Then Gen. 2:4, the generations of the heavens and of the earth, announcing that the theme of that which follows is the offspring of heaven and earth, or, the history of Adam and his family. Then Gen. 5:1, the generations of Adam, in which his descendants are traced to Noah and his sons. Then Gen. 6:9, the generations of Noah, or the history of Noahs family, and so on to the end of the book.
(4) Having sketched graphically the theological facts regarding the Creation generally, the writer now turns his attention to man, the creature for whose use and benefit everything else has been called into being. This entire section (Gen. 2:4 to Gen. 4:26) is a history of Adam and his family, their original innocence, their temptation and fall, their subsequent careers in two diverging lines, and the establishment of true religion through them. In ch. 1, man is considered only as a part of the general scheme of things; in ch. 2, he is considered exclusively, in his primitive environment and innocence, as the handiwork of God and the object of His providential acts. In ch. 1, the scene is the whole world and all it contains; in ch. 2, it is limited to Eden, which was fitted up for the habitation of the first human family during their probationary state. (5) It should be noted also that the order of statements in ch. 2 is not chronological, but that of association of ideas. Green (UBG, 2425): Gen. 2:7, man is formed; Gen. 2:8, the garden is planted and man put in it; Gen. 2:9, trees are made to spring up there; Gen. 2:15, man is taken and put in it. We cannot suppose the writers meaning to be that man was made before there was any place to put him, and that he was kept in suspense until the garden was planted; that he was then put there before the trees that were to supply him with food had sprung up; and that after the trees were in readiness he was put there a second time. It is easy to deduce the most preposterous conclusions from a writers words by imputing to them a sense he never intended. In order to pave the way for an account of the primitive paradise, he had spoken of the earth as originally destitute of any plants on which man might subsist, the existence of such plants being conditioned on that of man himself. This naturally leads him to speak, first, of the formation of man (Gen. 2:7); then of the garden in which he was put (Gen. 2:8). A more particular description of the garden is then given (Gen. 2:9-14), and the narrative is again resumed by repeating that man was placed there (Gen. 2:15). As there was plainly no intention to note the strict chronological succession of events, it cannot in fairness be inferred from the order of the narrative that man was made prior to the trees and plants of Eden, much less that he preceded those of the world at large, of which nothing is here said.
(6) Gen. 2:5-6. The clause, in the day that Yahweh Elohim made earth and heaven, points back to what had occurred in the second and third stages of the Creation, namely, the origin of the atmospheric firmament (expanse, heaven, sky), and the origin subsequently of the earth (as it became detached from surrounding nebulae and so assumed its form as a planet) and its physical features (lands and seas): that is, to the time when as yet there was neither vegetation nor rainfall nor a man to till the ground. In a word, the dry land having become separated from the waters (seas), and an atmosphere having been thrown around the planet, as a result of the cooling of the earths crust vaporous substances (mists) began to ascend into the skies and to return to the earth in the form of rain. All this, of courselight, atmosphere, lands, seas, rainfallnecessarily preceded the first beginnings of plant life: precisely in the same order as depicted in the Cosmogony of Genesis 1. The stage was now set for the appearance of the crown of the Creation, man himself, and for the various developments revealed in subsequent chapters: (1) mans Edenic state (Gen. 2:4-25), (2) his subsequent temptation and fall (Gen. 3:1-24), (3) the story of Cain and Abel (Gen. 4:1-16), (4) the degeneracy of the Cainites (Gen. 4:16-24), and (5) the birth of Seth (Gen. 4:25-26) to carry on the Messianic genealogy.
(7) We are not surprised, therefore, to find the totality of the Divine Being and His attributes designated by the dualistic Name, Yahweh Elohim, in this section. Once the documentary unity of the Elohistic and Yahwistic sections is entertained, this complete Name becomes a declaration that the Redeemer-God of Adam and his posterity is one with Elohim the God of the whole cosmos. This dualistic Name occurs twenty times in chs. 2 and 3 (the account of mans paradisaical state), but only once thereafter in the entire Torah (Exo. 9:30). It must be kept in mind that Elohim is a plural form. Strong (ST, 319): Gods purpose in securing this pluralization may have been more far-reaching and intelligent than mans. The Holy Spirit who presided over the development of revelation may well have directed the use of the plural in general, and even the adoption of the plural name Elohim in particular, with a view to the future unfolding of the truth with regard to the Trinity. E. S. Brightman, a later advocate of the Analytical Theory concedes the following (SOH, 22): It follows that the use of the divine names is by no means an infallible, or the chief, criterion for separation of the sources. Steuernagel says that there is no compulsion for a Jahvistic writer always to use the name Jehovah. Eichrodt rightly calls dependence on this criterion the baby-shoes of criticism, that need to be taken off. Nor is there any reason why Moses should not have used both Names as he saw fit, because it was to him specifically that the revelation of the Tetragrammaton was made (Exo. 3:13-15; Exo. 6:2-3) in its fulness of meaning; hence Moses was pre-eminently qualified to use the Names as he saw fit, and to combine them in describing the absolute beginnings of Gods creative and redemptive activity, as in the section before us. This fact argues in favor of the Mosaic authorship of Genesis.
And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8. Man a Psychosomatic Being. This is one of the most important and meaningful statements in all literature. (1) Yahweh Elohim formed the man (that is, the corporeal or physical man) of the dust of the ground. If this passage were put in modern terms, the phrase, dust of the ground, would probably be rendered, the physical elements (those which go to make up all that is designated matter), hence the elements into which the body is resolved at death. (2) The verb used here, yatsar, translated formed, is used in the Old Testament of a potter molding clay (Isa. 29:16, Jer. 18:4); used also of spirit in Zec. 12:1. (3) Having thus formed the earthly house of our tabernacle (2Co. 5:1), the Creator then breathed into it the breath of life, and the it became a he. In this graphic anthropomorphic picture, the Creator is represented as, stooping over and placing his mouth and nostrils upon the opened mouth and nostrils of the lifeless corporeal form (as in ordinary resuscitation) and expelling into it the breath of life. To be sure, this phrase means that God caused the inanimate form to come alive, but in mans case it designates infinitely more than mere vitality (as we know from immediate personal experience), (Cf. Gen. 7:22here the breath of the spirit of life is said to be characteristic of animal forms, but there is no implication that God breathed this vitality into them: cf. Act. 17:25). Indeed there is no intimation anywhere in Scripture that God breathed His breath into any other creature than man: this is most significant. What, then, is implied by it, in mans case? Surely, whatever more is implied by it, it cannot be less than the truth that God expelled into the corporeal form, not only vitality, but also the potentiality of the thought processes which specify man as man, thus constituting him to be a person. This surely gives us a clue to the meaning of the phrase, the image of God, as used of the human being in Genesis 1. Of course, this does not mean that God endowed man with the potentiality of deity, but with the potentiality only of divinity. (Note well, not with actual divinity, but only with the potentiality of it, which can be actualized only by the Spiritual Life.) These two words, deity and divinity are not synonymous, and to use them as such is an egregious error. Deity and humanity are differences of rank or kind, not of degree: man is human and there is no process whatever by which a human being can be transmuted into a deity. To be sure, in speaking of God, we use the phrase, the divine Being, but only by way of contrast with the human being. Hence, in Scripture, the righteous person, by leading the Spiritual Life (Gal. 5:22-25), by growing in the grace and knowledge of Christ (2Pe. 3:18), by living the life that is hid with Christ in God (Col. 3:3), is said to become a partaker of the divine nature (2Pe. 1:4), and therefore fitted for the inheritance of the saints in light (Col. 1:12). In a word, man can become godlike (1Ti. 4:7), but he does not have the potentiality ever of becoming God, or of acquiring the attributes of God.
(4) Man became a living soul. Note that the R.S.V. renders it living being, and that the A.V. and the A.S.V. render the same word, as used in Gen. 2:19, living creature. The verse obviously emphasizes the fact that man is a living being (soul), not that he has living being (soul). Nephesh is the product of the fusion of the basar (flesh) and the ruach (spirit). (Ruach may be rendered either spirit or wind: however, common sense born of human experience can recognize the absurdity of interpreting this passage as indicating that man is body animated by wind: the notion is ridiculous.) Man is distinguished from the brute by the sublimely sententious fact that God breathed: this means that man is like God, because he has the breath of God in him. His corporeal part shares the corporeal life of the lower animals, but his spiritual powers constitute him to share the privileges and responsibilities of a good world and the capabilities of spiritual growth and ultimate union with God. In short, Gen. 2:7 declares that God created man a complete being. I see no reason for reading mystical, esoteric, or magical connotations into this Scripture; in its simplest terms, it means that God constituted him a bodymind or body-spirit unitya person.
(5) We have here, then, one of the most remarkable anthropomorphic passages in literature, and its most amazing feature is its complete agreement with the most recent science, in which the psychosomatic (organismic) interpretation of the human being prevails, in biology, physiology, medicine, psychology and psychiatry. (Psychosomatic medicine is a commonplace in our day: it is universally recognized that the interior life is affected by the exterior, and that the exterior is even more poignantly affected by the interior.) Gen. 2:7 means simply that man is a mind-body or spirit-body unity, not essentially dualistic in structure, but with the physical and the spiritual (personal, mental) elements interwoven in a complexity that defies analysis. (This means also that while mind and body thus interact, neither can mind become entirely body, nor body entirely mind. Even in the next life, according to Bible teaching, the saint will continue to be a spirit-body unity, the natural (psychikos, soulish) body having been transmuted into the spiritual (pneumatikos) body, the change described in Scripture as the putting on of immortality (1Co. 15:35-57, Rom. 2:6-8, 2Co. 5:1-10). Christianity is unique in the emphasis it places on the redemption of the bodies of the saints; cf. Rom. 8:18-25).
(6) The Breath of Life. Keil and Delitzsch (BCOTP, 79): The dust of the earth is merely the earthly substratum, which was formed by the breath of life from God into an animated, living, self-existent being. When it is said, God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, it is evident that this description gives prominence to the peculiar sign of life, viz., breathing; since it is obvious, that what God breathed into man could not be the air which man breathes: for it is not that which breathes, but simply that which is breathed. Consequently, breathing into the nostril can only mean that God, through His own breath, produced and combined with the bodily form that principle of life, which was the origin of all human life, and which constantly manifests its existence in the breath inhaled and exhaled through the nose. (Italics mineC. C.) (7) This inbreathing by the Eternal Spirit (Heb. 9:14) determined individual human nature to be what it is specifically, namely, essentially spirit indwelling an earthly body, and hence incapable of annihilation. (Man is specified, i.e., set apart as a species by his thought processes.) This Divine inbreathing also determined (by endowing the creature with the power of choice) individual human destiny, either (for the righteous only) ultimate eternal union with God (Life Everlasting: 1Co. 13:9-12, Heb. 12:23, 1Jn. 3:2, Rev. 14:13), or (for the neglectful, rebellious, disobedient) ultimate eternal separation from God (eternal death: 2Th. 1:7-10, Act. 17:30-31, Rom. 2:4-9; Rev. 6:15-17; Rev. 20:11-15; Rev. 21:1-8; Rev. 22:10-15), in the place prepared for the devil and his angels (Mat. 5:29-30; Mat. 25:41). (The last end of the wicked is not annihilation, but segregation in the penitentiary of the moral universe, Gehenna or Hell). (8) Reduced to its basic significance, Gen. 2:7 emphasizes the fact that man is a fusion of body (earthly elements) and spirit (divinely inbreathed by the Creator Himself): an earthly house of this tabernacle (2Co. 5:1-8), vitalized by spirit, thus communicated to it by the Breath of God. Where there is spirit, in the full sense of the term, there is vitality, personality, sociality, and ultimately, but only as the product of the Spiritual Life, wholeness or holiness.
(9) Nephesh in this text, therefore, denotes the complete living human being, that is, in his present state. Mans body consists of the earthly elements; it is formed from adamah; in a wider sense, formed out of the earth (Gen. 18:27, Psa. 103:14); hence, at death the body goes back to the earthly elements from which it was originally constituted (the elements which it shares with the whole animal creation). (Gen. 3:19; Gen. 3:23; Job. 10:9; Job. 34:15; Psa. 146:4). But the spiritthe interior being, in a very literal sense, the imperishable ego, self, personis from God, and hence, at the death of the body, it goes back to the God who gave it (Ecc. 12:7; Gen. 7:22; Job. 32:8; Job. 33:4; Psa. 18:15; Psa. 104:29-30; Pro. 20:27; Isa. 42:5; Act. 17:25), for His final judgment and disposition of it (Joh. 5:28-29; Mat. 12:41-42; Mat. 25:31-46; Act. 17:30-31; Rom. 2:4-9; 2Co. 5:10; Rev. 20:11-15). According to this remarkable Scripture (Gen. 2:7), man is so constructed in this present life, as to be neither entirely corporeal nor entirely mental, but a complex fusion of the powers of both body and mind into a wondrous whole (Psa. 139:14).
9. Body, Soul, Spirit. (1) What, then, are the essential elements (parts, or separate categories of powers) of human nature? There are two theories: what is known as the dichotomous theory, that man is made up of body and spirit; and what is called the trichotomous theory, that he is somehow constituted of body, soul, and spirit. (Mat. 10:28; Mat. 27:50; Luk. 23:46, Joh. 19:30; Job. 27:3; Job. 32:8; Job. 33:4; Eph. 4:23, 1Co. 5:3, 3Jn. 1:2, and esp. Ecc. 12:7, 1Th. 5:23, Heb. 4:12). This problem (of the proper correlation of these three terms, as used in the Bible) is, in many respects, difficult; hence, in attempting to determine the correct explanation, one should not be dogmatic. The problem is complicated especially by Scriptures in which soul and spirit seem to be used interchangeably. (Cf. Gen. 41:8 and Psa. 42:6; Joh. 12:27; Joh. 13:21; Mat. 20:28 (psyche, life) and Mat. 27:50.) (2) It seems obvious, however, that Gen. 2:7 supports the dichotomous view. Certainly it teaches that man is a living soul or living being, constituted of a body of earthly elements and a Divinely inbreathed spirit. Common sense confirms the fact that the Divine inbreathing described here was an inbreathing, not merely of the vital principle, but of the rational as well; not only of the life processes, but of the thought processes also, with all their potentialities: the subsequent activity of the man so constituted (naming of the animal tribes, acceptance of the woman as his counterpart, and, sad to say, his disobedience to Gods law) proves him to have been truly homo sapiens. Man does not just livehe knows that he lives.
(3) The phrase, living soul, as used here does mean living being, but a living being composed of body and spirit, and thus endowed with the elements of personality: hence, man is said to have been created in the image of God. Note the following pertinent quotations assembled by Strong (ST, 486): Soul is spirit as modified by union with the body (Hovey). By soul we mean only one thing, i.e., incarnate spirit, a spirit with a body. Thus we never speak of the souls of angels. They are pure spirits, having no bodies. (Hodge). (Cf. Heb. 1:14nevertheless, angels are represented in Scripture as manifesting themselves in some kind of external texture, something that makes them perceptible by man.) We think of the spirit as soul, only when in the body, so that we cannot speak of an immortality of the soul, in the proper sense, without bodily life (Schleiermacher). That the soul begins to exist as a vital force, does not require that it should always exist as such a force in connection with a material body. Should it require another such body, it may have the power to create it for itself, as it has formed the one it first inhabited; or it may have already formed it, and may hold it ready for occupation as soon as it sloughs off the one which connects it with the earth (Porter, Human Intellect, p. 39). It should be noted here especially that in Scripture there is said to be a natural (psychikos, soul-ish) body, and, for the redeemed, a spiritual (pneumatikos) body (1Co. 15:44-49, 2Co. 5:1-10, Php. 3:20-21, Rom. 2:7; Rom. 8:11). Strong himself writes (ST, 486): The doctrine of the spiritual body is therefore the complement to the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Aristotelian-Thomistic teaching is that soul informs body, or, vice versa, that body is informed by soul (inform meaning to give form to, that is, to put a thing in its proper class); hence, that the two are inseparable, because body needs soul, and soul needs body, for mutually complementary ends. The same thing may be said of spirit, as used in Scripture: it seems always to be represented as being associated with, or identical with, a rarefied form of matter. (It will be recalled that the old Greek philosopher, Demokritos, taught that nothing exists ultimately but atoms and the void; soul atoms, however, said he, are no doubt of a finer texture of matter than the gross atoms of the body.) Knudson (RTOT, 229): That ruach did not denote a third element in human nature, distinct from nephesh, is evident from the fact that it is often used synonymously with nephesh as a designation both of the principle of vitality and the resultant psychical life. (Cf. Gen. 6:17; Gen. 45:27; Jdg. 15:19; 1Sa. 30:12; Eze. 37:5; Psa. 104:29; Isa. 26:9; Isa. 19:14; Exo. 28:3; Psa. 51:12, Jdg. 8:3; Pro. 16:19.) All this boils down to the fact that, with reference to man, neither soul nor spirit, in Biblical teaching, is bodilessness: the notion of disembodied spirits is a distinctive feature of Oriental mysticisms. According to Scripture teaching, God alone is Pure Spirit (Joh. 4:24); that is, without body or parts, but having understanding and free will. (There are two Scriptures, of course, which seem to favor the trichotomous theory, though on closer scrutinyit seems to meare not necessarily to be taken as doing so, These are 1Th. 5:23 and Heb. 4:12. Concerning 1Th. 5:23, Frame writes (ICC-Th, 209210): The Apostle prays first in general that God may consecrate them [the Thessalonian Christians] through and through, and then specifically that he may keep their spirit, the divine element, and the soul and body, the human element, intact as an undivided whole, so that they may be blameless when the Lord comes. A. T. Robertson writes (WPNT, 3839): Your spirit and soul and body . . . not necessarily trichotomy as opposed to dichotomy as elsewhere in Pauls Epistles. Both believers and unbelievers have an inner man (soul, psyche; mind, nous; heart, kardia) . . . and the outer man (soma). But the believer has the Holy Spirit of God, the renewed spirit of man (1Co. 2:11, Rom. 8:9-11). (Cf. Tit. 3:5). This author goes on to say that the apostolic prayer here is for the consecration of both body and soul (cf. 1 Corinthians 6). The adjective holokleron . . . means complete in all its parts. Strong holds (ST, 485) that this text is not intended to be a scientific enumeration of the constituent parts of human nature, but a comprehensive sketch of that nature in its chief relations. P. J. Gloag (PC-Th, 106) adheres to the trichotomous view. He writes: The spirit is the highest part of man, that which assimilates him to God, renders him capable of religion, and susceptible of being acted upon by the Spirit of God. The soul is the inferior part of his mental nature, the seat of the passions and desires, of the natural propensities. The body is the corporeal frame. Such a threefold distinction of human nature was not unknown among the Stoics and Platonists. There are also traces of it in the Old Testament, the spirit, or breath of God, being distinguished from the soul. With reference to Heb. 4:12, the use of psyche and pneuma is certainly not too clear. The idea presented here is that of the probing, penetrating, adjudicating activity of the logos: logos is pictured as the all-seeing Eye of God which pierces the human being to its deepest depths: to the subtlest relations of human personality, the very border-line between the psyche and the pneumaall this is open to the logos (James Moffatt, ICC-H, 56). As Barmby writes (PC-H, 110): the logos is a living power . . . more keenly cutting than any sword; cutting so as to penetrate through and throughthrough the whole inner being of man, to its inmost depths; then, in doing so, discerning and opening to judgment all the secrets of consciousness. Or, according to Delitzsch, as quoted by Barmby (PC-H, 111): In fallen man his pneuma which proceeded from God and carries in itself the Divine image, has become, as it were, extinguished; through the operation of grace man calls to mind his own true nature, though shattered by sin; the heavenly nature of man reappears when Christ is formed in him; and thus the Word of God marks out and separates the pneuma in him from the psyche in which it had been as it were, extinguished. (Cf. Gal. 4:19, Col. 1:27).
To summarize: I find the tendency in general among commentators to look upon the psyche (soul) as the seat of the present animal (natural) life, and the spirit as the seat of the higher faculties and powers, in man. It is my personal conviction, however, that soul, in whatever state it may exist and continue to exist, stands for a body-spirit unity (or mind-body unity), to be explicit, a psychosomatic unity. However, regardless of the interpretation of the distinction between soul and spirit that one may accept, the fact remains that each is represented in Scripture as associated in the concrete, that is, in human life itself, with an outer or bodily texture of some kind. And it is this very fact which nullifies the claims of materialism and brings to light the really profound uniqueness and significance of the Christian doctrine of immortality. Hence, this is the fact in which we are here primarily interested.
(4) Permit me to state parenthetically that it has been my conviction for some time that certain findings in the area of the phenomena of the Subconscious in man throw considerable light on this problem of the distinction, if such a distinction really exists, between the soul and the spirit in the human being. Men who have engaged in research in this particular field uniformly describe the human interior man (2Co. 4:16, Rom. 7:22, Eph. 3:16) as a house, so to speak, with two rooms in it: a front room which faces the external world and through which impressions from that world make their entrance by way of the physical senses; and a back room in which the impressions which have entered by way of the front room find a permanent abiding-place. This front room is commonly designated the objective (conscious, supraliminal) part of the self, or simply the objective mind; this back room, the subjective (subconscious, subliminal) part of the self, or simply the subjective mind. It is to this room that we refer when we speak of the Subconscious in man. The objective takes cognizance of the external world; its media of knowledge are the physical senses; it is an adaptation to mans physical needs, his guide in adapting to his present terrestrial environment. (The fact is often overlooked that mans physical senses serve only to adapt him to his present earthly milieu; they really shut outor at most only give him clues tothe world that lies beyond sense-perception, the real world (2Co. 4:16-18). Suppose, for example, that a man had a visual mechanism like the lens of a high-powered microscope, so that every time he looks into a glass of water, he sees all the little bugs floating around in it; or, suppose he had a kind of x-ray eye that would enable him to be little more, apparently, than a skeleton (to which sundry internal and external accoutrements are necessarily attached) meeting other like skeletons, etc., in ordinary social intercoursewho would want to experience such a kind of life as this, even if such a life were possible, which, to be sure, it would not be? Or, suppose that man had an auditory mechanism constructed in the manner, let us say, of a radio receiving set attuned to all the vibrations that are coming into his ear, and impinging on his auditory nerve, from the outer air, from water, or from other sourcessuch an uproar would surely drive him crazy in short order. As a matter of fact, I am profoundly thankful that I do not have the sense of smell which my little dog has: it would make life unlivable to any man. Hence, we can readily see that the function of the physical senses is to enable the person to adjust to his present terrestrial environment: they cannot open to his view the glories of the world that lies beyond that of time and sense. Incidentally, Plato named this world of sense, the world of becoming, and the world beyond sense-perception, the world of being; Kant called the former, the phenomenal world, and the latter, the noumenal world.) The objective mind of man is needed, therefore, in order that he may take cognizance of his needs and responsibilities in relation to the external world in which he now lives. Its highest function is that of reason, which is in fact reflection upon what he has apprehended by sense-perception. The subjective mindthe Subconsciouson the other hand, takes cognizance of its environment independently of physical sense; it apprehends by pure thought and intuition; it is the storehouse of memory; it is the seat of perfect perception of the fixed laws of nature; it performs its highest functions when the objective processes are in abeyance (that is, in natural or induced sleepthe latter is hypnosis); it is especially amenable to suggestion. This subliminal (below-the-threshold-of-consciousness) part of the inward man seems to be unlimited by objective concepts of distance, space, and time (one can go back into childhood, or travel throughout the cosmos, in a dream): it functions effectively outside the space-time dimension. It has all the appearance of a distinct entity (being), with independent powers and functions, having a psychical (or metapsychical) order of its own, and being capable of functioning independently of the corporeal body. It is, in a real sense, the very core of the human being, It seems to be, in its ultimate aspect, the ontological self, the essential and imperishable being of the human individual. I suggest, therefore, that the objective powers of the human psyche are rightly to be correlated with what we call mind (or soul?) in man, and that the subjective powers may rightly be correlated with what we call spirit in him. Therefore, it is certainly well within the bounds of probability that all that I have suggested here to be included under the word spirit may be specifically what God breathed into man when He created him. (See further infra, in the few paragraphs on the phenomena of the Subconscious.) Again, let me remind the student that all this does not mean that either mind (or soul) or spirit exists independently of some form of bodily texture, either in this present world or in the world to come.
10. The Christian Doctrine of Immortality, only intimated in the Old Testament (Job. 14:14; Job. 19:25-27; Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5; 2Ki. 2:10-11; Heb. 11:9-10; Heb. 11:13-19), is fully revealed in the New. (1) As stated heretofore, according to Biblical teaching, there is a natural body (this we know also from personal experience), and there is also a spiritual body, that is, a body gradually formed by the sanctification of the human spirit by the indwelling Spirit of God (Rom. 5:5; Rom. 8:11; Rom. 14:17; 1Co. 15:44-49; 2Co. 5:1-8; 1Co. 6:19; 1Co. 3:16-17; Heb. 12:14). The spirits of the redeemed, although separated from their natural (soul-ish) bodies at death, will be clothed in their spiritual bodies in. the next life (Php. 3:20-21). (Certainly present-day science has nothing to say against this teaching. Modern nuclear physics has proved that matter may take such attenuated forms (even the atom is found to be, not a particle, but a field of inconceivably powerful forms of energy) as to be practically non-physical, or at the most only metaphysical.) Incidentally, to try to determine whether this transmutation takes place immediately at death, or, following an intermediate state, at the general Resurrection (Mat. 11:21-24; Mat. 12:38-42), is, of course unjustified, presumptuous, and futile: it is vainly trying to interpose mans measurements of time into the realm of Gods timelessness: and all such matters are best left to the disposition of the Sovereign of the universe, who, we can be sure, doeth all things well. (2) This final transmutation of the saints natural body into his spiritual body is what is designated in the New Testament as the putting on of immortality (Rom. 2:7, 1Co. 15:53-54); that is to say, in Scripture, immortality is a doctrine that has reference exclusively to the destiny of the body (Rom. 8:20-23). Immortality, moreover, is not something that all men have, or will have, regardless of the kind of life each may lead; on the contrary, immortalitythe redemption of the bodyis a reward of loving obedience to the Gospel requirements (Act. 2:38, Mat. 28:18-20, Act. 8:35-39, Gal. 3:27, Rom. 10:9-10) and of the faithful pursuit of the Spiritual Life (Rom. 2:7; Rom. 14:17; Heb. 12:24; Gal. 5:16-25; 2Pe. 1:5-11; 2Pe. 3:18; Rev. 2:10; Rev. 3:5; Rev. 19:8). Strictly speaking, the word eternal means without beginning or end, whereas immortal means having a beginning but no ending. We must always distinguish, therefore, between survival and immortality: the two words are not synonymous. The spirit of man is eternalit will live forever in one of two states, namely, in a state of reconciliation with God (Heaven) or in a state of separation from God (Hell). (Cf. Mat. 25:46here Jesus teaches explicitly that Hell is equally eternal with Heaven: this text clearly refutes theories of ultimate annihilation of the wicked, of the possibility of post-mortem repentance, or of possible salvation by proxy (Eze. 18:19-20, Luk. 16:19-31, Rom. 14:10, 2Co. 5:10, Rev. 20:11-15, etc.), and the like: notions characteristic of the cultists. The matter of importance to us, at this point, is that in Scripture teaching, there is no promise of spiritual bodies (immortality) to the lost, nor is there any information given us about the kind of bodies in which they will be tabernacled after the Judgment. However, Jesus certainly makes it clear, in Mat. 10:28, that they will take with them into the infernal abode some kind of body. And to destroy, as the term is used here, does not mean annihilationit means eternal punishment in Gehenna (the real hell). (Note how frequently Jesus used the name Gehenna in His teaching: Mat. 5:22; Mat. 5:29-30; Mat. 18:9; Mat. 23:15; Mat. 23:33; cf. Heb. 10:31, Jas. 3:6.)
(3) 1Co. 15:44-49. Here the Apostle is setting forth in some detail the doctrine of the ultimate redemption of the bodies of the saints. Throughout this entire chapter, his subject is the body, especially the resurrection of the body, and that only. The sainted dead, he tells us, will come into possession of their spiritual bodies, when Jesus comes again, by resurrection; and those Christians who may be living on earth at the time will take on their spiritual bodies by transfiguration (1Co. 15:50-55). Again, John the Beloved, we are told, saw underneath the altar the souls of them that had been slain for the word of God, etc. (Rev. 6:9); that is, evidently he saw the immortalized spirits of the redeemedthe spirits of just men made perfect (Heb. 12:23)those whose redemption had been made complete by their putting on of their spiritual bodies (immortality), and hence were once again body-spirit unities or living souls. The first Adam, the Apostle tells us, was a living soulhe was so created. The last Adam, he goes on to say, became a life-giving spirit (1Co. 15:45). Christ, the Second Adam (Rom. 5:12-19) has power, as the Crown of humanity, to give to His elect their new spiritual bodies: hence, He is said to have abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel (2Ti. 1:10; Joh. 10:14-18; Joh. 11:25-26). (Robertson (WPNT, IV, 195) comments on 1Co. 15:39 as follows: Paul takes up animal life to show the great variety there is, as in the plant world. Even if evolution should prove to be true, Pauls argument remains valid. Variety exists along with kinship. Progress is shown in the different kingdoms, progress that even argues for a spiritual body after the body of flesh is lost.). To be sure, our Lord, while in the flesh, had a human spirit (Luk. 23:46, Joh. 19:30), but His human spirit was so posessed by the Holy Spirit that the terms Spirit of Christ, Spirit of Jesus, and Holy Spirit, are used interchangeably (Joh. 3:31-36, Act. 16:6-8, 1Pe. 1:10-12). Hence the Spirit of Jesus became truly a life-giving Spirit (Rom. 8:11); after three days, His Spirit returned to earth and gave life to His body which had been interred in Josephs tomb (Psa. 16:8-10; Act. 2:24-32; Rom. 8:11; Php. 3:20-21; 1Jn. 3:2), This spiritual body, though exhibiting the same individuality, was different in texture from His former earthly body: it was of such a texture that he could manifest Himself at will regardless of physical barriers of any kind (Mat. 28:16-20; Mar. 16:12-13; Mar. 16:19; Luk. 24:13-15; Luk. 24:36-43; Luk. 24:50-51; Joh. 20:11-31; Act. 1:1-5; Act. 1:9-11; 1Co. 15:1-8). His earthly body was constituted of flesh and blood. But flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1Co. 15:50); hence, His resurrection body was one of flesh and bones (Joh. 20:24-29, Luk. 24:39-40): evidently the blood, the seat of animal life, was gone. (Luk. 24:39Note how, in this Scripture, the risen Christ sought to impress upon His Apostles that He was not a phantasm, not just a ghost.) Subsequently, at His Ascension to the Father, His body underwent a final change, known in Scripture as glorification (Dan. 12:3; Joh. 7:39; Joh. 17:5; 1Co. 15:40-41; Rom. 2:7, Heb. 2:10): it was in His glorified body that He temporarily manifested Himself on the Mount of Transfiguration (Mat. 17:1-6, 2Pe. 1:16-18); and it was in this body, the radiance of which was above the brightness of the noonday sun (Act. 9:1-9; Act. 22:5-11; Act. 26:12-18), that He appeared to Saul of Tarsus on the Damascus road, temporarily blinding the persecutor, but qualifying him for the apostleship (1Co. 15:8; 1Co. 9:1; Act. 1:8; Act. 2:33; Act. 10:39-41; Act. 26:16-18; 1Jn. 1:1). And Paul the Apostle informs us that it is Gods Eternal Purpose that His electthose whom, through the Gospel (Rom. 1:16), He calls, justifies, and glorifies (Act. 2:39, 2Th. 2:14, Rom. 10:16-17, 1Co. 4:15, 1Pe. 5:10) are foreordained ultimately to be conformed to the image of His Son (Rom. 8:28-30); that is, redeemed in body and spirit, and henceagain as living souls (Rev. 6:9, Heb. 12:23)clothed in glory and honor and immortality (incorruptible bodies, Rom. 2:7). Hence, note well 1Ti. 6:14-16 : it is the Lord Jesus Christ about whom the Apostle is writing here: He alone, it could truly be affirmed, as the firstborn from the dead (Col. 1:18, Act. 26:23), hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable, seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty (Act. 2:29-36, 1Co. 15:20-28, Eph. 1:17-23, Php. 2:9-11, 1Pe. 3:21-22). There is no doctrine of disembodied spirits or eternal bodilessness in Biblical teaching. As to his essential nature, the living being (soul) known as man (generically) is a body-spirit (psychosomatic) unity, in whatever state he may exist, either in this world or in the world to come. It irks me beyond measure to find the statement in books and printed articles (written by men who ought to know better, and indeed would know better had they ever subjected themselves to the discipline of metaphysics) that human nature is changing. Again let me say that man as to nature is a body-spirit or body-mind unity, set apart as a species by his thought processes: should he cease to be such, he would no longer be man. A change of nature would be a substantial change, that is, a change from one kind of being to another kind. There is no evidence anywhere that man is undergoing any such change: should he do so, the human race would finally cease to exist. Changes in the form of corporeal maturation, or in the form of the addition of increments of knowledge to personality, etc., do take place constantlybut these are not changes of human nature; that is, and, as far as we know, always will be a body-spirit unity. To summarize in the words of Gareth L. Reese, in The Sentinel (organ of the Central Christian College of the Bible, Moberly, Missouri), issue of February, 1965: By means of the Gospel, men, have had disclosed to them the life of the future world, and the incorruptibility (aphtharsis) of body and soul. Paul has pointed out that the wicked survive death, and have wrath, indignation, tribulation and anguish awaiting them. He also taught that one of the things included in the redemptive act of Christ was the redemption of the body. Christ died for the body as well as for the soul. This is why he can speak of the uncorruptible body which awaits the redeemed at the second coming of Christ. (2Ti. 1:10, Rom. 2:4-10, 1 Corinthians 15, 1Th. 4:13-18). (A word of caution here: It will be rioted that I have been using the phrases, mind-body unity, and spirit-body unity, as if they were synonymous. This, as pointed out previously, is not necessarily the case. It could well be that the former designates the conscious, the latter the subconscious, powers and activities of the interior man. Be that as it may, my contention is that either phrase designates what is called in Gen. 2:7 a living soul.)
(4) The duality of human nature is not only a fact psychosomatically, but a fact morally and spiritually as well. (Perhaps I should make it clear at this point that in writing of the duality of human nature, I do not mean a duality of being (or essence); I mean, rather, a duality of operational activities, that is, of mental (or personal) as distinguished from corporeal processes.) Note, in this connection Rom. 7:14-24; Rom. 8:1-9; Gal. 5:16-25, etc. It should be understood that the term flesh as used in these Scriptures is the Pauline designation for the natural or unregenerate man (1Co. 2:14; cf. Joh. 3:1-8, Tit. 3:4-7), one who, no matter how obvious his respectability, morality, self-righteousness, etc., has not the Spirit (Jud. 1:19, Rom. 8:9), and is therefore spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1, Col. 2:13). Evil, in Scripture, is not attributed to matter as such, nor to the body as such, nor to the right use of the body, but to the wrong use of it. Sin, according to New Testament teaching, has its fountainhead, not in the flesh (considered as body), but in the mind of the flesh, the carnal mind. (Cf. Mat. 15:18-20, Mar. 7:20-23). This idea may be illustrated clearly by the Freudian doctrine of the libido, namely, that itthe libidois the psychic energy by which the physiological sex drive is represented in the mind. Hence, one who thinks constantly of sex indulgence (lasciviousness, Gal. 5:19) is bound to have an over-developed libido. We are pretty generally what our thoughts make us to be: cf. Php. 4:8-9; Rom. 1:21; Rom. 1:28-32). That is to say, it is the misuse of the body by the carnal mind that is the primary source of moral evil (sin). (No sin is ever committed that is not the choice of self above God, of my way of doing things over Gods way of doing things.)
Perhaps it should be noted here that the rigid dualism of body and soul (soma and psyche) is not a Biblical teaching. It is a featurean outstanding featureof Oriental mysticisms and of Platonic philosophy. In the Socratic-Platonic system, the body is explicitly declared to be the tomb of the soul, and true knowledge of the essences of things, becomes possible only when the soul (after numerous re-incarnations) is finally liberated from the body, its corporeal prison. This, let me repeat for emphasis, is not Biblical teaching. Although in Scripture there is recognition of a duality of operational activities within human natureof corporeal processes and mental (or personal) processes, of viscerogenic drives and psychogenic drives, etc.there is no such notion of duality or dualism of human nature as essence or being, as that espoused by Oriental mysticism, Pythagoreanism, and Platonism.
11. Christian Teaching about the Human Body. I think we fail to recognize the high value that is placed on the human body in Biblical, and especially in New Testament, teaching. (1) In Scripture, for example, there is no such notion presented as that which characterizes some pagan, and even some so-called Christian sects (cultists)the doctrine that to purify the soul one must punish the body: hence, fanatical forms of monasticism, long periods of penance, extreme periods of fasting, such practices as scarification, flagellation (whipping the body), and the like. (Look up the story of the Penitentes who have flourished unto this day in northern New Mexico.) The tendency of mysticism has always been to downgrade, and actually degrade, the human body. Plotinus (A.D. 205270), for example, the founder of Neoplatonism, is said to have been ashamed he had a body, and would never name his parents nor remember his birthday. (2) In New Testament teaching, the body of the saint, the truly converted person, is said to become at conversion the temple of the Holy Spirit (Act. 2:38; Rom. 5:5; Rom. 8:11; 1Co. 3:16-17; 1Co. 6:19-20; 2Co. 1:21-22; Gal. 3:2; Eph. 1:13-14; Eph. 2:19-22; Eph. 4:30; Revelation 7, etc.). (3) In the New Testament, the human organism, which of course includes the body, is presented as a metaphor of the Body of Christ, the Church (Eph. 1:22-23; Eph. 4:12; Eph. 5:22; Col. 1:18; Col. 1:24; Col. 2:19; 1Co. 12:27). (4) In the New Testament, we find many exhortations to temperance, cleanness, and chastity, which have primary reference to the body (Rom. 1:26-27; Rom. 12:1; Mat. 5:27-31; 1Co. 5:9-11; 1Co. 6:9-10; 1Co. 6:13; 1Co. 9:27; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:5; 1Th. 4:3-8; 1Ti. 1:9-10; 1Ti. 6:9-10; Tit. 2:12; Heb. 13:4; 1Pe. 1:15; 1Pe. 2:11; Jas. 3:1-6; Rev. 21:8; Rev. 22:15). (4) In Scripture, as we have pointed out several times, human redemption includes the redemption of the whole psychosomatic unitythe living being known as manthe last phase of which is the redemption of the body, which is designated the putting on of immortality (Rom. 2:7). Progression in human redemption is from the Kingdom of Nature, through the Kingdom of Grace, into the Kingdom of Glory. Christianity is the only religious system in which emphasis is placed on the importance of the human body, its care, and its proper functions. This is just another form of the uniqueness of the Christian faith.
12. How Man Differs from the Brute. As far as we can ascertain from the observation of animal behavior, the differences between the operational powers of the brute and man are vast, and may be summarized as follows: The brute, through the media of his physical senses, is conscious, that is, aware of the events of his physical environment. But man is self-conscious: he distinguishes between the me and the not-me. I am aware, not only of the manuscript page on which I am typing these words, but also of the fact that I am doing the typing. Hence, man, being a person created in Gods image (Exo. 3:14), uses personal pronouns. If a brute could ever say, meaningfully to itself, I am, it would no longer be just an animal. (2) The brute has percepts deriving originally from sensations. Man, however, has concepts as well as percepts, and concepts derive from his thought processes. By means of concepts, man is able to transcend the space-time continuum which he now inhabits. (3) The brute gives no evidence of having the power of reasoning (from this to that). Certainly no man would be so foolish as to try to teach his old dog the principles of calculus, either differential or integral. But man is capable of both inductive (from experience to ideas) and deductive (from idea to idea) reasoning. Hence, it is man alone who has developed the sciences of pure mathematics and pure (symbolic) logic. (4) The brute forms no judgments; that is, gives no evidence of mental ability to unite two percepts by affirmation or to separate then by denial (e.g., The rose is red, or, The rose is not red). But man is constantly forming and communicating judgments. A judgment in epistemology becomes a proposition in logic and a sentence in grammar; hence, man has developed all these branches of knowledge. (5) The brute, having no ideas to express in propositional language, is confined to the language of gestures, dances, cries, etc. But man has ideasvery complex ideas at timesand can communicate them in the form of propositional language. (6) The brute is determined in its acts by its physiological impulses. But man is self-determined. In every human act, three sets of factors are involved, namely, those of heredity, those of environment, and those of the personal reaction. Self-determination in man is the power of the self, the I, to determine its own acts (make its own decisions, choices, etc.). Freedom is the power to act or not to act, or to act in one way instead of another, in any given situation. (7) The brute seems to have little or no freedom from instinct (which has been called the Great Sphinx of nature). Think how restricted, how utterly uninteresting, life would be for man if he were confined solely to grooves of instinctive behavior But man has intelligence which empowers him to vary his responses, even to delay them; and by means of intellection, he can make progress through trial-and-error. (8) The brute seems to have no power of contrary choice, But man has this power. Everyone knows from experience that in his various acts, he could have chosen to act differently. Common sense tells him that he is not indeterminable, nor completely determinable, but actually self-determinable, in the last analysis. Freedom, negatively defined, is immunity from necessity. (9) The brute gives no evidence of having moral or spiritual propensities. But man has never been found so depraved as to be completely without them. (10) Hence, the brute, although manifesting responses which seem to indicate affection, pleasure, guilt, shame, remorse, and the like, certainly does not have conscience in any true sense of the term. Conscience is the voice of practical reason; only where there is reason, can there be conscience. Man alone possesses conscience in the strict sense of the term. When one does what one has been brought up to believe to be right, conscience approves; when one does that which one has been brought up to believe to be wrong, conscience chides. Conscience is what it is educated to be, and man alone is capable of such education. Because of this lack of ability to make moral distinctions, the brute is not considered responsible before the lawthe brute is not regarded as a moral creature with moral responsibility. We do not haul our animals into court and charge them with crimes; such a procedure would be ludicrous. Nor does anyone in his right mind ever try to teach his old horse, dog, cat, or any other kind of pet, the Ten Commandments, or the multiplication tables, or the alphabet. (11) Man is distinguished from the brute especially in the tremendous range of his moral potential. As Aristotle has stated the case so realistically (Politics, I, 2, 1253a, Jowett trans.): Man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by intelligence and virtue, which he may use for the worst ends, Wherefore, if he have not virtue, he is the most unholy and the most savage of animals and the most full of lust and gluttony. Indeed, man is capable of more heinous acts of lust, cruelty, violence, and viciousness of all kinds, than any brute; and even more destructive in their consequences are his sins of pride, ambition, greed, overweening arrogance, and the likesins of the spiritof which the brute can hardly be considered capable at all. It has been rightly said that mans range of moral potential is such that he can either walk up in the Milky Way or wallow in the gutter, depending of course on his own individual attitude toward life and its meaning. (12) The distinction between the brute and the child is a distinction of kind (nature) and not of degree. Just as a poppy seed cannot produce a mustard plant, so the brute does not have the potentialities of a human being. The child has the essential elements of human nature potentially from conception and birth: the brute never has them at any time in its life. Undoubtedly the human racehomo sapienshad its beginning in an original pair, the male and the female, from whom all their progeny have inherited by ordinary generation the body-spirit unity by which human nature is specified. (It is generally held by scientists, I think, that there has been only one alleged case of biological evolution terminating in homo sapiens. All theories of alleged centers of human origin are built on sheer conjecture. But should these theories be validated later, the fact still remains that homo sapiensthe name adopted by scientists for man as we know himhad his origin in the union of the male and the female. No provision exists in nature, that anyone knows of, for homosexual procreation.) The first man was created a living soul by the free act of God in endowing him with the Breath of Life; the childevery child of Adams progeny-is a living soul through the media of secondary causes (parental procreation). The child who matures in this terrestrial environment will have a personality actualized largely through the interaction of the factors of heredity and those of environment (plus, as we have said, the personal reactions). Who knows, then, but that the child who dies in infancy will acquire a personality constituted of the factors which go to make up his celestial (heavenly) environment? For, as Jesus states expressly, to such belongeth the kingdom of God (Luk. 18:15-17, Mat. 19:13-15, Mar. 10:13-16, Mat. 18:1-6). We must remember that our Lord, by His death on the Cross, atoned for the innocent and the irresponsible unconditionally (Joh. 1:29, Rom. 3:20; Rom. 5:18-19). (13) Absolute beginnings are certainly supernatural or at least superhuman; but entities so begun are perpetuated by the operation of natural forces (secondary causes). This does not mean that the essential elements of personality must depend on physical conditions for their own actualization and development, as if they were properties of matter. To be sure, a healthy body is distinctly an asset to a spiritually healthy mentality; still and all, we know that great intelligence and spirituality may develop in weak physical frames. There is no limit to the potential development of the inward man in holiness, until his perfection is attained in the putting on of immortality. (Mat. 5:8; Mat. 5:48; Rom. 14:17; 2Co. 13:11; Php. 3:12; Heb. 12:14; Heb. 12:23; 1Pe. 5:10; 2Pe. 3:18). To suppose that any such potentialities characterize the brute would be the height of absurdity.
13. Man is Specified as Man by His Thought Processes. (1) By specified is meant here, set apart (i.e., from the lower animals) as a distinct species. Man is specified by his power of reason: this includes the thought processes of which he is capable. Science supports this reasoning by its designation of man as homo sapiens, from the Latin homo, a human being, a man, and sapiens, sensible, knowing, wise, etc. (2) Man can be defined specifically only in the light of those operational concepts which have peculiar reference to him as man. (By operational is meant a judgment, based on shared experience, not of what an entity appears to be, but of how it acts,) The operational concepts relating to man may be divided roughly into three classes as determined by the levels of organization or dimensions in his being: namely, those which are specific of him, characteristic of man onlythe psychical, metapsychical, and psychological concepts; those which he shares with all living beingsthe biological and physiological concepts; and those of physics, chemistry, and mechanics, those which he shares with the inanimate creationthe physiochemical concepts. An incalculable amount of error has crept into scientific thinking as a consequence of the unwarranted mingling of the concepts peculiar to one dimension of the human being with those specific of another. So writes the late Dr. Alexis Carrel (MU, 3234): he goes on to say: It is nothing but word play to explain a psychological phenomenon in terms of cell physiology or of quantum mechanics. However, the mechanistic physiologists of the nineteenth century, and their disciples who still linger with us, have committed such an error in endeavoring to reduce man entirely to physical chemistry. This unjustified generalization of the results of sound experience is due to over-specialization. Concepts should not be misused. They must be kept in their place in the hierarchy of the sciences. (3) All the attempts which have been made in recent years to reduce man to a kind of glorified brute have endedas all such attempts are bound to doin complete failure, for the obvious reason that man is more than a brute. Even the most ardent evolutionist admitsat least implicitlythat man has evolved beyond the brute stage; that is to say, that he is animal plus, and it is the plus that makes him man. Man is specifically mind, spirit, etc., that is, that part of the organism which is man actually, is essentially non-corporeal. Or, as one writer has put it: Spatial predicates do not apply to minds or ideas. The very fact that man has advanced beyond the mere animal stage (as the evolutionists would put it) means that he is obligated by his very nature to use his reason to control his appetites and passions and to direct his will. (4) Any adequate study of human abilities must involve the problem of the meaning of meaning. A sensation is an event in the nervous system, But the consciousness (awareness) of this sensation is something else. Obviously, it is not the sensation itself, but an experience caused by the sensation. The sensation is event A, the consciousness of it is event B. And no one knows, no one can even begin to explain, what consciousness really is. We do know, however, that consciousness brings into play certain word-symbols, such as joy, pain, sorrow, disgust, remorse, etc., to identify the particular sensation or affect. But the use of word-symbols obtrudes the whole problem of meaning into the picture: to what do these word-symbols refer? Sensation is physiological, to be sure. But experience convinces us that consciousness does not belong in that category, and that meaning cannot be reduced to physiology at all. Sensation occurs in the body, but meaning is a phenomenon of the thought process. There is no correlate in the brain for meaning in thought. Hence the utter folly of trying to reduce psychology to sheer physiology.
14. The Power of Abstract Thought specifies man as man. (1) Abstract is from abs, from, and trahere, to draw, hence, to draw from. Cognition, or knowing, for example, is a process of abstraction. The first step in cognition is the sense-perception of an object, such as a chair, book, etc. The second step is that of image-ing or imagination, the process by which the mind abstracts and stores away the image of the thing perceived. (When a student leaves the classroom, he does not take with him in his head or in his mind the actual chair in which he has been sitting: he takes only the image of the chair.) The third and final step in cognition occurs when the mind abstracts from both the sense-perceived thing and the image thereof, a process which is known as conceptualization. The concept (universal, form) is essentially an act of thought, a determination of the essence of the thing once perceived, that is, the aggregate of properties which puts the thing (apprehended as the object) in its particular class of things. It is by conceptualizing that man is able to transcend the space-time dimension in which he is confined corporeally. E.g., the word horse, as such, as a combination of letters, is only a symbol. But every symbol has its referent; every figure is a figure of something. Hence, the referent of the word-symbol horse may be an actual horse now being perceived by physical vision, i.e., the percept (particular). Or its referent may be the totality of the properties which go to make up the essence of every horse that ever did or ever will exist, i.e., the concept (universal). This means that man is capable of thinking in terms of past, present, and future: it means that he is capable of compiling a dictionary in which concepts are stereotyped in the form of definitions. (2) Mans power of abstract thinking has enabled him to construct language by means of which he communicates ideas. Anthropologists generally agree, I think, that mans inherent ability to construct language is the one factor which, above all others, has enabled him to drive forward throughout the ages to his present level of being and culture. As Gillin writes (WMIA, 451): By far the most ubiquitous type of symbol systems used by human beings is spoken language. Again, The ability to speak articulate language is, apparently, a feature in which the human species is unique.. Susanne Langer writes (PNK, 83): Language is, without doubt, the most momentous and at the same time the most mysterious product of the human mind. Between the clearest animal call or love or warning or anger, and a mans least, trivial word, there lies a whole day of Creation. Sapir (Lang., 810) writes: Language is a purely human and non-instinctive method of communicating ideas, emotions, and desires by means of a system of voluntarily produced symbols. He then goes on to state that language is not exclusively a psychophysical construct: the so-called organs of speech (lungs, larynx, palate, nose, tongue, and lips) he says are no more to be thought of as primary organs of speech than are the fingers to be considered as essentially organs of piano-playing or the knee as the organ of prayer. In a word, these are organs of speech if and when the person (the mind or will) chooses to use them as such. Sapir concludes: Hence, we have no recourse but to accept language as a fully formed functional system within mans psychic or spiritual constitution. We cannot define it as an entity in psychophysical terms alone, however much the psychophysical basis is essential to its functioning. Language is not only the medium by which conceptual thought is developed; it is also the means of making such thought communicable. Culture follows communication, and is enhanced by progress in facility of communication. Language, says Sapir, is universal, and perhaps the oldest of human inventions. (3) Again, mans development of the sciences of pure mathematics is perhaps the most obvious example of his power of thinking in abstract symbols. The anthropological theory that man first learned to count (in terms of tens, of course) by using his fingers and thumbs as counters, would seem to be a reasonable explanation. Indeed, counters are used in the classroom today to make young children acquainted with the number series. We can be sure, however, that counters (marbles, pebbles, blocks, etc.) were never used anywhere or under any circumstances to multiply 999,999 by 999,999. Pure mathematics in its more complex aspects must have been the product of human thought in its most abstract form, Mathematics is, of course, like verbal speech, one of the sciences of communication. The same is basically true of music: as everyone knows, music has its foundation in mathematical relationshipsa fact which the Greek philosopher-mystic, Pythagoras, discovered in the long, long ago. Man has what might be called indefinite (though not infinite) power to think and live in mathematical, and hence metaphysical, terms. (4) The meaning of meaning is in itself an abstraction. Meaning is an essential feature of consciousness, over and above, and of a nature different from, the sensory content. A word that is read to a person comes into that persons consciousness as sound and meaning. A wild beast perceives a sound in the human voice; a trained animal discovers a kind of meaning (perhaps a command, or a summons to food and drink); but a human being alone discerns therein a thought. There is no alchemy of wishful thinking by which a mental process can be reduced to a cellular process exclusively: no matter how the two processes are correlated, they are not identical. Any theory that consciousness has no real efficacy or significance, or that mind, as a projection of a biological process, can be described simply in terms of stimulus and response is utterly inadequate to account for the more refined abstract phenomena of mans psychical and metapsychical dimensions. (5) Dr. Ernst Cassirer, in his excellent little book, An Essay on Man, develops the thesis that man is to be defined, not in terms of a metaphysical substance of some kind, nor in terms of an empirically discerned biological set of instincts, but in terms of his specific tendency to think and live by means of symbols. It is this power and tendency to symbolify, Cassirer holds, which has produced the facets of his culture, namely, language, art, myth, and ritual. Even much of his history is written in terms of symbols-records and documents surviving from past ages. And symbolizing, no matter what form it may take, is essentially abstraction.
15. The Power of Creative Imagination also specifies man as man. Creative imagination is thinking in terms of the possible and the ideal: it lies at the root of practically all of mans achievements. It is popularly regarded, of course, as confined to the realm of art, as finding its outlet primarily in artistic productions. This it surely does: as Chesterton has put it, Art is the signature of man. But we must not overlook the fact that mans creative imagination is equally as responsible for his science as for his art, The scientist, in his laboratory, envisions what might be, under such-and-such conditions; he proceeds to set up the conditions; then he performs the experiment and thus demonstrates whether his theory is true or false. Thus it isby the trial-and-error methodthat science has attained the level of achievement which it exhibits in our day. Mans creative imagination is the root of all his technology; scarcely an invention (tool) is known which did not exist in theory before it existed in fact. Then, too, man has always been subject to the lure of the ideal: think of the utopian books which have been written, embodying mans efforts to envision and portray the ideal society: Platos Republic, Mores Utopia, Bacons New Atlantis, Campanellas City of the Sun, Butlers Erewhon, etc. Think of the achievements of such creative geniuses as Pythagoras, Archimedes, Paracelsus, Da Vinci, the Curies, Pasteur, the Mayos, Einstein, etc.! There is little doubt that mans creative imagination has its fountainhead in the powers of the Subconscious.
16. A Sense of Values also specifies man as man. (1) Because he is a rational and moral being, he has ever demonstrated his propensity to evaluate: hence, to coin such words as truth, honor, beauty, justice, goodness, and the liketerms which have no meaning whatsoever for a lower animal. There are many who hold that this sense of values is innate: Aristotle, for example, had this to say (Politics, I, 2, 1253a, Jowett trans.): It is a characteristic of man that he alone has any sense of good and evil, of just and unjust, and the like, and the association of living beings who have this sense makes a family and a state. Scholastic philosophers likewise have consistently maintained that the sense of right and wrong, of good and bad, is inherent in all men, whatever their condition in life or level of culture: that no people ever existed lacking this elementary sense of moral discrimination. This they designate the Ethical Fact. (2) It must be acknowledged that this sense of values has inspired mans development of the science of jurisprudence. Jurisprudence has its basis in morality; that is, in human relations, relations among moral beings (persons). As ethics, the science of moral action, has been developed little by little throughout the centuries, so jurisprudence, the science of law, has been developed little by little along with ethics. Jurisprudence is the product of mans reason, formulated for the purpose of preserving those relations and acts which he has found necessary to his well-being, and preventing those which he has found to be destructive of individual character and social order. (3) Law is either customary (handed down by word of mouth from generation to generation) or statutory (permanently embodied in some stereotyped form). Originally, law was promulgated in the form of tradition; later, when writing came into use, by carving on wood, stone, metal, clay tablets, etc. (e.g., the Roman Law of the Twelve Tables; the two tables of stone of the Mosaic Code; the Code of Hammurabi in Babylon, about 1800 B.C., engraved on a pillar of black diorite, and now in the Louvre, Paris; the Code of Solon in Athens, carved on wooden rollers or prisms, set up in the court of the archon basileus, so that they could be turned and read by the people, etc.). In the later historic period, law was inscribed on parchment or papyrus; today, it exists in printed form, in the statute books of civilized peoples. Law is the product of human thought: anyone with an ounce of gumption knows that neither ethics nor jurisprudence exists among brutes.
17. The Power of Laughter also specifies man as man. This is a fact which cannot be over-emphasized. But what is laughter? We do not know. Books and parts of books have been written on the subject, without shedding much light on the source or nature of this remarkable human phenomenon. Genuine humor is, of course, the ability to laugh at the follies and foibles of mankind, especially ones own, without becoming bitter: it is to recognize mans frailties but to go on loving him in spite of them. Genuine humorists are rare in the history of world literature (such as Chaucer, Sterne, Jane Austen, Will Rogers): too many have vitiated humor by resort to bitterness, cynicism, cruel satire, and the like (e.g., Jonathan Swift and Mark Twain). The sense of humor is a priceless possession, and one which we Americans cannot lose without losing our heritage. Richard Armour, writing in The Saturday Evening Post, of December 12, 1953, has presented the case eloquently. An American fighter pilot, he writes, shot down behind the North Korean lines, imprisoned for two and a half years, starved until he weighed barely 100 pounds, and beaten time and again to the edge of unconsciousness, made three extremely revealing statements when he got home. The first: I never saw any evidence of a sense of humor on the part of the Chinese and North Korean Communists. The second: One thing that made it possible for us to stick it out was our seeing the funny side of things. The third: How about the fellows who couldnt laugh? Theyre dead. This writer goes on to show that dictators are necessarily humorless men. For them to fail to be deadly serious would be to vitiate the impression of their self-exploited indispensability which they must keep uppermost in the minds of their dupes. For them to permit themselves to be laughed at would result in their downfall. The sourpuss, says Mr. Armour, is as much a trade-mark of Communism as the hammer and sickle. He concludes: Dictators fear laughter and know that people who keep their wit as well as their wits about themas the Dutch did under the Nazis; and the Poles now do under the Communistsare hard to subjugate. A sense of humor may be the secret weapon of the democracies. Laughter is healthy, wholesome and civilizing. Laughing at our sometimes desperate circumstances helps keep us sane. Laughter at our sometimes overproud, sometimes overpetty, selves helps keep us down toand up tohuman size. After all, the ability to laugh is one of the distinctions between man and the animals. It may also be one of the distinctions between free people and slaves. It is a recognized fact that a well-developed sense of humor is one of the unfailing ear-marks of a mature person. A popular novelist makes one of his characters remark about a certain young woman: When once she learns to laugh at herself, she will begin to grow up. The sense of humor, and the power of laughter which goes with it, seem to be lost only when men cease to be genuinely human and become fanatics crazed by the assumption of their own self-righteousness and indispensability.
18. The Phenomena of the Subconscious uniquely specify man as man. (1) There is no more generally accepted fact in present-day psychology than that of the unbroken continuity of the psychic processes on the subliminal level. The total content of the psyche is at any given time far more vast than the content of consciousness at the particular time. (2) Intimations of the powers of the inner self which have been opened to view by psychic research are found in two of the most common facts of human experience, namely, the subconscious association of ideas and the subconscious maturing of thought, as illustrated in the sudden appearing in a dream or in a dreamlike moment of waking, of the solution of a problem which has been vexing the mind in the hours of objective awareness and reasoning. (3) Review, at this point, the distinctions between the objective and subjective, the conscious and subconscious, aspects of the psyche (the inward man) as interpreted by present-day research, as presented supra in the section entitled, Body, Soul, and Spirit, In this connection, the student must also keep in mind the fact that the Subconscious of psychic phenomena, which is completely psychical in content, is not to be confused with the Unconscious of Freudianism, which is psychophysiological. (Review also the stream-of-consciousness psychology of William James.) (4) Hypnosis is practiced extensively today, in different fieldsin dentistry, sometimes in surgery, in childbirth, etc. Autohypnosis occurs in trances characteristic of orgiastic religious cults. Catalepsy is a state of deep hypnosis in which the patient is rendered insensible to fleshly pain. Compare hibernation in animals, for example, with suspended animation in human beings. (5) Phenomena of the Subconscious which indicate the human spirits transcendence of the space-time dimension are telepathy (communication of thought and feeling from one person to another, regardless of distance involved, without the mediation of the physical senses), clairvoyance (the power to see physical objects or events apart from the media of the physical senses), and prescience (foreknowledge of events in time). These are the phenomena included under the well-known term, extra-sensory perception, ESP. These phenomena are under study in various colleges and universities in our day, notably by Dr. J. B. Rhine and his colleagues of the Department of Parapsychology at Duke University. (See Rhines books, The Reach of the Mind, The New World of the Mind, etc.) Certainly such phenomena as telepathy and clairvoyance support the Biblical doctrines of inspiration and revelation: if human spirit can communicate with human spirit without the use of physical media, surely the Divine Spirit can in like manner communicate Gods truth to selected human spirits (Act. 2:4, 1Co. 2:10-13, Mat. 10:16-17, Joh. 16:13-14, Mat. 10:19-20). The phenomena of prescience, of course, support the claim of prophetic insight and prophetic transcendence of time that is characteristic of Biblical religion. (6) Phenomena of the Subconscious which point up the human spirits apparently unlimited power of knowing, are perfect memory and perfect perception of the fixed mathematical) laws of nature. Thus the perfect memory of the Subconscious provides a scientific basis for the doctrine of future rewards and punishments. Who knows but that perfect memory, by which the self preserves the records of its own deeds, both good and evil, may prove to be the worm that never dies, and conscience (that is, unforgiven, guilty conscience) the fire that is never quenched (Luk. 16:19-31, Mar. 9:43-48, Rev. 20:11-15). Again, the perfect perception, by the Subconscious, of the fixed laws of nature, supports the view that Life Everlasting will not be a matter of stretched-out time, but essentially illumination or fulness of knowledge, that is, intuitive apprehension of eternal Truth, Beauty, and Goodness: in a word, eternal life will be wholeness or holinessthe union of the human mind with the Mind of God in knowledge, and of the human will with the Will of God in love. This will be the Summum Bonum, the Beatific Vision (1Co. 13:12, 1Jn. 3:1-3). (In the life we now live on earth this phenomenon of perfect perception manifests itself in mathematical prodigies, musical prodigies (perfect pitch), photographic memory, idiot-savants, and the various aspects and fruits of what we call creative imagination.) (7) Phenomena of the Subconscious which support the view that spirit (mind) is pre-eminent over body are those which are exhibited in cases of suggestion and auto-suggestion. These phenomena remind us that all men are endowed by the Creator with psychic powers designed to be of great value to them in maintaining physical and mental health, if they will but utilize these powers as they should. (Cf. Pro. 23:7, Php. 4:8). This fundamental fact is the basis of what is known and practiced in our day as psychosomatic medicine. (See the great work by H. Bernheim, Suggestive Therapeutics, recently re-published by the London Book Company, 3041 Fiftieth Street, Woodside, New York.) (8) Phenomena such as those of psychokinesis, levitation, automatic writing, the projection of ectoplasms and phantasms, and the like, seem to indicate that the thought energy of the Subconscious has the power to transmute itself into what we call physical energy and thus to produce physical phenomena. Psychokinesis (or telekinesis) is that kind of phenomenon in which ponderable objects are said to be influenced, and even moved, by thought energy alone. Dr. Rhine and his colleagues have long been experimenting in this field and claim to have obtained positive results. In automatic writing, the Subconscious is said to assume control of the nerves and muscles of the arm and hand and to propel the pencil. Levitation is not, as often defined, the illusion that a heavy body is suspended in the air without visible support: it is alleged by students of psychic phenomena to be the real thing, produced by subconscious thought power. Ectoplasm is defined by Hamlin Garland as an elementary substance that is given off by the human body, at the command of the Subconscious, in varying degrees. He conceives it to be ideoplastic, that is, capable of being moulded, by the subjective thought power either of the psychic or of the sitter, in various shapes. To quote the distinguished physicist, Dr. Millikan: To admit telekinesis and the formation of ectoplasmic phantasms is not to destroy the smallest fragment of scienceit is but to admit new data, to recognize that here are unknown energies. Materialization does not contradict one established fact: it merely adds new facts (quoted by Garland, FYPR, 379, 380). Phantasms are described as thought projections of the Subconscious, that is, ethereal reconstructions of matter by the power of thought. They may be called embodied thoughts, we are told, even as man may rightly be called the embodied thought of God. Truly, then, thoughts are things. (It should be made clear at this point that these phenomena are not to be identified with aspects of what is known in Scripture as necromancy, such as, for example, alleged communication between the dead and the living. All forms of necromancy, conjuration, sorcery, occultism, etc., are strictly condemned in both the Old and New Testaments: (cf. Exo. 22:18, Lev. 19:26; Lev. 19:31; Lev. 20:6, Deu. 18:10-12; Gal. 5:20, Rev. 21:8; Rev. 22:15, etc.). (9) All such phenomena as psychokinesis, levitation, ectoplasms, phantasms, etc., serve to support the view of the primacy of thought (spirit) in the totality of being. In the possession and use of these powers of thought energy, thought projection, and thought materialization, man, it is contended, reveals the spark of the Infinite that is in him, and thus himself gives evidence of having been created in Gods image. For, is not the cosmos itself, according to Biblical teaching, a construct of the Divine Will, a projection of the Divine Spirit, an embodiment of the Divine Thought as expressed by the Divine Word (Genesis 1; Psa. 33:6; Psa. 33:9; Psa. 148:1-6; Heb. 11:3)? Biblical teaching is simply that the Will of God, as expressed by His Word, and actualized by His Spirit, is the Constitution (that which constitutes) of our universe, both physical and moral.
(10) To summarize: It will thus be seen that the phenomena of the Subconscious prove that mind is continuously activeit never sleeps, not even when the body is at rest. They also go to prove the independence, transcendence, and imperishability of the essential human person, the human spirit, and therefore support the spiritualistic (as against the materialistic) view of mans origin, nature, and destiny. They confirm the fact of the primacy of spirit in man, and, on the basis of the Principle of Sufficient Reason (that whatever begins to exist must have an adequate cause) they support our conviction of the priority and sovereignty of the Divine Spirit in whose image man was created (Joh. 4:24; Job. 32:8; Job. 33:4; Heb. 12:9). (For those who wish to pursue the study of the Subconscious further, the following books are recommended, in addition to those already mentioned as works by Dr. Rhine: F. W. H. Myers, The Human Personality and its Survival of Bodily Death, 2 vols., Longmans, Green and Company, New York; Hereward Carrington, The Story of Psychic Science, published by Ives Washburn, New York; Dr. Alexis Carrel, Man the Unknown, published by Harpers, New York; Hamlin Garland, Forty Years of Psychic Research, Macmillan, New York. Also The Law of Psychic Phenomena, by Dr. T. J. Hudson, the 32nd edition of which was published in 1909. Some of these works are now out of print, but copies are usually available at second-hand bookstores. For out-of-print books, write the London Book Company, Woodside, New York, or Basil Blackwell, Broad Street, Oxford, England.)
19. The Mind-Body Problem, That thought processes do take place continuously in man, no matter how they are to be accounted for, can hardly be a matter of controversy: such processes are facts of every persons experience. This, of course, accentuates the old mind-body problem, which is no nearer solution today than it ever was. (1) Generally speaking, it appears to be an empirical fact that mental life, as man experiences it in his present state, is correlated with brain activity: if certain parts of the brain are damaged or removed, certain aspects of conscious life cease to occur. To say, however, that either consciousness or thought is connected with the activity of brain cells in some inscrutable manner is a far cry from affirming that either consciousness or thought is exclusively brain activity. Correlation is not identity. We have already noted the distinctions between sensation, on the one hand, and consciousness and meaning, on the other. We repeat here that there is no correlate between cellular activity in the brain and meaning in thought. The idea that such a connection exists, is inconceivable. Moreover, the fact that brain activity is in some way connected with mental activity in no way militates against the Biblical doctrines of survival and immortality. (This matter is fully treated infra, in the section on The Assumptions of Scientism.) (2) We often hear statements such as the following: Thoughts are nothing but electro-chemical impulses through neural pathways in the brain. Colors are nothing but different wave-lengths of radiant energy. Pain is nothing but a certain kind of excitation of the nerve-endings. Sounds are nothing but movements in a vibrating medium which make their impact on the human ear. Man is nothing but a biological being. The foregoing statements (cliches) are examples of the (now recognized in logic) fallacy of over-simplification, sometimes called the nothing-but fallacy or the reductive fallacy. They are unjustifiable identifications of mental events with physical or physiological events. The human being is not so simply constructed. (3) Present-day philosophy does not regard the mind-body problem as being any nearer solution than it has been in the past. Plato, as we have noted, was a complete dualist. For him, the soul (or mind) was an eternally pre-existent entity, which is incarcerated for the time being in an, alien corporeal prison-house, from which it may be liberated ultimately, after successive re-incarnations, only by the death of the body. Platos great pupil, Aristotle, taught that the soul exists as the animating principle of the living body in this world, that body and soul co-exist in an inseparable organic unity, that indeed the soul cannot exist independently of the body which it informs and actualizes. Augustine modified the teaching of Platonism on this subject by affirming that man is both body and soul and must be redeemed (perfected) as a thing of both flesh and spirit, Aquinas, strictly a disciple of Aristotle, interpreted the latter as teaching that the soul might possibly exist apart from the body, but can exist in a fully perfected state only when united to body, either in this natural life or in its resurrected state. Descartes, the first of the modern philosophers, also modified Platonic dualism, by defining man (that is, mind) as finite thinking substance, thus restricting the term soul to include only the human thought processes, We have already noted that Biblical teaching throughout presents the human being as a body-spirit (or body-mind) unity (Psa. 84:2), and expressly affirms that salvation occurs ultimately, that is, as perfected or complete, in the clothing of the redeemed in their spiritual (or ethereal) bodies. This body-spirit or body-mind doctrine is in complete harmony with the psychosomatic (or organismic) approach of modern science, especially the science of medicine. (Organismic in philosophy designates a structure with parts so integrated that their relation to one another is governed by their relation to the whole.). Again I affirm that this organismic interpretation of the human being is in complete accord with the Christian doctrine of immortality. (4) However, psychologists who adopt the organismic approach to the study of the human being, even when this approach is applied to the study of human behavior exclusively, find themselves compelled to adopt dualistic concepts in describing human motivation: hence, they distinguish between what they call viscerogenic (i.e., biological or physiological) drives, and what they call psychogenic (i.e., originating in more refinedand essentially personalfactors, such as ideals, interests, values, tastes, inclinations, sentiments, traits, attitudes, etc.) drives. I suggest that it would be conducive to clarity of understanding to use the simpler terms, physical and mental (or psychical), respectively.
(5) One proposed solution of the mind-body problem is that which is designated epiphenomenalism, a term coined by T. H. Huxley. This is the view that mind is just the name we give to certain phenomena which merely accompany certain kinds of processes and changes in the nervous system; so-called mental states are a kind of aura, so to speak, which hover about the brain processes without having any substantive existence themselves or any special function; in a word, mind is nothing but a natural brain function. Consciousness arises in some kind of transformation of neural energy, but is not itself a distinct form of being of any kind. Whatever movement takes place is a one-way process: from body toward what is called mind, never from mind toward body. Now there is indeed a possibility that there is a correlation between the forces of the electro-magnetic field and the life and thought processes. This, however, does not necessarily mean that when the physical body dies, the mind, self, or person dies with it. As we shall note later, contrary to the assumptions of the materialists, this theory can be seen readily to harmonize with the Biblical doctrine of immortality. (6) A few clarifying words are in order here about the much-exploited Conditioned Reflex, and along with it, Watsonian behaviorism. The Conditioned Reflex (the dog-and-drool psychology), the most rudimentary form of learning, is essentially a physiological act. Thisthe conditioned reflexis a term which has been given widespread currency in recent years (with but little justification) as a result of the experiments reported by the Russian biologist, Pavlov (died in 1936). Pavlov performed his experiment on dogs. Having first made sure that the visual perception of food (stimulus A) would elicit a flow of saliva (for which he contrived a measuring apparatus) and that the sound of a gong (stimulus B) would not, Pavlov then presented gong and food together, either in immediate succession or with some temporal overlap, for a number of times, and found that the presentation of the sound of the gong (stimulus B) alone would then cause salivation. A similar technique has been used many times with human subjects and it has been found that responses can be conditioned in the same way. This is especially true of infants; as a matter of fact, reflexive conditioning is perhaps the most elementary form of learning. It is certainly the modus operandi of animal training. It is now known, however, that a conditioned reflex, although established by many repetitions of both the original and conditioning stimuli, is soon lost. Moreover, it should be noted that whatever may be the stimulus that produces it (i.e., whether the original or the conditioning stimulus), the response is not altered by the conditioning. This means that conditioning is simply the extension of the range of stimuli that will elicit the same response: hence it is at most only a theory of afferent (bearing inward) learning. And by no stretch of the imagination can this type of conditioning rightly be regarded as accounting for more than just a small fraction of the learning process. It is obvious that the process of learning as a whole involves not only an extension of the range of effective stimuli (afferent learning), but also conscious alteration of response to the same stimulus (efferentbearing outwardlearning). This alteration of response, moreover, must come from within the individual and involves personal choice: indeed man is distinguished from the brute by his power of varying his responses, and even of delaying his response, to the same stimulus (e.g., eating a steak to satisfy an immediate demand of the appetite, or refraining from eating the steak for the sake of health). Variability of possible responses to any given stimulus necessitates personal choice. The mature individual does not respond to the same stimulus in the same manner as he responded as a child or as a youth; his responses are more refined, that is, more precise, perhaps more effectively adaptive. Of course, if conditioning is extended to include all forms of learning, as is done generally today in classes in psychology and in education, then, to avoid the fallacy of a circular argument, distinction must be made between reflexive conditioning and ideational conditioning of human responses. The conditioning of human acts by the introduction and association of ideas takes place at a much higher level than the conditioning which produces the essentially physiological conditioned reflex (such as that of Pavlovs experiment). Alteration of response at this higher level brings into play the conscious and voluntary activity of the person. Finally, it is doubtful that conditioning as a theory of learning (and hence of motivation) is any improvement upon its predecessor, the venerable doctrine of association. In Pavlovs experiment, for example, did the dog salivate merely because of the sounding of the gong or because of its continued association of that sound in its own memory with the reception of food? Surely common sense supports the latter view. Conditioning, therefore, of the type of Pavlovs experiment, although probably accounting for the rudimentary beginnings of the learning process, in infants and young children, falls far short of accounting for the more mature phase of that process which begins with accountability and extends throughout the rest of life. As a matter of fact, the Conditioned Reflex explains very little, insofar as human learning is concerned. (7) In the nineteen-twenties and following, one Professor John B. Watson, came forth with a theory in which he repudiated the traditional concept of thinking, describing it as subvocal speechtalking, that is, under ones breath. This caused Dr. Will Durant to quip that Dr. Watson had made up his larynx that he did not have a mind. Watsons book, Behaviorism, sold into hundreds of thousands of copies. His theory, however, has gone the way of Dianetics, Hadacol, Kilroy was here, and other passing fads. It has ever been a matter of amazement to me that any intelligent person could find it possible to swallow such a shallow concept. Today the theory receives passing mention only in textbooks on the history of psychology.
(8) The commonsense view of the mind-body relationship is known as interactionism. According to this view, mind and body continuously interact, each upon the other: the relation is that of a two-way process, that of mind upon body, and at the same time that of body on mind. This is the view that is implicit in the practice of psychosomatic medicine. That interaction of this kind does take place is the testimony of everyday experience, although it must be admitted that the mode of this interaction seems to be unfathomable. The student, for example, does not leave the room after class until he makes up his mind to propel his feet toward the door. The pitcher in a baseball game throws the ball if and when and how he makes up his mind (wills) to use his arm to throw it. I am reminded here of what Dr. Rudolph Otto has written (IH, 214): For a manifestation of the influence exerted by the psychical upon the physical, we need in fact go no farther than the power of our will to move our bodythe power, that is, of a spiritual cause to bring about a mechanical effect. This assuredly is an absolutely insoluble riddle, and it is only the fact that we have grown so used to it that prevents it from seeming a miracle to us. I commend the following summarization by the late C. E. M. Joad (GP, 498): Common sense holds that a human being is not exclusively a body. He has a body, but he is, it would normally be said, more than his body; and he is more, in virtue of the existence of an immaterial principle which, whether it be called mind, soul, consciousness or personality, constitutes the reality of his being. This immaterial principle, most people hold, is in some way associated with the bodyit is frequently said to reside in itand animates and controls it. It is on some such lines as these that the plain man would, I think, be inclined to describe the make-up of the human being. He would describe the human organism, that is to say, as a duality. In the view of the present writer this commonsense account, which discerns in a human being the presence of two radically different principles, the one material and the other immaterial, is nearer to the truth than any other of the alternatives in the field. (This is in exact accord with the teaching of Gen. 2:7, that man is a creature of both earth and heaven.) Psychologists tacitly admit the impossibility of a naturalistic resolution of the mind-body problem: this they do simply by ignoring it and giving their attention almost exclusively to the study of human behavior.
20. Homo sapiens (Gen. 2:7). (1) This is the term we use here, because it is the term used by present-day science to designate man as we know him and as he has proved himself to be by his works, in both prehistoric and historic times. The term means literally, wise man, that is, man who is capable of reason, who is specified by his thought processes. Dictionary definitions of the term are the following: Man, regarded as a biological species; and, the single surviving species of the genus Homo, and of the primate family, Hominidae, to which it belongs. It will be noted that the first of these definitions involves something of a paradox: as we have surely proved, man is not a strictly biological specieshe is more than biologicalhe is psychobiological, a body-mind or body-spirit unity (body-mind, if only the conscious part of his psyche is. being considered, but body-spirit, if the phenomena of the Subconscious in him are being considered.) (It is a favorite trick of the self-styled naturalists to incorporate all human powers, psychical and metapsychical included, into what they think of as a biological totality, when as a matter of fact they are begging the question every time they arbitrarily extend the biological into the area of these higher phenomena characteristic of man. Petitio principii is a common fallacy to which scientists are prone, especially those who have never grounded their thinking in the discipline of metaphysics.) (2) Gen. 2:7 is one of the most meaningful and far-reaching statements in literature. However, its import can certainly be obscured by extremist interpretations. Dr. James H. Jauncey writes so clearly on this point (SRG, 56), affirming that evolution or any other theory of the origin of man cannot make God superfluous, as evidenced by the fact that Darwin himself in his Origin of Species (ch. 15, last paragraph) concedes that in the beginning the Creator gave life to one of a few primary forms. Jauncey continues as follows: On the other hand, it is equally important for the student of the Bible to avoid reading into Scripture what it does not say. It is easy to assume that when the Bible says that God created man from the dust of the earth, it means that He made some kind of mud and out of this formed a man in the same way that a kindergarten child forms an image of man out of clay. But the Bible does not say this. It gives no indication of the process God used. If it should prove that this process was not instantaneous, this would not be surprising with a Creator who takes years to make an oak out of an acorn. He could make a mature man in a fraction of a second, but in fact He takes some twenty years and a very complicated and intricate process to do so. This does not mean that God could not have created the first man instantaneously. Indeed, He may well have done so, but it does mean that we cannot assume what the Bible does not in fact say. All this boils down to the single fact that the whole problem is not one of Divine power, but of the Divine method. Dr. A. H. Strong (ST, 465476), on the other hand, goes all out for the doctrine of Creation (including that of man) by evolution. He writes as follows: The Scriptures, on the one hand, negative the idea that man is the mere product of unreasoning natural forces. They refer his existence to a cause different from mere nature, namely, the creative act of God . . . But, on the other hand, the Scriptures do not disclose the method of mans creation. Whether mans physical system is or is not derived, by natural descent, from the lower animals, the record of creation does not inform us. As the command, Let the earth bring forth living creatures (Gen. 1:24) does not exclude the idea of mediate creation, through natural generation, so the forming of man of the dust of the ground (Gen. 2:7) does not in itself determine whether the creation of mans body was mediate or immediate . . . Evolution does not make the idea of a Creator superfluous, because evolution is only the method of God. It is perfectly consistent with a Scriptural doctrine of Creation that man should emerge at the proper time, governed by different laws from the brute creation, yet growing out of the brute, just as the foundation of a house built of stone is perfectly consistent with the wooden structure built upon it. All depends upon the plan. An atheistic and undesigning evolution cannot include man without excluding what Christianity regards as essential to man. But a theistic evolution can recognize the whole process of mans creation as equally the work of nature and the work of God . . . While we concede, then, that man has a brute ancestry, we make two claims by way of qualification and explanation: first, that the laws of organic development which have been followed in mans origin are only the methods of God and proofs of His creatorship; secondly, that man, when he appears upon the scene, is no longer brute, but a self-conscious and self-determining being, made in the image of the Creator and capable of free moral decision between good and evil.
(3) The present writer takes the position here that Gen. 2:7 is surely an anthropomorphic revelation of Divine truth unparalleled in literature. The fact stands out clearly that the inspired writer intends, by this one great affirmation, that man shall know the truth concerning his origin and his nature, from which his destiny as an individual (person) is to be determined. He intends all men to know that each has within himbreathed into him by the Creator Himselfthe potentiality of becoming a sharer of divinity (2Pe. 1:4); that his very life is a Divine gift which is to be given back to God in loving obedience and service (Rom. 12:1, Mat. 22:35-40); that he is constituted a person by creation, with all the rights and duties that attach to persons simply and solely because they have been created persons. This is the only doctrine of man that makes sense or that can give hope to his life in this present world. There is more truth and meaning for man in this one Scripture, Gen. 2:7, than is to be found in all the tomes written by man himself (no matter how scholarly), all the products of human speculation the majority of which confuse more than they clarify. (This subject is treated more fully in Part Ten infra.)
FOR MEDITATION, SERMONIZING, AND SPECIAL STUDY
What Is Man?
Psa. 8:4. It seems that the eighth Psalm was written under the spell of the nighttime. The inspired psalmist, contemplating the heavenly bodies in their courses, the stars in all their glory, and the moon in her reflected brightness, with sweet reasonableness associates himself with the cosmos he inhabits, and begins to realize both his weakness and his strength. No science is more calculated to inspire with lofty emotion than that of astronomy. It is not possible for any honest and intelligent person to look out upon the vastness of heavens canopyset with a multitude of starry worldswithout finding his thoughts turning to the contemplation and adoration of the One who made all this to be (Psa. 19:1-6; Psa. 33:6; Psa. 33:9; Psa. 104:1-6; Psa. 148:5-6; Isa. 40:18-26, etc.). From contemplation of the Creator and His wonderful natural works, our minds descend, like the psalmists, to meditation on the creature; and, in humility, we exclaim: What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
Throughout his history, man has written many things, both good and bad, about man. Alexander Pope, in his Essay on Man, wrote as follows:
Know then thyself, presume not God to scan,
The proper study of mankind is man.
Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A being darkly wise and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the skeptic side,
With too much weakness for the stoics pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest;
In doubt to deem himself a god, or beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reasoning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little or too much:
Chaos of thought and passion, all confused;
Still by himself abused, or disabused;
Created half to rise, and half to fall;
Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all;
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurled:
The glory, jest, and riddle of the world.
Shakespeare, however, wrote of Homo sapiens in more extravagant terms (Hamlet, II, ii, 315320): What a piece of work is man; How noble in reason! How infinite in faculties! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an angel! In apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world! The paragon of animals . . . Jonathan Swift, the English satirist, at the opposite pole of thought, once exclaimed: I hate and detest the animal called man. And someone has dubbed man the joker in the deck of nature. It was Aristotle, however, who, in an excerpt quoted supra, struck a saner, more felicitous note, emphasizing the amazing range of mans moral potentialities. What is man? is a. question that must be approached from different points of view. What is man
1. As to his nature? (1) He is the image of God (Gen. 1:27), obviously in a personal sense (Exo. 3:14). (2) Operationally, he is dualistic as to his powers. As an organism, he is made up of the elements that make up all matter (as to his body), the whole vitalized (as to his spirit) by Divine inbreathing (Psa. 139:14, Job. 33:4). He is a body-spirit unity, a living soul (Gen. 2:7, 1Co. 15:45).
2. As to his place in creation? (1) He has been made a little lower than God (A.S.V.), than the angels (A.V.). (Psa. 8:4-9, Heb. 2:5-9). (2) He is lord tenant of earth, Gods steward over all lower orders and things (Gen. 1:28; Gen. 9:1-7). This dominion he holds by virtue of his intelligence and will; and his science is but the fulfilment, historically, of the Divine injunction to multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it. Dutt (JCHE, 12): And in this man reveals the divine within him. How else can we explain Gods creative acts? Why the universe, the earth, and man? Why did not God retain them as an idea simply, reposing in His mind? Earth was not needed either for throne or footstool, and man himself supplies nothing essential to the nature of God. But there is a side of the divine nature which can be satisfied only in the expenditure of creative energy. It expressed itself primarily in the formation of matter; secondly, in intelligence; and, lastly, in redemption. These are worthy of the mind of God, and in them we believe He takes profound delight. (Act. 14:15, Rev. 4:11).
3. As to his responsibility? (1) He is a moral being, a citizen of moral government. Morality, in its strictest sense, is conformity to the rule of right, and this rule is prescribed by the Creator, the Sovereign of the cosmos (Rom. 7:7). (2) Endowed with the power of choice by virtue of which he is a moral being, he has always been under law. The first law was positive, and hence designed to prove his moral character, both to himself and to his posterity (Gen. 2:16-17). Throughout the early centuries, the moral law was handed down by word of mouth through the patriarchs, until the Mosaic Code was added because of the transgressions of the people (Gal. 3:19, Rom. 5:12-14). But the Mosaic Law was to be binding only until the seed should come and nail it to his cross (Gal. 3:19; Gal. 3:22-24; Col. 2:13-15; Joh. 1:17; Mat. 5:17-18; 2Co. 3:1-16; Heb. 10:1-4; Heb. 8:6; Heb. 8:13, etc. Jesus, the Seed of the woman, abrogated the Mosaic Law and instituted the perfect law of liberty, i.e., the Gospel (Jas. 1:25; Jas. 2:8; Rom. 8:3; Rom. 10:4; Rom. 8:2). (This does not mean, of course, that Christians are exempt from obedience to the moral lawnot by any means! When a man makes two wills, he may take certain provisions of the first and incorporate them into the second, and they become binding, not because they were in the first will, but because they are re-enacted in the second. In like manner, the provisions of the moral law have been re-enacted in the Last Will and Testament of our Lord (Eph. 4:6; Act. 17:24; Act. 14:15; 1Jn. 5:21; Mat. 5:34; Jas. 5:12; Eph. 6:1; Eph. 6:4; 1Jn. 3:15; Rom. 13:1-10; 1Co. 6:9-10; 1Co. 6:18; Rom. 1:26-27; 2Co. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3-5; Col. 3:5; 1Ti. 1:9-10; Rev. 21:8; Rev. 22:15; Eph. 4:28; Col. 3:9; Eph. 4:25; Eph. 5:3; Luk. 12:15; 1Co. 5:11, etc.). The sole exception is, of course, the law of the Sabbath: this is not re-enacted in the New Testament; all Christian assemblies, under the guidance of the Apostles, were held on the first day of the week, the Lords Day (Joh. 16:13, Act. 20:7, 1Co. 16:2, Rev. 1:10). The Lords Day is a memorial of the Resurrection of Christ: Mar. 16:9). (3) Man is under the Divine Law as revealed in Scripture, in particular, under that which is revealed in the New Testament. Divine law was communicated orally through the patriarchs in the early ages of the world; then codified for the Hebrew People, through Moses, when they were elected to preserve the knowledge of the living God (monotheism). But the Old Covenant contained only the types and shadows of the perfect law to be revealed through Christ and His Apostles. Christ was the Word of God incarnate, and His Will, as revealed in the New Testament, is the all-sufficient Book of discipline for His elect, the church (Joh. 16:7-15; Joh. 20:22-23; Mat. 28:18-20; Act. 1:1-8; Eph. 1:20-23; 2Ti. 3:16-17). A. J. Gordon (MS, 169): Scripture is literature indwelt by the Spirit of God. The absence of the Holy Ghost from any writing constitutes the impassable gulf between it and the Scripture. (4) He has the ability to comprehend and obey the law of God, the Divine Word (Psa. 19:7; Psa. 119:89; 1Th. 2:13). He can know his duty, reflect, compare, judge, and act; hence it is evident that his present state is probationary. (5) He is, therefore, a responsible creature. Endowed with the power of choice, and put under a law that has been revealed, and having the ability to apprehend and obey that law, he is responsible to the Government of Heaven for his thoughts and deeds (1Jn. 5:2-3, Psa. 119:143; 1Sa. 15:22-23, Mat. 7:21-27; Rev. 20:11-15; Rev. 22:12-15). Law would not be law without a penalty for its violation: hence, the law of God embraces the most awful punishment of which the human mind can conceive, namely, eternal separation from God and from the glory of His might (2Th. 1:7-10, Mat. 25:45-46, Rev. 20:11-15).
4. As to his destiny? (1) He has a physical body which returns to the dust, that is, to the physical elements of which it is composed (Gen. 3:19, Job. 10:9; Psa. 103:13-16; Ecc. 12:7). (2) He is essentially imperishable spirit, Divinely inbreathed; as such he will live forever, either in a state of union with God or in a state of separation from God (Act. 7:59, Luk. 23:46, Heb. 12:9, 1Th. 5:23, Heb. 4:12, 1Co. 15:45-48, Eph. 2:19-22, Col. 1:20; 2Co. 5:1-10; 2Co. 5:17-19; Rom. 2:12-16; Rom. 5:1-5; Rom. 8:10-11; Rom. 2:5-9; Rev. 20:11-14). (3) His destiny will be Heaven or Hell. Heaven is the fellowship of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, of the good angels, and of the spirits of just men made perfect, that is, the elect of all Dispensations, clothed in glory and honor and incorruption (Heb. 12:22-24). Hell is the abode of Satan and his rebel host, and of the lost souls of earth (Psa. 9:17; Mat. 8:12; Mat. 10:28; Mar. 9:47-48; Luk. 16:19-31; 2Pe. 2:4; Jud. 1:6; Rev. 20:11-14). (4) Every mans destiny is determined by his acceptance or rejection, as the case may be, of the Mediatorship of the Lord Jesus. A complete surrender to, and walk with, our Christ leads to Heaven; neglect or refusal to confess Christ and to live according to His revealed will, leads to Hell (Mat. 7:13-14; Mat. 7:24-27; Joh. 14:1-9; Joh. 14:15; Joh. 15:10-14; 2Co. 5:17-21; 2Co. 10:5; Php. 2:12-13; Rom. 2:5-11; Rom. 12:1-2; Heb. 5:9; Joh. 5:28-29). The Spiritual Life is the life that is hid with Christ in God (Col. 3:1-4).
The three great problems of philosophy, said Immanuel Kant, are God, freedom, and immortality. From the human point of view, these are the problems of the origin, nature, and destiny of the person. There are just three problems that are of primary importance to all mankind; these are, What am I? Whence came I? and, Whither am I bound? No other matters are of any significance in comparison with these! How incalculably important then that we should live in obedience to the Word of God, in the commitment of faith, and in the assurance of hope (Heb. 6:17-20)and so live for eternity (1Jn. 5:4)! The Way itself has been made plain (Isa. 35:5-10): walk ye in it!
On the Tripersonality of God
Refer back to the us in Gen. 1:26.
Deu. 6:4Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. This truth is repeatedly emphasized throughout the entire Bible. However, the one here has reference especially to the uniqueness of God: Our Yahweh is the only Yahweh (Isa. 44:6-8; Isa. 45:5-7; Isa. 45:18; Isa. 45:20-25; 1Ti. 2:5, Eph. 4:6; Rom. 10:12; Rom. 3:30; 1Co. 8:4, Act. 17:24-28).
In this unity, however, there is embraced a triple personality, as evident from the following Scriptures: (1) the use of the plural form Elohim for the Deity (Gen. 1:1, Psa. 8:5); (2) intimations of Divine intercommunion (Gen. 1:26; Gen. 3:22; Gen. 11:7; Isa. 6:8); (3) the baptismal formula (Mat. 28:19); (4) the statements of Jesus in Joh. 14:23; Joh. 14:26; (5) the apostolic benediction (2Co. 13:14); (6) the introduction to Peters First Epistle (1Pe. 1:2).
The doctrine of the tripersonality of God may be summarized as follows:
1. In the Bible there are Three who are recognized as God: (1) the Father (Psa. 2:7, Joh. 6:27, 1Pe. 1:2, etc.); (2) the Son (Joh. 1:1; Joh. 1:18; Joh. 20:28 (note that Jesus accepts Thomass confession here without protest), Rom. 9:5, 1Jn. 5:20, Tit. 2:13); (3) the Spirit (Act. 5:3-4, 1Co. 3:16-17, Heb. 9:14, Joh. 4:24).
2. These three are so presented that we are compelled to think of them as distinct persons, as evident: (1) from passages in which the Father and the Son are distinguished from each other (Psa. 2:7; Joh. 1:14; Joh. 3:16; Gal. 4:4); (2) from passages in which the Father and the Son are spoken of as distinct from the Spirit (Joh. 15:26; Joh. 14:26; Joh. 14:16-17; Mat. 28:19; Gal. 4:6; 2Co. 13:14); (3) from passages asserting or implying the personality of the Holy Spirit, as in Act. 5:9; Act. 7:51; Act. 15:28; Joh. 14:16; 1Co. 2:10-11; Rom. 8:26; Eph. 4:30; 1Th. 5:19; Isa. 63:10. Note passages that depict the Spirit as manifesting powers of which only persons are capable (Joh. 14:16; Joh. 14:26; Joh. 15:26; Joh. 16:7-8; Joh. 16:13-14; Luk. 12:12; Mat. 4:1; Act. 9:21; 1Co. 2:9-10; 1Ti. 4:11; Gen. 6:3); as having those faculties which only persons have (Luk. 11:13; Psa. 51:11; Neh. 9:20; Rom. 8:26-27; Rom. 15:30; Act. 16:6-7; 1Co. 2:11; 1Co. 12:11); as suffering slights that can be experienced only by persons (Isa. 63:10; Mat. 12:31-32; Mar. 3:29; Act. 5:3-4; Act. 7:51; Eph. 4:30; Heb. 10:29; 1Th. 5:19); as associated with other persons, both Divine and human (Mat. 28:19, 2Co. 13:14, 1Pe. 1:2; Act. 15:28; Act. 16:6-7; Act. 8:29; Act. 10:19, etc.).
3. These distinctions of personality are immanent and eternal, as evident (1) from passages asserting the pre-existence of Christ, the Son (Joh. 1:1; Joh. 8:58; Joh. 10:30; Joh. 17:5; Joh. 17:24; Php. 2:5-6); (2) from passages asserting or implying intercourse between Father and Son previous to the Creation of the world (Joh. 17:5; Joh. 17:24; Joh. 1:18; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 12:2); (3) from passages asserting that the Son was the executive Agent in the Creation of the world (Joh. 1:3, 1Co. 8:6, Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2-10); (4) from passages which assert the eternity of the Spirit (Gen. 1:2, Psa. 33:6, Heb. 9:14, Psa. 139:7, 1Co. 2:10-11).
4. This tripersonality is not to be construed as tritheism: cf. Joh. 4:24. In other words, there are not three Gods-there is only one God. God is Three in One, however; that is, a triple personality embraced in the unity of the Divine Essence. Whereas three persons among men have the same kind of essence, the three Persons of God have the same essence. The Father is not God as such, for God is not only Father, but also Son and Holy Spirit; the Son is not God as such, for God is not only the Son, but also Father and Spirit; the Holy Spirit is not God as such, for God is not only the Spirit, but also Father and Son. This tripersonality of God was not revealed in Old Testament times, perhaps lest the Children of Israel should be tempted to drift into tritheism (the worship of three Gods), under the influence of the practices of their polytheistic pagan neighbors. Hence, in the Old Testament we have God, the Word of God, and the Spirit of God, but in the full light of the New Testament (Christian) revelation, these become known as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, respectively.
5. The immanence of these three Divine Persons in one another is set forth in the following Scriptures: Joh. 3:34; Joh. 10:30; Joh. 14:10-11; Joh. 16:14-15; Joh. 17:20-23; Eph. 4:6, 2Co. 3:17, 1Ti. 3:16, Heb. 1:3.
6. While we can draw no lines separating the Persons of the Godhead, they are presented in Scripture as capable of dissociation one from another at the same time: (1) In Joh. 14:16-17, the Son, one Person, prays to the Father, another Person, to send the Spirit, the third Person, upon the Apostles to guide them into all the truth: cf. Joh. 16:7-10, etc.; (2) the Father is distinguished from the Son as the Sender from the One sent, also as the Begetter from the One Begotten (Joh. 1:14; Joh. 3:16-17; Joh. 1:18; 1Jn. 4:9); (3) the Son is pictured as praying to the Father (Joh. 11:41-42, Mat. 26:36-46) (cf. also the 17th chapter of John); (4) the Spirit is distinguished from both the Father and the Son, and is said to have been sent by both (Joh. 14:16-17; Joh. 14:26; Joh. 15:26; Joh. 16:7; Gal. 4:4-7); (5) at the baptism of Jesus, when the Son was standing on the bank of the Jordan after coming up out of the water, the Father was speaking from Heaven, and the Spirit was descending through the air in a bodily form, as a dove (Mat. 3:16-17, Mar. 1:10-11, Luk. 3:21-22, Joh. 1:32-33).
7. This doctrine of the tripersonality of God is, of course, inscrutable. (Incidentally, it should be noted that the term, Trinity, is not to be found in Scripture.) Imperfect analogies may be cited, however, as follows: (1) the mystical union of man and woman in marriage (Mat. 19:5-6, Eph. 5:28-32); (2) the inter-relationships between Christ, the Head, and the members of His spiritual Body, the Church (Eph. 1:22-23; Rom. 12:4-5; 1Co. 12:12; Eph. 4:1-16; Eph. 5:22-23); (3) the metaphor of the vine and the branches (Joh. 15:4-5): the teaching of Jesus here is that the life of the Vine (Christ) diffuses itself in the life of every branch (individual disciple, saint, etc.), and hence that the life of each saint, vitalized as it is by the indwelling Holy Spirit (Act. 2:38, Rom. 5:5, 1Co. 6:19), is manifested in the life of all who make up the Body; (4) the complex psychosomatic unity, the human being: on the corporeal side, man is built up successively of cells, tissues, organs and systems; on the personal side, of reflexes, habits, traits, dispositions, etc., and all these are organically fused (integrated) in the incomparably complex being known as homo sapiens; (5) in the various cases of dual, or even multiple, personality that have been reported from time to time. Interesting experiments have disclosed from two to five apparently distinct, yet conflicting, personalities within a single corporeal frame. One of the most notable examples is the classic case of Sally Beauchamp, as reported by Dr. Morton Prince, in his well-known book, The Dissociation of a Personality. Hence, if dual or triple personality is possible in man, why should it be thought incredible in the Deity?
8. Nowhere is this unity of tripersonality in God brought out so forcefully as in the Great Commission, that is, in the baptismal formula authorized by our Lord Himself: baptizing them, said He, that is, baptizing those who have been made disciples, into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Baptism is the only ordinance in the entire Bible that is to be administered in the namethat is, by the authorityof the triune God: it must therefore be a most sacred, spiritual, heart act, cf. Rom. 6:17). Does this mean that the believer is to be immersed three times? No, because the singular is used, name, not names: there are not three authorities in the Godhead, not three sovereignties: there is but one Sovereigntythat of the Godhead as a whole. Hence, one immersion brings the penitent believer into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit at one and the same time, simply because the Father, Son, and Spirit are one God. So-called trine immersion, therefore, is unscriptural; it would be valid only if there were three Gods, if tripersonality were actually tritheism. But there is one, and only one God, and one immersion brings the believer into Covenant relationship with Him. (Cf. especially Eph. 4:4-6).
This doctrine of the triune personality of our God is, to be sure, mysterious, inscrutable, beyond comprehension by the finite mind. Yet it is necessary to any possibility of divine revelation and human redemption. 1. It is essential to a correct understanding of Gods relationships with man. The God who loves must make common cause with the object of His love. It has been rightly said that love is an impossible exercise in a solitary being. We need not only a God who is eternal and sovereign (Elohim), but a God as well (Yahweh) who so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life (Joh. 3:16). 2. It is essential to a proper self-revelation of God. If there are not Three Persons, then there is no Son who can adequately reveal the Father (Joh. 14:8). Herein lies the emptiness of Unitarianism and all such liberal colorless cults: they have no perfect revelation of God. And if there is no Holy Spirit, then self-communication of the Divine Being to the human being is impossible (Gen. 2:7, 1Co. 2:6-15). 3. It is essential to the Scheme of Redemption. If God is one, solitary and alone, then there can be no mediation, no atonement, no intercession, no redemption. The gulf between God and man is not one of degree, but one of kind: it is infinite. Only One who is God can bridge that gulf and effect a reconciliation. Without a Redeemer, redemption and reconciliation are meaningless terms, and religion is a human invention and sheer presumption. 4. It is essential to all true worship of God. Worship, says Jesus, is the communion of the human spirit with the Divine Spirit, on the terms and conditions as revealed by the Spirit in the Word (Joh. 4:24). Therefore, without both Spirit and Word there can be no true worship (cf. Rom. 8:26-27). 5. It is essential to any adequate Christology. Rejection of this doctrine of the tripersonality of God suffices to explain the utter inadequacy of all Unitarian and so-called modernistic views of Jesus. If Jesus was just a man, and not the Word who became flesh and dwelt among us, not the God-Man, Immanuel (Mat. 1:23), then He cannot be the Savior of anyone or anything. If He was just a teacher, a divinely illumined philosopher and ethical teacher, and no more, then His teaching, like all philosophy, is just another guess at the riddle of the universe, and the world is back where it was two thousand years ago, floundering in the muck and mire of pagan superstition. 6. It is essential to any perfect pattern of human life and conduct. We believe that Jesus was truly God with us (Mat. 1:23, Joh. 14:8). Therefore His teaching and His practice are perfect patterns for us to follow.Without the Son to reveal and to live the perfect life, the life that God would live and would have us live, then we are without an Exemplar: we have no Way, no Truth, no Life. In fact, every fundamental doctrine of the Christian FaithIncarnation, Atonement, Resurrection, Sanctification, Immortalizationis rooted deeply in the fact of the tripersonality of God.
Moreover, to speak of so-called pagan trinities in the same breath with the triune God of the Bible is to manifest either gross ignorance or a mind blinded by prejudice and a perverted will. In the first place, what are commonly called trinities in heathen mythologies are not trinities at all, but triads: that is, not three in one, but three separate ones for whom no unity of essence or function was ever claimed. In the second place, these so-called trinities are, in most cases, vague and unidentifiable; they are invariably surrounded by other gods regarded as equally powerful. In the Vedas, there were Dyaus, Indra, and Agni. In Brahmanism, there wereand still are-Brahma (Creator), Vishnu (Preserver), and Siva (Destroyer). These, among the oldest of the deities of natural religion, more nearly approximate a trinity than any similar groups; yet in either case the three constituted a triad rather than a triunity; moreover, they were thought of as ethical antagonists, in most instances. In Egyptian mythology, there were Osiris, Isis his consort, and Horus their son. But there were many other great gods in Egypt, in addition to these three, depending at times on the particular priestly caste which enjoyed dynastic power. Nor is there any well defined triad in Greek mythology. Was it Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades? Or Zeus, Hera and Athene? Or Zeus, Hera, and Apollo? Instead of a triad, the ancient Greeks generally referred to their twelve great gods. The same is generally true of the Romans, who took over these twelve great Greek gods and gave them Latin names. The Romans had gods for everything: the making of gods, as Augustine has pointed out so eloquently in his City of God, was the chief business of the superstitious Roman people. According to a witticism of Petronius (Satiricon, 17, 5): Indeed, our land is so full of divine presences that it is easier to meet a god than a man.
Then, in addition to all this, the gods of the heathen mythologies were crude, grossly anthropomorphic, and downright immoral. Every god had his female consort, and as many mistresses, including even ordinary women, as his passions might impel him to appropriate. (Read, for example, the Ion of Euripides.) Zeus was perhaps the most assiduous philanderer of the lot: he stopped at nothing, including incest (Hera, his consort, was also his sister), rape, and treachery. There is absolutely nothing of this character in the Biblical presentation of the tri-personality of the God of the Bible. It is entirely void of such gross anthropomorphism. The inter-relationships among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are exclusively incorporeal, ethical, and spiritual. In fact the only relations sustained by the three persons of the Biblical Godhead, of a semiterrestrial character, are those sustained with man spiritually and for mans redemption. These relations are signified by the two terms, the begetting of the Son, and the proceeding forth of the Spirit. The term begetting, in reference to the Son, describes an eventthe Incarnationwhich took place in time, and through the instrumentality of the Virgin Mary. Prior to His Incarnation, His Name was Logos, Verbum, Word (Joh. 1:1-3). By the miracle of the Incarnationthe overshadowing of the Holy SpiritHe became the Only Begotten Son of God (Luk. 1:26-38), the Mystery of Godliness (1Ti. 3:16). The same is true of the procession of the Spirit: that, too, is an event which, whenever it occurs, occurs in time (time being, of course, co-etaneous with the Creative Process, including both Creation and Redemption), and for specific Divine ends, as, for example, the coming of the Spirit upon holy men of old, upon the great prophets, and especially upon the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost (2Pe. 1:21, 1Pe. 1:10-12; Act. 2:1-4; Act. 7:51-53). To speak of the inter-relations among the Three Persons of the Biblical God in corporeal, or even in anthropomorphic, terms, is a gross perversion of the truth. And by no stretch of the imagination can any resemblance be found between the various triads of heathen myth and legend and the tripersonality of the living and true God. For our God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth (Joh. 4:24).
On the Divine Names in Genesis
For the benefit of students who might want to delve more deeply into this fascinating problem, I am summarizing here the catenae of the Elohistic passages, the Yahwistic (Jahvistic) passages, and finally the mixed passages (those in which both Names occur), as given by Tayler Lewis in Langes Genesis (CDHCG, 106107). In my opinion, this is information that needs to be preserved; and since not too many of our young ministers will find this great work (now long out of print) available, except perhaps those who may have access to the libraries of the older theological seminaries, I feel justified in taking sufficient space to present it here, in somewhat abridged form, of course, as follows:
1. The Elohistic Sections, frequently designated universalistic or cosmogenetic (those in which the Name Elohim predominates or is used exclusively): (1) Chs. Gen. 1:1 to Gen. 2:3. The Hebrew Cosmogony. (2) Ch. 5. The Sethite Line (Gen. 5:29, a glance at the judgments of Yahweh, the exception). (3) Ch. Gen. 6:9-22. The toledoth of Noah. (4) Ch. Gen. 7:10-24. Beginning of the Flood. Elohim orders Noah and his progeny, along with pairs of all flesh, into the ark; Yahweh, however, as the God of the Redemptive Plan shuts him in (Gen. 7:16). (5) Ch. Gen. 8:1-19. The emergence from the ark. (6) Ch. Gen. 9:1-17, The Divine blessing on Noah and the new race. The rainbow covenant. (7) Ch. Gen. 17:9-27. The ordinance of circumcision. Ch. Gen. 19:29-38. The story of Lot and his daughters. (8) Ch. Gen. 21:1-21. Ishmaels expulsion. Yahweh, only in Gen. 21:1. (9) Ch. Gen. 21:22-24. Abrahams covenant with Abimelech (but Yahweh in Gen. 21:33). (10) Ch. Gen. 25:1-18. Abrahams death. (But in Gen. 25:11, it is Elohim who blesses Isaac). (11) Chs. Gen. 27:46 to Gen. 28:9. The wanderings of Jacob. Esaus marriage. (However, note El Shaddai (God Almighty) in Gen. 28:3, and Elohim in Gen. 28:4). (12) Ch. 30. Story of Rachel (but see also mixed sections infra). (13) Ch. 31. Jacobs departure from Laban. (But Yahweh in Gen. 31:3; Gen. 31:49.) (14) Ch. 33. Jacobs return. (15) Ch. 35. Elohim throughout, except in Gen. 35:11, El Shaddai. (16) Chs. 4150. Story of Joseph in Egypt. (Yahweh only in Gen. 49:18). (17) Exo., chs. 1 and 2. Israels oppression in Egypt.
2. The Yahwistic (Jehovistic or Jahvistic) Sections (those in which the Name Yahweh predominates or is used exclusively, and which are frequently designated theocratic): (1) Chs. Gen. 2:4 to Gen. 3:24) Man in Eden, and expelled from Eden. (2) Ch. 4. Story of Cain and Abel. Yet Eve thanks Elohim for Seth, Gen. 4:25, and calling on the Name of Yahweh is said to have become common practice among the pious Sethites, Gen. 4:26. (3) Ch. Gen. 6:1-8. Yahweh repudiates the antediluvian race, but preserves humankind through Noah. (4) Ch. Gen. 7:1-9. Noahs deliverance on the basis of his righteousness. (5) Ch. Gen. 8:20-22. Noahs thank-offering and Yahwehs resolution to have mercy on mankind. (6) Chs. Gen. 10:1 to Gen. 11:31. The genealogical table. Yahweh mentioned only twice, with reference to Nimrod (Gen. 10:9), and with reference to the confusion of tongues at Babel (Gen. 11:5-6; Gen. 11:8-9). (7) Chs. Gen. 12:1 to Gen. 17:8. Abrams call (Gen. 12:1-8). Protection of Sarah in Egypt (Gen. 12:10-20). Abrahams settlement in Bethel, and his separation from Lot (ch. 13). The deliverance of Lot (ch. 14). (Abraham praises Yahweh as El Elyon (Gen. 14:22): cf. Exo. 6:3.) Yahwehs covenant with Abraham (ch. 15). Sarah and Hagar, with reference to the child of the Promise (ch. 16). Yahweh as El Shaddai, God Almighty (ch. Gen. 17:1; cf. again Exo. 6:3). (8) Chs. 1819:28. The appearance of Yahweh to Abraham in the plains of Mamre. Yahwehs judgment on Sodom. (9) Ch. 24. Isaacs marriage. (10) Ch. Gen. 25:19-26. The twins, Jacob and Esau. (11) Ch. Gen. 26:2; Gen. 26:12; Gen. 26:24-25. Theocratic testimonies and promises. (12) Ch. Gen. 29:31-35. Yahweh takes Leah into His favor. (13) Ch. Gen. 30:25-43. New treaty between Jacob and Laban. (14) Ch. 38. Yahweh punishes the sons of Judah. (15) Ch. 39. Yahweh with Joseph in Egypt,
3. The mixed sections. (1) Ch. Gen. 9:18-27. Gen. 9:26-27 : Blessed be Yahweh, the Elohim of Shem . . . May Elohim enlarge Japheth. (2) Ch. 14. Melchizedek a priest of El Elyon, and blesses Abraham in this name. But Abraham speaks in the Name of Yahweh El Elyon. (3) Ch. 20. Elohim punishes Abimelech. The latter addresses Him as Adonai. (4) Ch. Gen. 20:1-18. Abraham (Gen. 20:11) speaks of the fear of Elohim. He prays to Elohim for Abimelechs house (Gen. 20:17), for Yahweh had closed up the mothers wombs of the house of Abimelech (Gen. 20:18). (5) Ch. 27. The words of Isaac as reported by Rebekah: the blessing before Yahweh (Gen. 27:7). Jacob: Yahweh, thy Elohim (Gen. 27:20). Gen. 27:27 and Gen. 27:28 remarkable: Jacob already blessed by Yahweh, but Isaac gives him the bessing of Elohim. (6) Ch. Gen. 28:10-22. The angels of God. Gen. 28:13I am Yahweh, the Elohim of Abraham and the Elohim of Isaac (Gen. 28:13). Jacob (Gen. 28:16-17): Yahweh is in this place . . . This is none other than the house of Elohim. Cf. also Gen. 28:20-22. (7) Chs. Gen. 29:31 to Gen. 30:24. Yahweh takes Leah into favor (Gen. 29:31-35); yet the blessing of fruitfulness is the concern of Elohim (Gen. 30:2). Elohim favors Leah with the births of the fifth and sixth sons (Gen. 30:18; Gen. 30:20). Rachel thanks Elohim for the birth of Joseph, taking away her reproach (Gen. 30:23), but she named him Joseph, saying, Yahweh add to me another son (Gen. 30:24); cf. also Gen. 30:27, the words of Laban. (8) Ch. 32. Jacob: The Elohim of my father Abraham, and the Elohim of my father Isaac, Yahweh, etc. (Gen. 32:9). Thou hast wrestled with Elohim and with men (Gen. 32:28). I have seen Elohim face to face (Gen. 32:30). (9) Ch. 39. Yahweh is with Joseph in Egypt (Gen. 39:2). Joseph says to Potiphars wife: How can I commit this great sin against Elohim? (Gen. 39:9). Yahweh is with Joseph in prison (Gen. 39:21).
4. Other Names for the Deity which occur in Genesis are the following: (1) El, Mighty One (Gen. 14:18-20; Gen. 14:22; Gen. 16:13; Gen. 17:1; Gen. 21:33; Gen. 28:3; Gen. 31:13; Gen. 35:1; Gen. 35:3; Gen. 35:11; Gen. 43:14; Gen. 46:3; Gen. 48:3; Gen. 49:25). (Elohim, God, gods, occurs repeatedly throughout the Torah and the entire Old Testament.) (2) El Shaddai, God Almighty (Gen. 17:1; Gen. 28:3; Gen. 35:11; Gen. 43:14; Gen. 48:3; Gen. 49:25; cf. Exo. 6:3). (3) El Elyon, The Highest, The Most High (Gen. 14:18-20). (4) El Roi, God of seeing (Gen. 16:13; cf. Gen. 32:30, Peniel, meaning the face of God). Obviously, these are Names especially of attributes of God, they frequently overlap in meaning, and they are all to be distinguished from the great and incommunicable Name, YHWH (Exo. 3:14), which is the Name of the very essence (being, nature, etc.) of the living and true God. His name is HE WHO IS.
5. For a thoroughgoing discussion of the great and incommunicable Name, YHWH, the Tetragrammaton, the student is referred to Rotherham (EB, 2229), from which the following excerpt is presented as sufficient for present purposes. Rotherham writes (EB, 2223) as follows (concerning the suppression of The Name): The Tetragrammaton, or name of four letters (in allusion to the four letters YHWH), is a technical term frequently employed by scholars, and will here, for a little, serve a useful purpose. Besides employing this term, we can reverently speak, of The Name, or can set down the first letter only, Y, in the same way as critics are wont to use the Hebrew letter yod as the initial of the Divine Name intended . . . It is willingly admitted that the suppression has not been absolute; at least so far as Hebrew and English are concerned. The Name, in its four essential letters, was reverently transcribed by the Hebrew copyist, and therefore was. necessarily placed before the eye of the Hebrew reader. The latter, however, was instructed not to pronounce it, but to utter instead a less sacred nameAdonay or Elohim. In this way The Name was not suffered to reach the ear of the listener. To that degree it was suppressed. The Septuagint, or ancient Greek version, made the concealment complete by regularly substituting Kurios; as the Vulgate, in like manner, employed Dominus; both Kurios and Dominus having at the same time their own proper service to render as correctly answering to the Hebrew Adonay, confessedly meaning Lord. The English Versions do nearly the same thing, in rendering The Name as LORD, and occasionally GOD; these terms also having their own rightful office to fill as fitly representing the Hebrew titles Adonay and Elohim and El. So that the Tetragrammaton is nearly hidden in our public English versions. Not quite. To those who can note the difference between LORD and Lord and between GOD and God, and can remember that the former (printed with small capitals) do while the latter do not stand for The Nameto such an intimation of the difference is conveyed. But although the reader who looks carefully at his book can see the distinction, yet the mere hearer remains completely in the dark respecting it, inasmuch as there is no difference whatever in sound between LORD and Lord or GOD and god. It hence follows that in nearly all the occurrences of The Name (some 7,000 throughout the Old Testament) the especial Name of God is absolutely withheld from all who simply hear the Bible read. Nearly all, for there are about half a dozen instances in the A.V., and a few more in the R.V., in which this concealment does not take place. In other words there are these very few places in which the Tetragrammaton appears as Jehovah, and although it may be asked, What are they among so many? still their presence has an argumentative value. If it was wrong to unveil the Tetragrammaton at all, then why do it in these instances? If, on the other hand, it was right to let it be seen in these cases, then why not in all? With the exceptions explained, however, it remains true to say, that in our public versions the one especial Name of God is suppressed, wholly concealed from the listening ear, almost as completely hidden from the hastening or uncritical eye. Rotherham goes on to state that, although the motive for the suppression, namely, to safeguard the Divine Majesty in the minds of men, is respected, the suppression itself must be regarded as a mistake, on the following grounds: (1) that it was an unwarrantable liberty; (2) that it has led to serious evil in the form of the notion that Y was a mere tribal name, and that Y Himself was but a local deity. Solid advantage, concludes this author (EB, 24), may be counted upon as certain to follow the restoration of The Name. Even if the meaning of The Name should not disclose itself, the word itself would gradually gather about it the fitting associationsand that would be a gain; and godly readers would be put on questand that would be a further gain; and if the true significance of the Tetragrammaton should be brought to light, there would be a trained constituency to whom appeal could be madeand that would be a yet greater gain. To the objection that Jesus followed the Septuagint version as it stood (in which The Name is concealed under the common title Kurios, Lord), notably in citing Psa. 110:1 (cf. Mat. 22:41-45), Rotherham answers that Jesus had to plead His Messiahship at the bar of the Scriptures as then current, and any criticism by Him of the nations Sacred Documents might have placed a needless obstacle in the peoples path, and adds: We thus conclude that the objection may and should be set aside as inconclusive, and so fall back on the reasons given why the Divine Name should be suffered uniformly to appear.
Rotherham, insists that the rendering of The Name as Jehovah should be abandoned because it is too heavily burdened with merited critical condemnation. This pronunciation, he tells us, was unknown prior to the year 1520, when it was introduced by one Galatinus. It was formed by combining the sacred Tetragrammaton and the vowels in the Hebrew word for Lord, substituted by the Jews for JHVH, because they shrank from pronouncing The Name. As another authority has put it: To give the name JHVH the vowels for the word for Lord (Hebrew, Adonai) and pronounce it Jehovah is about as hybrid a combination as it would be to spell the name Germany with the vowels in the name Portugalviz., Gormuna. From this we may gather, writes Rotherham (EB, 25), that the Jewish scribes are not responsible for the hybrid combination. (The use of Jehovah is, unfortunately, a defect of the American Standard Version. The Revised Standard Version returns to the Authorized Versions word Lordin small capitals.) The form Yahweh, Rotherham concludes, is for all practical purposes the best.
6. Conclusion: It strikes me that to formulate any satisfactory hypothesis to account for the interchangeable use of these various names (or titles) for our God, in the book of Genesis, would be a fruitless task. It seems, rather, that no such arbitrarily conceived hypothesis is needed. In fact the writer apparently does not follow any sustained particular pattern of differentiation. This apparently indiscriminatory use of these various names (or titles) is precisely the fact that makes the Documentary Hypothesis little more than a hodge-podge of conjecture, one in which unknown and unknowable redactors have been arbitrarily conjured up by the destructive critics to give the Hypothesis any semblance of reasonableness.
REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART EIGHT
1.
Diagram from memory the content of Gen. 1:1 to Gen. 2:3.
2.
Explain what is meant by the term Homo sapiens, as used by scientists.
3.
State the three marks of the uniqueness of the Pentateuch as cited in this section.
4.
Summarize the evidence of the internal unity of the book of Genesis.
5.
What do we mean by saying that the Documentary Theory of the Pentateuch is based exclusively on alleged internal evidence?
6.
What is the separate document theory of the relation of Genesis 2 to Genesis 1?
7.
What are the claims advanced to support this theory?
8.
State the chief objections to these various claims.
9.
Is there any justifiable reason for assuming that we have in Genesis 2 a second cosmogony? Explain your answer.
10.
What is the complementary theory of the relation of Genesis 2 to Genesis 1?
11.
List the added details of the account of the Creation that are given in Genesis 2.
12.
What is the over-all theme of Genesis 1? Of Genesis 2?
13.
How does the diversity of theme affect the literary style of each chapter?
14.
What is meant by the problem of the two divine Names?
15.
Explain what each of these Names means when translated.
16.
What is meant by the Tetragrammaton?
17.
Explain how the Name Yahweh substantiates the doctrine of the Divine inspiration of the Old Testament Scriptures.
18.
What other names are given to the Deity in Genesis and what does each mean?
19.
From the various passages in which the word generations occurs in Genesis, what must we conclude that it points to? To what, then, does it point in Gen. 2:4?
20.
To what stage of the Creation does the inspired writer return in introducing his account of mans primitive state?
21.
To what does day refer, as used in Gen. 2:4?
22.
On what day of the Creation did the first rainfall occur?
23.
Does chapter 2 describe vegetation in the world at large, or only that of the Garden of Eden?
24.
Does this chapter have anything to tell us as regards the priority of man or plants?
25.
What is the import of the combination of the two divine Names in Gen. 2:5; Gen. 2:7?
26.
Explain what the words psychosomatic and organismic mean?
27.
Explain how Gen. 2:7 harmonizes with the present-day scientific view of man as a psychosomatic unity.
28.
Explain how this text also harmonizes with the organismic approach to the study of man characteristic of present-day psychology.
29.
What profound truth is suggested by the phrase, a living soul?
30.
How do the words deity and divinity differ in meaning?
31.
Does deity differ from humanity in degree or in kind? Explain.
32.
Are we to conclude that Gods inbreathing endowed man with the attributes of deity? Explain.
33.
Explain what is meant by the statement that Gods inbreathing endowed man with the potentiality of becoming a partaker of the divine nature.
34.
How does this potentiality become actualized?
35.
What was determined, by Gods inbreathing, to be the nature and destiny of the human being?
36.
Distinguish between the dichotomous and trichotomous theories of man.
37.
What do we mean by saying that man is a creature of both earth and heaven?
38.
List the attributes that are characteristic of spirit, as the term is used in the Bible.
39.
What is the Biblical teaching concerning the relation between body and spirit (or mind) in man?
40.
Does any one of these termsmind, soul, or spirit-indicate bodilessness in Scripture?
41.
To what systems of human origin does the concept of disembodied spirits belong?
42.
Explain the Scripture teaching about the natural body and the spiritual body.
43.
In the light of present-day study of the powers of the Subconscious, what might well be the distinction between mind and spirit in man? Hence, how might body-mind unity differ from body-spirit unity, and how might the soul be related to either or both of these unities?
44.
Explain how the doctrine of man as a body-mind or body-spirit unity is in harmony with the Christian doctrine of immortality.
45.
State the Christian doctrine of immortality.
46.
Distinguish between survival and immortality.
47.
How does the word eternal probably differ in meaning from the word immortal?
48.
List the evidences of the high value which Christian teaching gives to the human body.
49.
What does the Bible teach regarding the ultimate destiny of the bodies of the redeemed? Of those of the lost?
50.
What changes took place in the body of Jesus after His resurrection?
51.
What is meant by the Apostles statement that Jesus became a life-giving spirit?
52.
Explain 1Co. 15:45.
53.
Explain Rom. 8:28-30 in relation to Gods Eternal Purpose for His elect.
54.
What seems to be the Pauline distinction between flesh and spirit?
55.
What Pauline phrase apparently corresponds to the Freudian concept of the libido?
56.
In what systems of human origin do we find the doctrine of a rigid dualism of soul and body?
57.
Summarize New Testament teaching about the human body, and show what is unique in it.
58.
Distinguish between mans powers of perception and conception.
59.
What is especially significant about his power of conceptualization?
60.
List the powers which distinguish man from the brute.
61.
Explain how mans power of abstract thinking specifies him as man.
62.
What is meant by abstraction in relation to the process of cognition?
63.
List the facets of human culture which originate in mans tendency to symbolify.
64.
Explain the significance of language in specifying man as man.
65.
How does sensation in man differ from consciousness, and from meaning.
66.
What is the full import of these distinctions?
67.
Explain what is meant by the phrase, the meaning of meaning.
68.
Elaborate the statement that it is impossible to reduce psychology to sheer physiology.
69.
Explain how mans power of creative imagination specifies him as man.
70.
Explain how mans sense of values specifies him as man.
71.
What are the two sciences which originate in mans application of his sense of values to everyday living?
72.
Explain how mans sense of humor and his power of laughter specify him as man.
73.
List and explain the phenomena of the Subconscious which specify man as man.
74.
Explain what is meant by extrasensory perception and by psychokinesis, and show how these phenomena support the Biblical revelation of human nature and destiny.
75.
What is the over-all significance of the phenomena of the Subconscious?
76.
What is meant by the phrase, mans range of moral potential?
77.
Explain what is meant by the mind-body problem.
78.
Show how psychologists are compelled to adopt dualistic terms in attempting to explain human motivation and behavior.
79.
Explain what is meant by the nothing but fallacy.
80.
State the theory of epiphenomenalism, and show why it is not necessarily a materialistic theory.
81.
Explain the Conditioned Reflex and show how it is deficient as a theory of learning.
82.
Distinguish between reflexive and ideational conditioning.
83.
Show how educationism really begs the question in trying to explain all learning in terms of the Conditioned Reflex.
84.
State the theory of interactionism and point out the difficulty involved in it.
85.
Give some examples from everyday life of the power of the psychical to direct the physical in man.
86.
Explain the statement that the problem of Creation is not one of the Divine power, but of the Divine method, employed.
87.
Show how this statement is related to the exegesis of Gen. 2:7.
88.
Summarize the excerpt from Dr. Jaunceys book dealing with the exegesis of Gen. 2:7.
89.
Summarize the excerpt from Dr. Strongs book dealing with Gen. 2:7.
90.
What is the view presented in this textbook of the exegesis of Gen. 2:7?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(4) When they were created.Heb., in, or upon, their creation.
In the day.Viewed in its several stages, and with reference to the weekly rest, there were six days of creation, which are here described as one day, because they were but divisions in one continuous act.
The Lord God.Jehovah-Elohim. (See Excursus at the end of this book.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
EXCURSUS C: ON THE DURATION OF THE PARADISIACAL STATE OF INNOCENCE.
The Bereshit Rabba argues that Adam and Eve remained in their original state of innocence for six hours only. Others have supposed that the events recorded in Gen. 2:4 to Gen. 3:24 took place in the course of twenty-four hours, and suppose that this is proved by what is said in Gen. 2:4, that the earth and heavens, with Adam and the garden, were all made in one day, before the end of which they suppose that he fell. This view, like that which in Genesis 1 interprets each creative day of a similar period, really amounts to this: that the narrative of Holy Scripture is to be forced to bend to an arbitrary meaning put upon a single word, and drawn not from its meaning in Hebrew, but from its ordinary use in English. More correctly, we might venture to say that the use of the word day in Gen. 2:4 is a Divine warning against so wilful a method of exposition.
Read intelligently, the progress of time is carefully marked. In Gen. 2:6 the earth is watered by a mist: in paradise there are mighty rivers. Now, mist would not produce rivers; and if there were mist in the morning, and rain in the afternoon, a long period of time would still be necessary before the falling rains would form for themselves definite channels. A vast space must have elapsed between the mist period and that in which the Tigris and Euphrates rolled along their mighty floods.
And with this the narrative agrees. All is slow and gradual. God does not summon the Garden of Eden into existence by a sudden command, but He planted it, and out of the ground He made to grow such trees as were most remarkable for beauty, and whose fruit was most suitable for human food. In some favoured spot, in soil fertile and fit for their development, God, by a special providence, caused such plants to germinate as would best supply the needs of a creature so feeble as man, until, by the aid of his reason, he has invented those aids and helps which the animals possess in their own bodily organisation. The creation of full-grown trees belongs to the region of magic. A book which gravely recorded such an act would justly be relegated to the Apocrypha; for the God of revelation works by law, and with such long ages of preparation that human eagerness is often tempted to cry, How long? and to pray that God would hasten His work.
And next, as regards Adam. Placed in a garden, two of the rivers of whichthe Tigris and the Euphratesseem to show that the earth at his creation had already settled down into nearly its present shape, he is commanded to dress and keep it. The inspired narrator would scarcely have spoken in this way if Adams continuance in the garden had been but a few hours or days. We find him living there so long that his solitude becomes wearisome to him, and the Creator at length affirms that it is not good for him to be alone. Meanwhile, Adam is himself searching for a partner, and in the hope of finding one, he studies all the animals around him, observes their ways, gives them names, discovers many valuable qualities in them, makes several of them useful to him, but still finds none among them that answers to his wants. But when we read that Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowls of the air, and to every beast of the field, we cannot but see that this careful study of the creatures round him must have continued through a long period before it could have resulted in their being thus generally classified and named in Adams mind. At length Eve is brought, and his words express the lively pleasure of one who, after repeated disappointments, had at length found that of which he was in search. This, he says, this time is bone of my bone.
How long Adam and Eve enjoyed their simple happiness after their marriage is left untold; but this naming of the animals at least suggests that some time elapsed before the fall. Though Adam had observed their habits, yet he would scarcely have given many of them names before he had a rational companion with whom to hold discourse. For some, indeed, he would have found names when trying to call them to him, but only for such as seemed fit for domestication. The rest he would pass by till there was some one to whom to describe them. Thus Eve seems to have known something of the sagacity of the serpent. She, too, as well as Adam, recognised the voice of Jehovah walking in the garden (chap. 3:8); and the girdles spoken of in Gen. 2:7 seem also to indicate, by their elaboration, that the guilty pair remained in Paradise some time after the fall. The indications of time are, however, less numerous and definite after the creation of Eve than before; but certainly Adam was for some considerable period a denizen of Paradise, and probably there was a longer time than is generally supposed spent in innocence by him and his wife, and also some delay between the fall and their expulsion from their happy home.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
4. These are the generations This verse is the heading to Gen 2:4 to Gen 4:26, and, of course, refers to what follows, not to what precedes. In every other passage of the Pentateuch where this formula occurs, it serves as a heading to what follows, and never as a summary of what precedes. Compare Gen 5:1; Gen 6:9; Gen 10:1; Gen 11:10; Gen 11:27; Gen 25:12; Gen 25:19; Gen 36:1; Gen 36:9; Gen 37:2; Num 3:1. “This would never have been disputed,” says Keil, “had not preconceived opinions as to the composition of Genesis obscured the vision of commentators . Just as the generations of Noah, (Gen 6:9,) for example, do not mention his birth, but contain his history and the birth of his sons; so the generations of the heavens and the land do not describe the origin of the universe, but what happened to the heavens and the land after their creation.” He further observes, that “the word , generations, which is used only in the plural, and never occurs except in the construct state, or with suffixes, is a Hiphil noun, (from , Hiphil of ) and signifies, literally, the generation or posterity of any one, then the development of these generations or of his descendants; in other words, the history of those who are begotten, or the account of what happened to them and what they performed. In no instance whatever is it the history of the birth or origin of the person named in the genitive, but always the account of his family and life.”
Accordingly, it should be particularly noted that what follows is not the generations of Adam, though Adam and his immediate progeny are the subject of this section. The generations of Adam are given at Gen 5:1, ff., and consist of his outgrowth and development through Seth; but vegetable growths, and the forming of Adam and Eve and paradise, and the narrative of the temptation and fall and expulsion from the garden, and of Cain and Abel and the progeny of Cain, are all treated as generations of the heavens and the land.
When they were created Hebrews, , in their being created . That is, in their condition as having been created; or, upon their being created. To define this more fully we have the following immediately added:
In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens That is, the historical terminus a quo of the following generations is the day in which JEHOVAH-GOD made land and heavens. The word day is not to be taken here as denoting the whole period of the creative week, as most commentators have supposed. Such a construction of the word misses the great controlling idea of this whole section. It grows out of the notion that the word generations refers back to what precedes, and so controls the exegesis of some writers who deny such reference of the word. We understand the word day here to denote the day in which God completed the land and the heavens, planted the garden of Eden, and formed Adam and Eve. The land and the heavens were not fully made until that day the sixth day of the preceding narrative. Here comes out the great distinction between and . This making of the land and the heavens by Jehovah-Elohim is a different conception from the creation ( ) of the heavens and the land by Elohim in Gen 1:1. It points rather to a purpose for which the land and heavens were made . It denotes not so much their origin as their subsequent moulding into definite forms, and putting to definite uses . Compare note on Gen 2:3 above, where both words occur together . Then note that the word land here precedes heavens, and, having the more emphatic position in the sentence, denotes that it now becomes the prominent scene of events . We are now to be told of generations, processes of birth, growth, and development, and the word does not occur in this whole section . Accordingly, the terminus a quo of this section is the sixth day of the creative week, and so, according to the uniform usage of the Book of Genesis, the narrative here laps back upon the preceding section, and takes its start from the day in which God is conceived of as having made (completed) the land and heavens. We must notice, too, that land and heavens are here mentioned without the article, as being in themselves less definite than the idea of their being made by Jehovah-Elohim. Creation, so to speak, began with the Almighty and Pluripotent God, Elohim; its completion was wrought by Jehovah, the Personal God of revelation, of moral law, and of love. But these are not two different Beings. “In this section the combination Jehovah-Elohim is expressive of the fact that Jehovah is God, or one with Elohim. Hence, Elohim is placed after Jehovah. For the constant use of the double name is not intended to teach that Elohim who created the world was Jehovah, but that Jehovah who visited man in paradise, who punished him for the transgression of his command, but gave him a promise of victory over the tempter, was Elohim, the same God who created the heavens and the earth.” Keil.
The Generations of the Heavens and the Land, Gen 2:4 to Gen 4:26.
In chapters 1, and Gen 2:1-3, the sacred writer gives us his account of the creation of the heavens and the land; he now proceeds to give us their generations, . His historical standpoint is the day from which these generations start; the day when man was formed of the dust of the ground, and of the breath of life from the heavens. So the first man is conceived of as the product of the heavens and the land by the word of God. Hence, Adam was the son of God, (Luk 3:38,) and the day of his creation was the point of time when Jehovah-God first revealed himself in history as one with the Creator . In chapter i, which narrates the beginning of the heavens and the land, we find mention of Elohim only, the God in whom (as the plural form of the name intimates) centres all fulness and manifoldness of Divine Powers . At the beginning of this section stands the name , Jehovah, the personal Revealer and Redeemer, who enters into covenant with his creatures, and places man under moral law .
The information supplied in this chapter is fundamental to the history of redemption. Here we learn of man’s original estate; the conditions of the first covenant of works; the sanctity of the family relation; and the innocency of the first human pair. Without the information here supplied the subsequent history of man and of redemption would be an insoluble enigma.
‘These are the generations of (or this is the history of) the heavens and the earth when they were created.’
This apparent colophon suggests that the account was once recorded separately on a clay or stone tablet.
The Tree-covered Plain in Eden ( Gen 2:4-24 ).
‘In the day that the Lord God made earth and heavens, when no plant (siach) of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb (‘eseb) of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to serve the ground, there used to come up a mist from the earth which watered the whole face of the ground, and the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being.’
Note carefully that this is not another account of creation, rather it proceeds on the basis that creation has already taken place. What is now lacking is cultivated plants, (because there is no one to cultivate them), and rain. Thses are missing together with the creation of the one who is to be the cultivator and general controller of His creation. So God now acts to create a cultivator, Man, and set him over all His creation.
The word ‘yom’ translated ‘day’ can also mean an appointed time or a period of time. This activity is not therefore restricted to a day. The plants and herbs ‘of the field’ refer to ‘cultivated plants’ (see Gen 3:18 where fallen man will eat ‘the herb (‘eseb) of the field’ grown amidst thorns and thistles, thus defining in context the meaning of the phrase), and the point is that at this stage there were no such cultivated plants, ‘cultivated’ here meaning simply that man’s labour contributed something towards their growth.
“Earth and heavens.” Note the order here, which contrasts with Gen 1:1 and Gen 2:4 a, and connects with what immediately follows – ‘no plant — in the earth’ and ‘not caused it to rain’ (from the heavens).
There is probably intended to be little difference between the two descriptions ‘plant’ and ‘herb’, which are really mainly interchangeable, and the meaning here may well be ‘cultivated plants of different types’.
Others, however, see it as referring to ‘weeds and cultivated plants’, both of which are largely dependent on rain (the word siach is rare occurring elsewhere in Gen 21:15; Job 30:4; Job 30:7 where it means desert scrub). In that case we have a situation where there were neither weeds nor cultivated plants. This then has in mind the fact that the account will end with both present as a result of man’s fall. This introductory statement is then preparing for all that is to follow.
The twofold description of plant and herb is intended to parallel the twofold answer of rain and man for rhythmic reasons. The reasons that there are no cultivated plants are stated to be, firstly because there was no rain, and secondly because there was no man to ‘work’ or ‘cultivate’ the ground. This may be a glance forward to after the fall, for the main meaning of the verb is to ‘serve’, and it is only when man has fallen that he has to ‘serve’ the ground. The idea here may alternatively be that man serves the ground by irrigating it.
It should be noted that this is not a creation story. There is no mention of the creation of the heavens, of the heavenly bodies, of fish or of general vegetation. It is concerned rather with God’s specific provision for the first man. Man is central to the account.
The first sentence refers back to Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:4 a and may be a connecting link at the top of the tablet, but in the narrative as a whole it is an integral part of the phrase ‘these are the histories of the heavens and the earth in the day that Yahweh Elohim created the earth and the heavens’ (compare the similarity with Gen 5:1) making the two accounts one whole.
The passage goes on to point out that there is a lack of cultivated plants (not a lack of vegetation), having very much in mind what is to happen. This agrees with the former passage where all vegetation was previously self producing. The lack of cultivated plants is mentioned here because the writer is introducing a situation which is looking ahead to the later covenant, which is the main reason for the account in the first place. Then man will have to work the ground and produce ‘the herb of the field’, plants he has to labour over, because he has been sentenced by God. The writer is at this stage very much aware of the consequences of the fall.
This lack of rain would then naturally raise the question as to how, if there was no rain, any vegetation at all was able to grow. His reply is that it was because a ‘mist’ or ‘ground water’ or ‘rising river’ or some other water source arises constantly from the earth and waters the ground. The meaning of the word ‘ed’ is uncertain and LXX translates ‘fountain’, for it is clearly some water source. The Akkadian edu means a flood or the overflow of a river. Sumerian ‘id’ means a subterranean, fresh-water river. It occurs in Job 36:27 where it probably means cloud, vapour or mist (‘He draws up the drops of water which distil in rain from his ed’).
Thus, contrary to some, the earth was not a dry and barren waste at this stage. The coming of rain would, in fact, be a mixed blessing. Man would then be dependent on the vagaries of the weather rather than on a constant supply. Note that the idea of rain watering the ground looks beyond Eden. In Eden there is plentiful water from the great River.
The writer now immediately moves on to the focus of his whole account, which is the creation of man, and God’s provision for him. Thus he will go on to depict God’s provision for him of fruitful trees in a chosen place, of abounding water, of animals to provide companionship of a kind, and, finally, of the one who was to be his suitable companion, and the precursor of the fall. Each is introduced as it becomes necessary for his story, but the ideas are not chronological. See as evidence of this Gen 2:8-9 where God ‘plants a garden’, ‘puts man in it’, then ‘causes to grow’ the abundant trees, then Gen 2:15 where it is again stated that He puts man in it (Gen 2:15). This kind of repetition is found continually in Genesis. It was intended to reinforce the basic ideas to the listener. Clearly the ‘causing to grow’ parallels ‘planted’, and the writer hardly conceives of the man as having to wait for the trees to grow. The trees were ‘caused to grow’ before the man was placed there.
Note that there is no mention of God producing general vegetation, or indeed as producing plants of the field. The concern is not with the creation of the world, but with the place and provision provided for the man.
Man’s Establishment and Fall ( Gen 2:4 to Gen 3:24 ) TABLET II.
Genesis 2 The use may be in order to stress the closeness of man’s relationship with the Creator at that stage, or it may be in order to link Elohim the Creator of Genesis 1 with Yahweh the covenant God of Genesis 4 onwards. (In general we must beware of laying too great a stress on the use of particular divine names in the Pentateuch as other Hebrew texts and the versions such as the Septuagint and the Syriac often differ with the Massoretic Text in the use of such names. However there can be no doubt that in the Massoretic Text there is in this passage this distinctive use of Yahweh Elohim, although the versions sometimes have simply the equivalent of Elohim).
The use of a dual name for a god was not unusual in the Ancient Near East. We can compare in Egypt ‘Iir-Sedjmy’, ‘Amen-Re’, ‘Mentu-Re’, ‘Sobek-Re’ and at Ugarit ‘Aleyan Baal’. Baal was also known for example as ‘Baal Melkart’. It is true that Baal meant ‘Lord’ and that in one sense this is saying ‘Lord Melkart’, but Baal, like Melkart, is a god in his own right and would be acknowledged as such by the Phoenicians. Indeed Yahweh Elohim – where El is the name of a god but was also used to depict ‘God’ – is a very similar combination. C. H. Gordon cites a number of further examples of the use of compound names for gods in Ugaritic and other literature.
The focus of the account is found in the words of God in 3:14-19. These words are based on a theophany (manifestation of God in some way) in which God declares His covenants with the man, the woman and the snake, the background to which is given in these chapters. This passage is therefore in ‘covenant form’ and once probably stood on its own as originally an oral ‘record’ of the above covenants, before being incorporated into the wider framework, initially possibly the framework of Genesis chapters 1-11. While general history was not always put in writing in smaller tribes, covenants were put in written form from the start, and once writing was known covenants like this would be recorded because of the importance they had with regard to their relationship with God.
It is even possible that it was first incorporated into a larger record from Gen 2:4 to Gen 5:1, along with the two smaller covenants with Cain and Lamech, this whole record bearing the colophon ‘this is the history of Adam’ (Gen 5:1), before being incorporated into Genesis chapters 1-11.
The continually recurring phrase in Genesis ‘this is the history (toledoth) of –’ demonstrates that much of the material, if not all, is taken from tablets, as ‘this is the history of’ is typical of the colophon (heading or footnote) found on tablets to identify them. Mention could also be made of certain repetitive phrases found in Genesis which are typical of links between such tablets.
It is extremely probable that at some stage these early ‘covenant’ tablets were incorporated into a series of tablets making up Genesis 1-11, which almost certainly once formed a unit, paralleling a similar ‘history’ of Atrahasis, recording matters from creation through the flood and beyond, which is found elsewhere. Although the similarity is only in structure and basic form, the parallel does serve to demonstrate the existence of such epics around the time of Abraham. Thus it may have been at this latter stage, when it was incorporated into Genesis 1-11, that this initial group of covenants was brought together to form a ‘history of Adam’, possibly attaching the colophon at the end from one of the tablets from which they were taken.
The account is remarkable both for its simplicity and the absence from it of mythical material. The seeming naivete of it is deceptive. It is a work of brilliant insight and understanding, and while the story appears straightforward enough to the casual reader, the writer deliberately introduces undercurrents which the discerning reader cannot ignore.
The Divine Commission of Adam and Eve The passage in Gen 2:4-25 emphasizes the divine commission of Adam and Eve in their respective roles, which are to take dominion over the earth. After the Scriptures tells us about the creation of the world in chapter one, it then focuses upon the creation of man and his role in God’s creation. This is because man was the highest order in God’s creation and it is through man that His creation will be able to fulfill its purpose. Since the theme of Scriptures is the redemption of mankind, it quickly focuses upon the issues surrounding man’s fall and ultimate redemption, for He will redeem His creation through mankind because of the Fall of Adam and Eve.
Thus, after the Scriptures open with the story of God’s creation (Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:3), we then read a second but more detailed account of the creation of man (Gen 2:4-25). Although Gen 1:26-28 mentioned the creation of man and woman on the sixth day of creation, then why are we given a second, more detailed, account of the creation of man and woman in chapter two; perhaps because this sets the stage for the genealogy of Adam, which takes us on a journey towards the fulfillment of the genealogy of Jesus Christ and His work of redemption on Calvary? Therefore, the book of Genesis will continue to narrow its stories down to the people Israel as His chosen people to carry out His plan of redemption for mankind. The New Testament will narrow God’s focus to the Church of Jesus Christ. We then we find the nation of Israel being brought back into focus in Romans 9-11 and the book of Revelation, which shows us that God will use this plan to bring redemption and restoration back to His entire creation. Thus, the Scriptures have taken us full circle in God’s plan of redemption, for mankind first, then for His entire creation.
In Gen 2:4-25 God called Adam to begin taking dominion over the earth. He was charged to dominion over the plant kingdom by tending the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:15), and he was charged to take dominion over the animal kingdom by naming each one of them as he determined their respective roles in serving mankind. Thus, Adam began to fulfill his divine calling.
The Creation of Woman Gen 2:18-25 records the creation of woman. Up until Gen 2:18 God had said that everything He created was good. Now He observed that it was not a good thing for Adam to be alone. Thus, Gen 2:18 is the first negative assessment that God has made regarding His creation. As we will see, I do not think that it was a mistake that God had made. Rather, it was the first time when God’s divine principles of sowing and reaping would need to be implemented in order for man’s needs to be met. In the next two verses (Gen 2:19-20), God gives man the task of naming all of the animals. Then in Gen 2:21-22 God causes Adam to fall into a deep sleep and creates his help mate from his rib. It seems that the creation of the woman in Gen 1:21-22 should have immediately followed God’s recognition of man’s need in Gen 2:18. We see God stating that it was not good for man to be alone and that He would make him an help meet in Gen 2:18. Then in Gen 2:21-22 God makes him an help meet. Gen 2:19-20 is inserted between God’s assessment of the need and God’s act of meeting that need. In other words, God gives man a job to do before He meets the need of Adam. Why is this the case? In this passage, as Adam names all of the animals, he saw male and female animals and how God designed the animal kingdom. He then recognized a lack in his own life of such a companion; for the Scripture says, “but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.” It was this exercise of naming the animals that God had assigned to him that made Adam aware of his need, which was the lack of a companion. This assignment also helped man to understand that he had a higher calling than the animals because he was of a higher order.
We know from Gen 2:18 that Adam had a need. In order to have his need met by God, he first had to take care of God’s needs. God needed Adam to set the animal kingdom in order by naming each of them (Gen 2:19-20). When he met God’s needs, then God in turn moved and met his need of an help mate (Gen 2:21-22).
How often had God given me a provision and I did not recognize it nor appreciate it. Or, I may have prayed for it, but because I was not ready for it, I did not recognize or accept it when it came. Perhaps God took Adam to a place by this exercise where he was able to recognize the fact that his help meet was also to look like him so that he could recognize and receive and love the woman as his own help mate. Otherwise, he may have thought that the woman was created for a different purpose than for him.
God has a purpose and a plan tailor made for each of us. He must take us to a place of acknowledging our need and crying out to Him before He will meet that need. Just because we have a need does not mean that God will immediately provide that need. Neither do you treat your growing children this way. Otherwise, they would not appreciate and manage the provision that you do give them. We must allow our children to come to a place of maturity where they can properly manage the blessings that we give to them. Hard work is often the path to maturity in order to receive and appreciate such blessings from parents.
For example, when my wife first came into Pentecost by joining Calvary Cathedral International, a full Gospel church, she was slain in the Spirit a number of times and even physically healed. These events caused her to recognize that there was something lacking in her spiritual growth. She understood that there was more to God than she had experienced and she wanted more. She soon began to speak in tongues and to attend Bible school. God had to show her this need in her life before she would pursue it and embrace these blessings. The need had been there since her birth, but was not recognized until God mightily touched her life. The need could not be met until she understood that need.
The Method by Which God Created the Woman – It is interesting to examine the method of how God made the woman. He could have made her like He made the other female animals; however, He chose in His design over creation to make the woman from the rib of man. If we look for a scientific answer as to why God chose the rib we discover some amazing facts. The Scriptures tell us that God took the rib from Adam and “built it into a woman.” This Hebrew word describes woman’s creation as a process. Modern science has discovered that within bone marrow lay immature cells called stem cells. Their normal function is to produce the three types of blood cells needed in the body, which are white blood cells, red blood cells and platelets. These stem cells also have the function to develop into mature cells that produce fat, cartilage, bone, tendons, and muscle. Scientists have isolated these cells and transferred them into cell cultures and encouraged them to reproduce. One article from the American Federation for Aging Research says that the potential for use of these cells in tissue engineering, cell therapy and gene therapy is just beginning to be understood. [84] An article from Science Blog says that new research from the Oregon Health and Science University shows that bone marrow stem cells, when exposed to damaged liver tissue, can quickly convert into healthy liver cells and help repair the damaged organ. [85] In other words, scientists are discovering that these bone marrow stem cells have the potential to create the organs and other parts of the human body. It seems that when God created woman from the rib of Adam, He causes these stem cells to perform the functions that they were created to do, which was to grown into the various parts of the human body.
[84] Lisa Chippendale, Stem Cells: Penetrating the Mysteries of a Potential Cure-All [on-line]; accessed 13 March 2009; available from http://websites.afar.org/site/PageServer?pagename=IA_feat24; Internet.
[85] OHSU Researchers Use Stem Cells to Repair Liver Damage in Mice, in Science Blog (2000) [on-line]; accessed 13 March 2009; available from http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2000/D/200003224.html; Internet.
Why would God take the bone from Adam’s rib? The answer probably lies in the fact that a person can have a rib bone removed without if affecting his physical performance. If the bone had been taken from his leg, he would not have been able to walk properly, or from his arm and he would not have been able to use his hand and arm properly, or his back and he would have problems in movement. The one place in the human body where a bone can be removed without imposing any restrictions upon the human body would be a rib bone.
Woman as Man’s Help Mate God created the man first to establish his purpose and plan on earth. God held a relationship with man before He created the woman, who would also have an intimate relationship with the man. This reflects that importance of a man holding his relationship with God of higher priority that with his wife, so that in following God’s plan, the wife will also be blessed with the best that the man can provide for her. In the book of Job, God’s servant Job held his tongue even when his own wife told him to curse God and die (Job 2:9). In this act of obeying God rather than yielding to the woman, both were blessed in the end of this great trial. Also, when Abraham obeyed God and departed for the land of Canaan, his wife’s obedience to follow him resulted in blessings upon them both.
The Institution of Marriage Gen 2:18-25 records the institution of marriage between a man and a woman. This story tells us how God created Eve from Adam’s rib and gave her to the man as his wife. God created the woman in a unique way, different from any beast or even Adam. He did this in order to establish the institution of marriage. While the animals and beasts mated indiscriminately among the herds, Adam recognized that the woman was a part of himself because God took her from his rib, someone to be cherished; thus, her name became woman. The manner in which God created the woman caused the man to see themselves as one, one flesh in union with one another. In this way, intimacy was formed between the man and the woman. Had the woman been created separate from Adam, he might have viewed his relationship with her casually, as the beasts did with one another. Instead, they became united in heart and mind as well as the physical union used to create the woman, creating the institution of marriage that is held sacred between a man and a woman.
It is interesting to note that the Scriptures do not say Adam and Eve lived happily ever after, a phrase we often use in modern story telling. The Scriptures never say that Adam and Eve’s marriage was a happy marriage because God knows that this couple must work at having such an intimate relationship as any other married couple. In other words, a happy marriage does not come automatically. It is a process of learning each one’s needs and being willing to sacrifice one’s self to meet those needs. People initially marry someone thinking that he or she will make me happy, rather than going into a marriage with the attitude of making the other happy.
A marriage between a man and a woman initially meets a person’s emotional and sexual needs, but spiritual unity and intimacy take time for any married couple. For example, when God asked Adam why he ate of the forbidden tree, he blamed Eve, showing that Adam was not intimate with Eve. The Scriptures read “the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him,” (Gen 2:18) referring to Adam’s need for companion, and “Adam knew Eve.” (Gen 4:1), referring to his sexual need. This is why happiness is not automatic in any marriage, since maturity comes through the process of time and a willingness for both to sacrifice themselves.
Jewish Tradition Regarding the Creation of Woman Jewish tradition says that God created woman on the sixth day of the second week of Creation after Adam named the animals on the first five days of the second week ( The Book of Jubilees 3.6-7).
“And He awaked Adam out of his sleep and on awaking he rose on the sixth day, and He brought her to him, and he knew her, and said unto her: ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called [my] wife; because she was taken from her husband.’” ( The Book of Jubilees 3.6-7)
Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Gen 2:4 Comments – The Hebrew word that is translated “generations” is used thirteen times in the book of Genesis, which verses are listed below. This word is contained in key verses that serve to identify the major divisions of this book. In other words, these key verses will distinguish the divisions of the scenes in the narrative material of the book of Genesis.
Gen 2:4, “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,”
Gen 5:1, “This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;”
Gen 6:9, “These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.”
Gen 10:1, “Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.”
Gen 10:32, “These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations , in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.”
Gen 11:10, “These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:”
Gen 11:27, “Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.”
Gen 25:12, “Now these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham’s son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s handmaid, bare unto Abraham:”
Gen 25:13, “And these are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to their generations : the firstborn of Ishmael, Nebajoth; and Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam,”
Gen 25:19, And these are the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son: Abraham begat Isaac:”
Gen 36:1, “Now these are the generations of Esau, who is Edom.”
Gen 36:9, “And these are the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in mount Seir:”
Gen 37:2, “These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brethren; and the lad was with the sons of Bilhah, and with the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives: and Joseph brought unto his father their evil report.”
Gen 2:4 Word Study on “YHWH” Gen 2:4 contains the first use of the Hebrew word “YHWH” ( ) (H3068) in the Holy Scriptures. The Jews considered this name too holy to pronounce, so they changed its vowel sounds and pronounced it “Jehovah.” The second chapter of Genesis reveals that the creator of the heavens and earth is in fact YHWH, which is His name. Strong says this name literally means, “the self-existing one,” which reveals that He has no beginning or end.
Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Gen 2:5 Comments – The ASV gives a better translation of Gen 2:5 when rendering the adverb ( ) as “not yet.”
“And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Jehovah God had not caused it to rain upon the earth: and there was not a man to till the ground.”
Many modern translations also prefer the translation “not yet.”
NIV, “no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up; the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground.”
RSV, “when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up–for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground.”
YLT, “no shrub of the field is yet in the earth, and no herb of the field yet sprouteth, for Jehovah God hath not rained upon the earth, and a man there is not to serve the ground.”
These modern translations explain the reason for the earth not having plants and herbs of the field yet growing across the face of the earth, because there was as yet no rain. This type of rain would not come until the time of Noah after the flood. Until then, the next verse (Gen 2:6) explains how God caused a mist of water vapour to come up from the earth and water the surface of the ground. We read of the barrenness of the earth outside of the Garden of Eden in the first book of Adam and Eve. Gen 2:5 seems to support this extra-biblical description of the ancient world immediately after the Fall.
Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Gen 2:7 Gen 2:7 [86] Jesse Duplantis, Jesse Duplantis (New Orleans: Louisiana), on Trinity Broadcasting Network (Santa Ana, California, 2008), television program.
Gen 2:7 “and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” Comments – The creation of man was different than that of all other creatures. At his creation man became a spirit being as God breathed into the “breath,” or “spirit,” of life. All other creatures have a body and a soul. Man alone was triune, as was God, being created as a spirit, soul and body. Therefore, man will live eternally, but I do not think this is the case with animals. However, we do have verses that tell us about animals have the “breath of life,” which may be a reference to a spirit (Gen 7:15; Gen 7:22).
Gen 7:15, “And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.”
Gen 7:22, “All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.”
Gen 2:7 “and man became a living soul” – Comments – Andrew Wommack notes that before the “breath of life,” which refers to the spirit of man, was imparted into Adam, his physical body had no life (Jas 2:26). [87]
[87] Andrew Wommack, Spirit, Soul & Body (Colorado Springs, Colorado: Andrew Wommack Ministries, Inc, 2005), 11-12.
Jas 2:26, “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”
Gen 2:7 Comments – When a person dies, the opposite of that described in Gen 2:7 happens; his spirit departs from his physical body and returns to God (Ecc 12:7).
Ecc 12:7, “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.”
Gen 2:7 Old Testament Quotes in the New Testament – The phrase “and man became a living soul” Gen 2:7 in quoted in 1Co 15:45.
1Co 15:45, “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul ; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.”
Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Gen 2:8 Word Study on “Eden” – Strong says the Hebrew word “Eden” ( ) (H5731) means, “delight, pleasure.” It occurs 17 times in the Old Testament, being used only as a proper name. It refers to the Garden of Eden on 11 occasions and it refers to individuals, one being a Gershonite Levite, the son of Joah who lived in the days of King Hezekiah of Judah, on 6 occasions (2Ch 29:12; 2Ch 31:15). Strong says this Hebrew word comes from the primitive root ( ) (H5727), which means, “to be soft, or pleasant.” There are three other occasions in which the similar word “Eden” ( ) (H5729) is used in reference to a place conquered by Assyria; probably located in the northwest of Mesopotamia.
Comments – It is interesting to note the fact that God “planted” a garden in Eden. Up until this time He had spoken various aspects of His creation into existence. In the creation story of Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:3 the Lord spoke and created the Heavens and the Earth. In the second story that records the creation of Adam and Eve, the text says that “God formed” (Gen 2:7), “God planted” (Gen 2:8), and “God made to grow” (Gen 2:9). How did God form man, plant a garden and make the trees grow? We know that He first created all things by His Word, as mentioned in 2Pe 3:5-7, which explains how by His Word God creates all things, sustains all things, and will one day destroy this present heavens and earth. However, God now took the clay that makes up the earth and “formed” man. He then took the seed from the trees He had made and “planted” a garden, “sowing” seed in the ground to cause a garden to come forth. The reason God “planted a garden” rather than “speaking” a garden into existence is because He instituted the principle of seed-time and harvest upon the earth in Gen 1:28-30, so the earth was under the dominion of that law. The earth held the seed in its warm, moist soil; the water germinated the seed; and the sun caused the seedlings to grow. Therefore, God now operated in men’s lives and in nature by this law. Where did God get this seed to sow? Perhaps it came from the plants that were made on the third day of creation.
2Pe 3:5-7, “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.”
Gen 2:8 “and there he put the man whom he had formed” – Comments – God planted this garden by sowing. He then placed Adam in this garden to watch over this process of sowing and reaping. God designed the Garden of Eden for a number of reasons. One purpose was to teach Adam the divine principles of sowing and reaping and how to appropriate them in his own life.
Gen 2:8 Comments – The Garden of Eden (The Reason for Its Creation was to have Fellowship with Man) – The reason that God made the Garden of Eden was so that He could have fellowship with man. The fact that it was located “eastward” implies that God dwelt in a physical location, just as we see that Melchizedek dwelt in Jerusalem (Gen 14:18-20). This place served somewhat as a sanctuary, or a holy place, where God was able to come and meet with Adam in the cool of the day. The Book of Jubilees 3.12 says that this garden was holier than all the places on the earth. This is why God had to drive man out of the Garden after the Fall, since no sin can dwell in His presence.
Gen 14:18-20, “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.”
Gen 2:8 Comments – The Garden of Eden (Lessons on Sowing and Reaping for Man) – We must not overlook an important reason for God placing man in the Garden of Eden to tend it. The Scriptures tell us that the field is there to benefit all of us. For even the king is served by the harvest of the field (Ecc 5:9). By these labours of tending the earth, the Lord was to teach mankind the principles of sowing and reaping. As they saw this principle manifested in the natural, they would be able to then apply this principle to the spiritual realm. Perhaps the most important divine law that man was to learn was the law of seedtime and harvest, of sowing and reaping.
Ecc 5:9, “Moreover the profit of the earth is for all: the king himself is served by the field.”
An additional insight into the fact that Adam tended the Garden is to note that Adam had a particular task or duty ordained by God before the Fall. If man had not fallen, we still would all be assigned duties. These duties would be subject to the law of sowing and reaping. Thus, we can be assured that in Heaven we will be assigned divine duties, which are also subjected to the law of sowing and reaping.
Gen 2:8 Comments – The Garden of Eden (Its Location) – Gen 2:8 tells us that “the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden.” The whereabouts of this ancient Garden of Eden, as it is called, has always been a mystery. The Garden of Eden was located “eastward” in relation to what proximity? (1) Perhaps it was eastward of the homeland of writer of Genesis, which fits the location of the author Moses while in the wilderness. If Moses wrote the Pentateuch, this would put Eden to the east of the land of Palestine. We also know that during the time of the Patriarchs the land of the East was Babylonia and Mesopotamia, the region that is now modern Iraq; or, (2) perhaps “eastward” is in proximity to the place where man was created. For example, The Book of Jubilees (3.33) tells us that God made man in the land of Elda before placing man in the Garden of Eden; and we know according to Gen 4:16 that the land of Nod was located east of Eden.
Gen 4:16, “And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.”
George Wright tells us that “the Assyrian inscriptions idinu (Accadian, edin) means ‘plain’ and it is from this that the biblical word is probably derived.” Thus, its location would be on the well-watered plains somewhere in the vicinity of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. The most likely place for Eden in which archeological evidence strongly supports, is in the Euphrates Valley near the area of Eridu, not far from the ancient city of Babylon. It is suggested that several thousand years ago, the Persian Gulf extended at least one hundred (100) miles upstream to the area of Eridu, and that deposits of river silt have moved the mouth of the Persian Gulf down to its present location. In fact, the ancient Babylonians called the Persian Gulf by the name “nar marratum,” meaning “the bitter river.” As further support, cuniform inscriptions found near Eridu testify to a garden being located in this area, called a “holy place,” where a sacred palm tree grew. This tree of life appears frequently upon these inscriptions with two guardian spirits standing on either side. One other additional support for the region around Babylon being the location of the ancient Garden of Eden is the fact that the greatest supplies of fossil fuels in the world have been discovered in this region of the Middle East. We know that such large quantities of fossil fuels originated from a vast source of plant material. Apparently, the city of Babylon, which has been characterized throughout Scriptures as the seat of Satan on earth, is found in the area of the Garden of Eden simply because Satan has tried to move in and control the world from the very site that God originally chose to make a holy place where He could commune with man. [88]
[88] George Frederick Wright, “Eden,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., c1915, 1939), in The Sword Project, v. 1.5.11 [CD-ROM] (Temple, AZ: CrossWire Bible Society, 1990-2008).
Gen 2:8 Comments – The Garden of Eden (Its Potential to Expand Across the Earth) – When God made man and woman, His plan was for them to be fruitful and multiply and to cover the face of the earth. It is very possible that in like manner, God created the Garden of Eden as a place where all plants and animals were placed so that they would reproduce and go forth also to inhabit the earth. They would naturally follow the four rivers that went forth to water the four corners of the earth and eventually cover the earth. This is the way that the earth was re-inhabited after the Flood in the time of Noah. Thus, the Garden of Eden would have been served as a breeding ground for the plant and animal kingdoms to begin their procreation. This would mean that much of the earth in the early days of creation was completely uninhabited. This is the description given in the extra-biblical writing called The First Book of Adam and Eve. [89] When they were driven out of the Garden of Eden, they found the earth barren in comparison to the Garden.
[89] The Books of Adam and Eve, trans. Wells, in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English With Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books, vol. 2, ed. R. H. Charles, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 123-154.
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 tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Gen 2:9 2Pe 3:5-7, “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.”
Gen 2:9 “the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil” – Comments – God planted the two trees in the Garden of Eden called the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This was so that man would have a choice of whether or not to serve Him. God created man with a free will. God wanted man to serve Him with his free will and not out of compulsion. In the Garden of Eden man had a choice to show his love and obedience to God.
Gen 2:9 Comments – Gen 2:9 shows God’s goodness as mentioned in Jas 1:17. God gave to man good things for him to enjoy.
Jas 1:17, “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.”
Comments – The Four Rivers in the Garden of Eden Gen 2:10-14 describes four rivers pouring forth from the Garden of Eden. If we believe in continental drift and in the movement of tectonic plates, as scientific evidence and many Creationist Bible scholars support, we can easily imagine a time before the Flood when all of the continents were contained in one single mass of land. Perhaps these four rivers with their tributaries were designed to water this entire landmass. Thus, this passage in Genesis gives us a picture of four rivers going forth from the Garden of Eden to water the four corners of this land mass, or the north, south, east and west. The first river Pison served to water the whole land of Havilah. The second river Gihon watered the whole land of Ethiopia. The third river Hiddekel watered the region of Assyria. The fourth river Euphrates is not identified with any particular land. Note that Josephus viewed the great river that ran out from the garden as the one ocean that encompassed the earth.
“Now the garden was watered by one river, which ran round about the whole earth, and was parted into four parts. And Phison, which denotes a multitude, running into India, makes its exit into the sea, and is by the Greeks called Ganges. Euphrates also, as well as Tigris, goes down into the Red Sea. Now the name Euphrates, or Phrath, denotes either a dispersion, or a flower: by Tiris, or Diglath, is signified what is swift, with narrowness; and Geon runs through Egypt, and denotes what arises from the east, which the Greeks call Nile.” (Josephus, Antiquities 1.1.3)
Such an image of a single source of water going forth reminds us of the heavenly description of the throne of God in the final chapter of Revelation with the River of Life flowing out (Rev 22:1). Thus, the Holy Bible begins with a clear description of Paradise with its river that brings life, and it ends with a description of our heavenly paradise call Heaven with its River of Life.
Rev 22:1, “And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.”
Recent satellite images of Iraq have revealed two “dead” rivers that feed into the upper part of the Persian Gulf. These two ancient rivers come, one from the east and one from the west, and meet together at the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers as they empty into the mouth of the Persian Gulf. Archeologists, such as Juris Zarins, Calvin Schlabach and others, believe this is the most convincing evidence to date of the original location of the Garden of Eden. At this location four rivers once met together at the Persian Gulf; research suggests this region was once lush and fertile; the ancient river that runs through central Saudi Arabia fits the description of “Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold,” possibly referring to the fine gold found in this region since ancient times. [90]
[90] James A. Sauer , “The River Runs Dry: Creation Story Preserves Historical Memory , ” Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol. 22, No. 4, July/August 1996, pp. 52-54, 57, 64; Molly Dewsnap, “The Kuwait River,” Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol. 22, No. 4, July/August 1999, pp. 55; Willie E. Dye, Lost Garden of Eden River Found, New Covenant Institute of Biblical Archaeology [on-line]; accessed 13 March 2009; available at http://www.nciba.us/eden.htm; Internet.
Gen 2:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
Gen 2:11 Gen 2:11 Gen 2:12 Word Study on “Havilah” – Strong says the Hebrew word “Havilah” ( ) (H2341) literally means, “circle.” BDB says that the land of Havilah was “a part of Eden through which flowed the river Pison (Araxes); was probably the Grecian Colchis, in the northeast corner of Asia Minor, near the Caspian Sea,” or “a district in Arabia of the Ishmaelites named from the second son of Cush; probably the district of Kualan, in the northwestern part of Yemen.” Also, Havilah was the second son of Cush (Gen 10:7).
Gen 10:7, “And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtecha: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan.”
Gen 2:12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
Gen 2:12 [91] James Orr, “Bdellium,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., c1915, 1939), in The Sword Project, v. 1.5.11 [CD-ROM] (Temple, AZ: CrossWire Bible Society, 1990-2008).
Num 11:7, “And the manna was as coriander seed, and the colour thereof as the colour of bdellium.”
Gen 2:12 Word Study on “onyx” – BDB defines the Hebrew word “onyx” ( ) (H7718) to mean, “a precious stone or gem, probably onyx, chrysoprasus, beryl, malachite.” The Enhanced Strong says this Hebrew word is used 11 times in the Old Testament, being translated “onyx 11.”
Gen 2:12 Comments – Arabia was famous for its gold. Most scholars believe that the land of Havilah was in Arabia.
Gen 2:13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
Gen 2:13 Gen 2:14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
Gen 2:14 Dan 10:4, “And in the four and twentieth day of the first month, as I was by the side of the great river, which is Hiddekel;”
Gen 2:14 Word Study on “Euphrates” – BDB identifies the Hebrew word “Euphrates” ( ) (H6578) with the Euphrates River, saying, “the largest and longest river of western Asia; rises from two chief sources in the Armenian mountains and flows into the Persian Gulf.” Strong tells us that this name literally means, “fruitfulness.” The Enhanced Strong says this Hebrew word is used 19 times in the Old Testament, being translated in the KJV as “Euphrates 19.” Gesenius says t he Greek word (from ) reveals how the name “Euphrates” is derived from the Hebrew word ( ). He tells us that the name of this river denoted “sweet water,” and that “the Euphrates is sweet and pleasant-tasting.” He compares Jer 2:18, in which the prophet accused Judah of preferring to drink of the waters of the Nile and of the Euphrates. This meant that they preferred to serve their gods rather than the God of Israel.
Jer 2:18, “And now what hast thou to do in the way of Egypt, to drink the waters of Sihor? or what hast thou to do in the way of Assyria, to drink the waters of the river?”
Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
Gen 2:15 Deu 1:8, “Behold, I have set the land before you: go in and possess the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto them and to their seed after them.”
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:16 God placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden so that man could use the free will that God placed within him to choose between good and evil, right and wrong. God did not want man to stumble, but rather He wanted man to be able to prove his love and devotion to him of his own choosing. There can be no true love to show the Father unless there is an ability to make a choice to love or to disobey.
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 die.
Gen 2:17 The Book of Jubilees (4.29-31) interprets this phrase to mean that Adam would die within a thousand year period since “one thousand years are as one day in the testimony of the heavens”. We find this phrase in 2Pe 3:8, which says that one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as one day. Adam lived 930 years, just less than “a thousand year” day from God’s perspective. So, from God’s view, Adam died in the “day,” or thousand-year period, that he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam died that day both spiritually and physically.
2Pe 3:8, “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”
Gen 2:15-17 Comments – God Teaches Man How To Sow and Reap – The first divine principle that God was to teach man was that of sowing and reaping; for God placed man in the Garden of Eden and commanded him to tend it and to keep it. As man learned this principle in the natural realm, he could then apply it to the spiritual realm and to every aspect of his life. It was this principle that would lead man into abundance and prosperity and into a deeper devotion to God. We see the best example of this when Jesus fed the multitude in John 6. When the people later followed Him across the Sea of Galilee, they were seeking material provisions. However, Jesus took the opportunity to teach them that He was the true bread of life. The lesson of being fed miraculously was intended to teach them to seek the Lord as their Provider. Jesus told them to labour for the meat that endures unto everlasting life. Jesus tried to explain that if they would sow by seeking Him, they would reap eternal life.
Joh 6:27, “Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.”
Another excellent example of the Lord teaching the principles of sowing and reaping and applying it to our spiritual lives is found in the Parable of the Sower. He taught His disciples that sowing the Word of God was like a man sowing seed in different types of soil. Each seed produced a harvest according to the soil that it was sown in.
Even during Israel’s Exodus from Egypt and the Wilderness journey, God taught them to gather manna each morning. The lesson of this labour was to teach the children of Israel that man did not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.
When God send the twelve spies into the land of Canaan to spy out the Promised Land, He tried to teach His children how to receive spiritually from Him by showing them a natural harvest of blessings that were produced by tilling and tending the ground. They returned with a cluster of grapes so large that they had to carry it on a pole between two men (Num 13:23).
Num 13:23, “And they came unto the brook of Eshcol, and cut down from thence a branch with one cluster of grapes, and they bare it between two upon a staff; and they brought of the pomegranates, and of the figs.”
Such a natural harvest from the earth should have taught them about God’s abundant provision for those who would serve Him. Instead, as Adam and Eve, they chose to rebel and do what they wanted to do. During their times of trials in the wilderness, the children of Israel even looked back to their harvest of fruits and vegetables in Egypt and longed to return to those natural blessings (Exo 16:3, Num 11:4-6).
Exo 16:3, “And the children of Israel said unto them, Would to God we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pots, and when we did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger.”
Num 11:4-6, “And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat? We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick: But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes.”
Those natural blessings had failed to teach them the spiritual principles of sowing and reaping.
With this lesson of sowing and reaping, God gave man a commandment not to touch one particular tree. He did this so that man could make a choice as to whether he would serve God or disobey Him. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was planted in the garden to prove man, to see whether he would serve God or not. It was a test of man’s love and devotion to the living God. If man had not choice, then he might serve the Lord out of compulsion and not out of love, for God wants man to serve Him cheerfully and not grudgingly (2Co 9:7). This tree provided the test.
2Co 9:7, “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.”
Today there are many things that God does not want us to touch. God used this principle many times in order to test man’s love for the living God. Many people in Old Testament were cut off from Israel because of disobedience.
Illustrations:
1. God tested the children of Israel by telling them not to touch the spoils of Jericho:
Jos 6:18, “And ye, in any wise keep yourselves from the accursed thing, lest ye make yourselves accursed, when ye take of the accursed thing, and make the camp of Israel a curse, and trouble it.”
2. God left the Canaanites in the land of Israel to test their loyalty:
Jdg 2:21-23, “I also will not henceforth drive out any from before them of the nations which Joshua left when he died: That through them I may prove Israel, whether they will keep the way of the LORD to walk therein, as their fathers did keep it, or not. Therefore the LORD left those nations, without driving them out hastily; neither delivered he them into the hand of Joshua.”
Jdg 3:1, “Now these are the nations which the LORD left, to prove Israel by them, even as many of Israel as had not known all the wars of Canaan;”
Jdg 3:4, “And they were to prove Israel by them, to know whether they would hearken unto the commandments of the LORD, which he commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses.”
3. God tested King Saul by telling him to utterly destroy the Amalekites. However, Saul disobeyed and saved the best of the spoil:
1Sa 15:22, “And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.”
Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Gen 2:18 Gen 2:18 Comments – Man’s Social Characteristics – We see in Gen 2:18 that man is a social creature. He was created to have relationships with one another. The most important relationship for a person after his relationship with God is his relationship with his wife.
Gen 2:18 Comments – Woman was Not Originally in Submission to Man – It is important to note that God made man a helpmeet, or one who helps him and was equal to him. It was not until God cursed the woman that she was made subject to the man. From the beginning it was not so. Therefore, in heaven men and women will be back on equal levels of authority.
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 Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Gen 2:19 Gen 5:2, “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam , in the day when they were created.” However, no one gave God his name “YHWH”.
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 Adam to see what he would call them” Comments – We can image God creating a particular animal from the earth and eagerly bringing it to Adam to see what he would name it. One by one, Adam received another beautiful creature from God until all of the animals were created. We may compare a similar event of parents giving a pet dog or cat to their children and letting the children name them. After all, the children would be the primary friend that spent the most time playing with the pet.
God may have brought the animals to Adam in the same way that He brought the animals to the Ark and the same way He brought a whale to swallow Jonah.
Gen 2:19 “and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof” – Comments – God named man “Adam,” and man gave the woman her name as well as the creatures of the earth. It becomes apparent that in naming someone or something, this person or creature comes under their dominion. Man was given dominion on the earth, so Adam’s charge to name God’s creation was limited to the earth. Adam took dominion over the plant kingdom by tilling the earth and tending the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:15), but he took dominion over the animal kingdom by naming these animals. However, God still retained dominion in the heavens, which is why God named the stars and the heavenly bodies and not man (Psa 147:4).
Psa 147:4, “He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names.”
Adam was charged to take dominion over the animal kingdom by naming each one of them as he determined their respective roles in serving mankind. Thus, his first job was to begin to prophesy over animals, giving them name. He looked at the horse and said, “Your destiny is to serve to carry men.” He looked at the ox and said, “Your ministry is to plow for mankind.” He said to the eagle, “Your job is to teach men about soaring high above the cares of life.” He looked at the dinosaur and said, “Your job is to declare the majesty of Almighty God.” In other words, Adam identified the destiny and ministry of each animal and named it accordingly.
Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Gen 2:20 Gen 2:19-20 Comments – Adam Names the Animals In Gen 2:19-20 we have the account of Adam naming all of the animals of God’s creation. Jewish tradition tells us that the event of Adam naming all of the animals took place during the first five days of the second week of Creation ( The Book of Jubilees 2.14).
“And on the six days of the second week we brought, according to the word of God, unto Adam all the beasts, and all the cattle, and all the birds, and everything that moves on the earth, and everything that moves in the water, according to their kinds, and according to their types: the beasts on the first day; the cattle on the second day; the birds on the third day; and all that which moves on the earth on the fourth day; and that which moves in the water on the fifth day. And Adam named them all by their respective names, and as he called them, so was their name. And on these five days Adam saw all these, male and female, according to every kind that was on the earth, but he was alone and found no helpmeet for him.” ( The Book of Jubilees 2.14)
With each name that Adam gave the animals, he imparted to them their purpose and destiny; for they had been placed under his dominion (Gen 1:28-30). Thus, it was his office and ministry to name them and to decide their purpose in bringing man to prosperity. God named only the man and left all the rest to Adam because all had been made subject to him. God did name the stars in Heaven (Psa 147:4) because this had not been given to man: for man’s dominion was limited to the earth.
It is possible that with the identification of each animal, God revealed to Adam much about each one so that Adam could properly name it; for each creature had a function and purpose in God’s overall plan of creation. As Adam received a revelation from God in the form of a word of knowledge or a word of wisdom, he appropriately named each creature. In addition, with insight into each creature’s characteristics and purpose in creation, there would have been revealed to Adam one aspect of God’s divine nature; for we read in Rom 1:19-20, “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:” This verse tells us that the things God made reveal His divine attributes. Therefore, this exercise for Adam of naming the animals would have also been a way of getting to know God’s divine nature.
Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Gen 2:22 Gen 2:22 Gen 2:22 “made he a woman” – Comments – The woman was the last act in God’s creation. All other creatures were now created and given to man to name.
Gen 2:23 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.
Gen 2:23 Word Study on “man” – The Hebrew word “man” ( ) (H376) is the commonly used word for “man” in the Old Testament. BDB says it may also be translated “male, husband, human being, person or mankind.” The Enhanced Strong says it used 1639 times in the Old Testament, being translated in the KJV as “man 1002, men 210, one 188, husband 69, any 27, misc 143.”
Comments – The Hebrew word for “woman” ( ) is spelled in the form of a diminutive of “man” ( ). In other words, it has the literally meaning of “little man,” or even “in the image of man.” In a similar derivative of words, Act 11:26 says those who believed in Jesus Christ began to be called “Christians,” or “little Christs,” in the sense that these people behaved like Christ and so reminded them of Him.
Act 11:26, “And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch .”
The New Testament adds to our insight in Gen 2:23 when it says that the woman was the glory of man, or that she was made in the image or likeness man.
1Co 11:7, “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man .”
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Gen 2:24 Gen 2:24 Comments – Marriage is the cause for children to leave their parents. Oral and Evelyn Roberts were being interviewed by Benny Hinn on his television program on Trinity Broadcasting Network named “This Is Your Day.” Oral Roberts read Gen 2:24 as a key verse that God used in their marriage because it talks about them leaving their parent’s house and clinging to one another. He said that the Lord spoke to him and said, “When I see you and Evelyn, I do not see you as two people, but as one person.” [92]
[92] Oral Roberts, interviewed by Benny Hinn, This is Your Day, on Trinity Broadcasting Network (Santa Ana, California), television program.
Gen 2:24 Old Testament Quotes in the New Testament – Gen 2:24 is quoted several places in the New Testament. This means that was a popular verse with the Jews.
Mat 19:4-5, “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh ?”
Mar 10:5-8, “And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh : so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.”
1Co 6:16, “What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh .”
Eph 5:31, “ For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh .”
Gen 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Gen 2:25 [93] Andrew Wommack, “Sermon,” Andrew Wommack Bible Conference, Kampala, Uganda, 3 June 2010.
Gen 3:7, “And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.”
The Genealogy of the Heavens and the Earth The first genealogy of the book of Genesis after its introduction is called “The Generations of the Heavens and the Earth” (Gen 2:4 to Gen 4:26). In this passage, the Scriptures record the account of the creation of man (Gen 2:4-25), his fall (Gen 3:1-24), and the immediate progression of human depravity (Gen 4:1-26). Heb 11:4 reveals the central message in this genealogy that stirs our faith in God when it says, “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.” While the divine commission of the Story of Creation is God’s charge for man as well as the plant and animal kingdoms to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:26-28), the divine charge for man in the Genealogy of the Heavens and the Earth (Gen 2:4 to Gen 4:26) is to tend the Garden and name the animal, which is how mankind was to begin taking dominion over the plant and animal life in fulfillment of his divine commission. Thus, the plants and animals would work in harmony with mankind as it multiplied across the earth. Therefore, the title “Genealogy of the Heavens and the Earth” shows us the original harmony of all of creation that existed prior to the Fall, and their subjection to vanity afterwards. The Heavens are included because they were to serve mankind as well, serving as light and as signs and seasons for mankind, and the Scriptures tell us that all of creation was subjected to vanity (Rom 8:20), which included the heavens as well as the earth.
Rom 8:20, “For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,”
In addition to man’s charge to tend the Garden of Eden, he was to take time to rest and have fellowship with God, who walked with him in the cool of the day (Gen 3:8). This dual lifestyle is reflected in the Song of Solomon as the Shulamite bride learned to labour in the vineyard of the king while retreating to the garden of solitude and prayer. This genealogy concludes with the birth of Seth and the statement that a seed of man was born who did begin to call upon the name of the Lord after the Fall.
This genealogy (Gen 2:4 to Gen 4:26) reveals God’s original purpose and plan for creation, as well as showing us why it has been corrupted. This passage shows how corruption subjected all of Creation to vanity by emphasizing the two major sinful events that shaped the earliest history of the heavens and earth and brought sin and death upon the human race. This serves to explain why God’s creation has fallen out of its original order. It was these two events that also brought the rest of God’s creation into travail and vanity until the redemption of mankind as is discussed in Rom 8:18-23. Each of the subsequent genealogies making up the book of Genesis shows us how God is pursuing a seed of righteousness in order to fulfill His plan of redemption for mankind.
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. The Divine Commission of Adam and Eve Gen 2:4-25
2. The Entrance of Sin into God’s Creation Gen 3:1 to Gen 4:24
3. Conclusion Gen 4:25-26
Ten Genealogies (Calling) – The Genealogies of Righteous Men and their Divine Callings (To Be Fruitful and Multiply) – The ten genealogies found within the book of Genesis are structured in a way that traces the seed of righteousness from Adam to Noah to Shem to Abraham to Isaac and to Jacob and the seventy souls that followed him down into Egypt. The book of Genesis closes with the story of the preservation of these seventy souls, leading us into the book of Exodus where we see the creation of the nation of Israel while in Egyptian bondage, which nation of righteousness God will use to be a witness to all nations on earth in His plan of redemption. Thus, we see how the book of Genesis concludes with the origin of the nation of Israel while its first eleven chapters reveal that the God of Israel is in fact that God of all nations and all creation.
The genealogies of the six righteous men in Genesis (Adam, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) are the emphasis in this first book of the Old Testament, with each of their narrative stories opening with a divine commission from God to these men, and closing with the fulfillment of prophetic words concerning the divine commissions. This structure suggests that the author of the book of Genesis wrote under the office of the prophet in that a prophecy is given and fulfilled within each of the genealogies of these six primary patriarchs. Furthermore, all the books of the Old Testament were written by men of God who moved in the office of the prophet, which includes the book of Genesis. We find a reference to the fulfillment of these divine commissions by the patriarchs in Heb 11:1-40. The underlying theme of the Holy Scriptures is God’s plan of redemption for mankind. Thus, the book of Genesis places emphasis upon these men of righteousness because of the role that they play in this divine plan as they fulfilled their divine commissions. This explains why the genealogies of Ishmael (Gen 25:12-18) and of Esau (Gen 36:1-43) are relatively brief, because God does not discuss the destinies of these two men in the book of Genesis. These two men were not men of righteousness, for they missed their destinies because of sin. Ishmael persecuted Isaac and Esau sold his birthright. However, it helps us to understand that God has blessed Ishmael and Esau because of Abraham although the seed of the Messiah and our redemption does not pass through their lineage. Prophecies were given to Ishmael and Esau by their fathers, and their genealogies testify to the fulfillment of these prophecies. There were six righteous men did fulfill their destinies in order to preserve a righteous seed so that God could create a righteous nation from the fruit of their loins. Illustration As a young schoolchild learning to read, I would check out biographies of famous men from the library, take them home and read them as a part of class assignments. The lives of these men stirred me up and placed a desire within me to accomplish something great for mankind as did these men. In like manner, the patriarchs of the genealogies in Genesis are designed to stir up our faith in God and encourage us to walk in their footsteps in obedience to God.
The first five genealogies in the book of Genesis bring redemptive history to the place of identifying seventy nations listed in the Table of Nations. The next five genealogies focus upon the origin of the nation of Israel and its patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
There is much more history and events that took place surrounding these individuals emphasized in the book of Genesis, which can be found in other ancient Jewish writings, such as The Book of Jubilees. However, the Holy Scriptures and the book of Genesis focus upon the particular events that shaped God’s plan of redemption through the procreation of men of righteousness. Thus, it was unnecessary to include many of these historical events that were irrelevant to God’s plan of redemption.
In addition, if we see that the ten genealogies contained within the book of Genesis show to us the seed of righteousness that God has preserved in order to fulfill His promise that the “seed of woman” would bruise the serpent’s head in Gen 3:15, then we must understand that each of these men of righteousness had a particular calling, destiny, and purpose for their lives. We can find within each of these genealogies the destiny of each of these men of God, for each one of them fulfilled their destiny. These individual destinies are mentioned at the beginning of each of their genealogies.
It is important for us to search these passages of Scripture and learn how each of these men fulfilled their destiny in order that we can better understand that God has a destiny and a purpose for each of His children as He continues to work out His divine plan of redemption among the children of men. This means that He has a destiny for you and me. Thus, these stories will show us how other men fulfilled their destinies and help us learn how to fulfill our destiny. The fact that there are ten callings in the book of Genesis, and since the number “10” represents the concept of countless, many, or numerous, we should understand that God calls out men in each subsequent generation until God’s plan of redemption is complete.
We can even examine the meanings of each of their names in order to determine their destiny, which was determined for them from a child. Adam’s name means “ruddy, i.e. a human being” ( Strong), for it was his destiny to begin the human race. Noah’s name means, “rest” ( Strong). His destiny was to build the ark and save a remnant of mankind so that God could restore peace and rest to the fallen human race. God changed Abram’s name to Abraham, meaning, “father of a multitude” ( Strong), because his destiny was to live in the land of Canaan and believe God for a son of promise so that his seed would become fruitful and multiply and take dominion over the earth. Isaac’s name means, “laughter” ( Strong) because he was the child of promise. His destiny was to father two nations, believing that the elder would serve the younger. Isaac overcame the obstacles that hindered the possession of the land, such as barrenness and the threat of his enemies in order to father two nations, Israel and Esau. Jacob’s name was changed to Israel, which means “he will rule as God” ( Strong), because of his ability to prevail over his brother Esau and receive his father’s blessings, and because he prevailed over the angel in order to preserve his posterity, which was the procreation of twelve sons who later multiplied into the twelve tribes of Israel. Thus, his ability to prevail against all odds and father twelve righteous seeds earned him his name as one who prevailed with God’s plan of being fruitful and multiplying seeds of righteousness.
In order for God’s plan to be fulfilled in each of the lives of these patriarchs, they were commanded to be fruitful and multiply. It was God’s plan that the fruit of each man was to be a godly seed, a seed of righteousness. It was because of the Fall that unrighteous seed was produced. This ungodly offspring was not then nor is it today God’s plan for mankind.
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. The Generation of the Heavens and the Earth Gen 2:4 to Gen 4:26
a) The Creation of Man Gen 2:4-25
b) The Fall Gen 3:1-24
c) Cain and Abel Gen 4:1-26
2. The Generation of Adam Gen 5:1 to Gen 6:8
3. The Generation of Noah Gen 6:9 to Gen 9:29
4. The Generation of the Sons of Noah Gen 10:1 to Gen 11:9
5. The Generation of Shem Gen 11:10-26
6. The Generation of Terah (& Abraham) Gen 11:27 to Gen 25:11
7. The Generation Ishmael Gen 25:12-18
8. The Generation of Isaac Gen 25:19 to Gen 35:29
9. The Generation of Esau Gen 36:1-43
10. The Generation of Jacob Gen 37:1 to Gen 50:26
The creation of Adam
v. 4. These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. v. 5. And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. v. 6. But there went up a mist from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. v. 7. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 2. THE GENERATIONS OF THE HEAVENS AND OF THE EARTH (Gen. 2:4-4:26).
EXPOSITION
THE subject handled in the present section is the primeval history of man in his paradisiacal state of innocence, his temptation and fall, and his subsequent development, in two diverging lines, of faith and unbelief, holiness and sin. On the ground of certain obvious, well-defined, and readily-explained characteristics which distinguish this from the preceding portion of the narrative, it is usual with the higher criticism to allege diversity of authorship; and, indeed, these same characteristics, magnified by misapplied ingenuity into insoluble contradictions, are the chief buttress of the documentary hypothesis of Astrue, Hupfeld, Tuch, Ewald, and others. Now the hypothesis that Moses, in the composition of the Pentateuch, and of this Book of Origins in particular, made use of existing documents that may have descended from a remote antiquity is, a prioir, neither incredible nor impossible; but, on the contrary, is extremely probable, and may be held as admitted; only the alleged peculiarities of the different portions of the narrative do not justify the reckless confidence with which it has been resolved by Stahelin, Bleek, De Wette, Knobel, Ewald, and Davidson into its so-called original fragments; and, in the case of Ewald, primordial atoms. The occurrence of the name Jehovah Elohim, instead of simply Elohim, as in the preceding section, is the chief peculiarity of the present portion of the narrative, so far as style and language are concerned; its angered irreconcilable differences in subject-matter are skillfully and succinctly put by Kalisch. “In the first cosmogony vegetation is immediately produced by the will of God; in the second its existence is made dependent on rain and mists and the agricultural labors: in the first the earth emerges from the waters, and is, therefore, saturated with moisture; in the second it appears dry, sterile, and sandy: in the first man and his wife are created together; in the second the wife is formed later, and from a part of man: in the former man bears the image of God, and is made ruler of the whole earth; in the latter his earth-formed body is only animated by the breath of life, and he is placed in Eden to cultivate and to guard it: in the former the birds and beasts are created before man; in the latter man before birds and beasts.” For a reply to these “insoluble contradictions,” which, though “too obvious to be overlooked or denied,” are mostly, if not solely, due to a false exegesis and a misapprehension of the guiding purpose of the writer, see the Exposition following, which attempts no “artificial solution” such as Kalisch deprecates, and proposes no ingenious reconciliation of essentially opposing statements, but simply shows that, when naturally and literally interpreted, the narrative is free from those internal antagonisms which a ‘microscopic criticism imagines it has detected in it. The internal unity of the present writing, or second document, as it is called, is apparent. The internecine struggle between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, which the fratricidal act of Cain inaugurated (Gen 4:1-26.), is the legitimate and necessary outcome of the sin and the grace revealed in Eden (Gen 3:1-24.), while the melancholy story of the temptation and the fall presupposes the paradisiacal innocence of the first pair (Gen 2:1-25.). Thus homogeneous in itself, it likewise connects with, the preceding section through Gen 2:1-25; which, as a monograph on man, supplies a more detailed account of his creation than is given in the narrative of the six days’ work, and, by depicting man’s settlement in Eden as a place of trial, prepares the way for the subsequent recital of his seduction and sin, and of his consequent expulsion from the garden.
Gen 2:4
These are the generations is the usual heading for the different sections into which the Book of Genesis is divided (vial. Gen 5:1; Gen 6:9; Gen 10:1; Gen 11:10, Gen 11:27; Gen 25:12, Gen 25:19; Gen 36:1; Gen 37:2). Misled by the LXX; who render toldoth by , Ranks, Title, Havernick, Tuch, Ewald, and Stahelin disconnect the entire verse from the second section, which says nothing about the origination of the heavens and the earth, and append it to the preceding, in which their creation is described. Ilgen improves on their suggestion by transferring it to the commencement of Gen 1:1-31, as an appropriate superscription. Dreschler, Vaihingel Bohlen, Oehler, Macdonald, et alii divide the verse into two clauses, and annex the former to what precedes, commencing the ensuing narrative with the latter. All of these proposals are, however, rendered unnecessary by simply observing that toldoth (from yaladh, to bear, to beget; hence begettings, procreations, evolutions, developments) does not describe the antecedents, but the consequents, of either thing or Person (Rosen; Keil, Kalisch). The toldoth of Noah are not the genealogical list of the patriarch’s ancestry, but the tabulated register of his posterity; and so the generations of the heavens and the earth refer not to their original production (Gesenius), but to their onward movements from creation downwards (Keil). Hence with no incongruity, but with singular propriety, the first half of the present verse, ending with the words when they were created, literally, in their creation, stands at the commencement of the section in which the forward progression of the universe is traced. The point of departure in this subsequent evolution of the material heavens and earth is further specified as being in the day that the Lord God (Jehovah Elohim) made the earth and the heavens; not the heavens and the earth, which would have signified the universe (cf. on Gen 1:1), and carried hack the writer’s thought to the initial act of creation; but the earth and the atmospheric firmament, which indicates the period embracing the second and (possibly) the third creative days as the terminus a quo of the generations to be forthwith recorded. Then it was that the heavens and the earth in their development took a clear and decided step forward in the direction of man and the human family (was it in the appearance of vegetation?); and in this thought perhaps will be found the key to the significance of the new name for the Divine Being which is used exclusively throughout the present sectionJehovah Elohim. From the frequency of its use, and the circumstance that it never has the article, Jehovah may be regarded as the proper Personal name of God. Either falsely interpreting Exo 20:7 and Le Exo 24:11, or following some ancient superstition (mysterious names of deities were used generally in the East; the Egyptian Hermes had a name which (Cic. ‘de Natura Deorum,’ 8, 16) durst not be uttered: Furst), the later Hebrews invested this nomen tetra. grammaton with such sanctity that it might not bepronounced. Accordingly, it was their custom to write it in the sacred text with the vowel points of Adonai, or, if that preceded, Elohim. Hence considerable doubt now exists as to its correct pronunciation. Etymologically viewed it is a future form of havah, an old form of hayah; uncertainty as to what future has occasioned many different suggestions as to what constituted its primitive vocalization. According to the evidence which scholars have collected, the choice lies between
(1) Jahveh (Gesenius, Ewald, Reland, Oehler, Macdonald, the Samaritan),
(2) Yehveh or Yeheveh (Furst, W. L. Alexander, in Kitto’s ‘Cyclopedia’), and
(3) Jehovah (Michaelis, Meyer, Stier, Hoelmann, Tregelles, Murphy).
Perhaps the preponderance of authority inclines to the first; but the common punctuation is not so indefensible as some writers allege. Gesenius admits that it more satisfactorily accounts for the abbreviated syllables and than the pronunciation which he himself favors. Murphy thinks that the substitution of Adonai for Jehovah was facilitated by the agreement of their vowel points. The locus classicus for its signification is Exo 3:14, in which God defines himself as “I am that I am,” and commands Moses to tell the children of Israel that Ehyeh had sent him. Hengstenberg and Keil conclude that absolute self-existence is the essential idea represented by the name (cf. Exo 3:14; , LXX.; Rev 1:4, Rev 1:8; , vd. Furst, ‘Lex. sub nora.’). Baumgarten and Delitzsch, laying stress on its future form, regard it as = the Becoming One, with reference to the revelation, rather than the essence, of the Divine nature. Macdonald, from the circumstance that it was not used till after the fall, discovers a pointing forward to Jehovah as in connection with redemption. Others, deriving from a hiphil future, take it as denoting “he who causes to be, the Fulfiller,” and find in this an explanation of Exo 6:3 (Exell). May not all these ideas be more or less involved in the fullness of the Divine name? As distinguished from Elohim, Deus omnipotens, the mighty One, Jehovah is the absolute, self-existent One, who manifests himself to man, and, in particular, enters into distinct covenant engagements for his redemption, which he in due time fulfils. In the present section the names are conjoined partly to identify Jehovah with Elohim, and partly because the subject of which it treats is the history of man.
Gen 2:5
And every plant of the field before it was (literally, not yet) in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew (literally, had not yet sprouted). Following the LXX; the English Version suggests an intention on the writer’s part to emphasize the fact that the vegetation of the globehere comprehended under the general terms, shiah, shrub, and eseb, herbwas not a natural production, but, equally with the great earth and heavens, was the creation of Jehovah Elohima rendering which has the sanction of Taylor Lewis; whereas the writer’s object clearly is to depict the appearance of the earth at the time when the man-ward development of the heavens and the earth began. Then not a single plant was in the ground, not a green blade was visible. The land, newly sprung from the waters, was one desolate region of bleak, bare lava-hills and extensive mud-fiats. Up to that point the absence of vegetation is accounted for by the circumstance that the presently existing atmospheric conditions of the globe had not then been established, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and the ordinary agricultural operations on which its production was afterwards to depend had not then been begun, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Gen 2:6
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. The dry land having been separated from the waters, and the atmospheric ocean uplifted above them both, vaporous exhalations began to ascend to the aerial regions, and to return again in the shape of rain upon the ground. Jehovah thus caused it to rain upon the ground, and so prepared it for the vegetation which, in obedience to the Almighty fiat, sprung up at the close of the third day, although the writer does not mention its appearance, but leaves it to be inferred from the preceding section. That soon after its emergence from the waters the land should be “dry, sterile, and sandy” will not be thought remarkable if we remember the highly igneous condition of our planet at the time when the dry land was upheaved and the waters gathered into the subsiding valleys. Nothing would more naturally follow that event than the steaming up of vapors to float in the aerial sea. In fact, the rapidity with which evaporation would be carried on would very speedily leave the newly-formed land hard and dry, baked and caked into a crust, till the atmosphere, becoming overcharged with aqueous vapor, returned it in the shape of rain. To talk of insuperable difficulty and manifest dissonance where everything is clear, natural, and harmonious is to speak at random, and betrays an anxiety to create contradictions rather than to solve them.
Gen 2:7
And the Lord God (Jehovah Elohim) formed man of the dust of the ground. Literally, dust from the ground. Here, again, Bleek, Kalisch, and the theologians of their school discover contrariety between this account of man’s creation and that which has been given in the preceding chapter. In that man is represented as having been created by the Divine word, in the Divine image, and male and female simultaneously; whereas in this his creation is exhibited as a painful process of elaboration from the clay by the hand of God, who works it like a potter (asah; LXX; ), and, after having first constructed man, by a subsequent operation forms woman. But the first account does not assert that Adam and Eve were created together, and gives no details of the formation of either. These are supplied by the present narrative, which, beginning with the construction of his body from the fine dust of the ground, designedly represents it as an evolution or development of the material universe, and ends by setting it before us as animated by the breath of God, reserving for later treatment the mode of Eve’s production, when the circumstances that led to it have been described. And (the Lord God) breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Literally, the breath of lives. “The formation of man from the dust and the breathing of the breath of life must not be understood in a mechanical sense, as if God first of all constructed a human figure from the dust” (still less does it admit of the idea that man’s physical nature was evolved from the lower animals), “and then, by breathing his breath of life into the clod of earth which he had shaped into the form of a man, made it into a living being. The words are to be understood . By an act of Divine omnipotence man arose from the dust; and in the same moment in which the dust, by virtue of creative omnipotence, shaped itself into a human form, it was pervaded by the Divine breath of life, and created a living being, so that we cannot say the body was earlier than the soul” (Delitzsch). And man became a living soul. Nephesh chayyah, in Gen 1:21, 80, is employed to designate the lower animals. Describing a being animated by a or life principle, it does not necessarily imply that the basis of the life principle in man and the inferior animals is the same. The distinction between the two appears from the difference in the mode of their creations. The beasts arose at the almighty fiat completed beings, every one a nephesh chayyah. “The origin of their soul was coincident with that of their corporeality, and their life was merely the individualization of the universal life with which all matter was filled at the beginning by the Spirit of God” (Delitzsch). Man received his life from a distinct act of Divine inbreathing; certainly not an in-breathing of atmospheric air, but an inflatus from the Ruach Elohim, or Spirit of God, a communication from the whole personality of the Godhead. In effect man was thereby constituted a nephesh chayyah, like the lower animals; but in him the life principle conferred a personality which was wanting in them. Thus there is no real contradiction, scarcely even an “apparent dissonance,” between the two accounts of man’s creation. The second exhibits the foundation of that likeness to God and world-dominion ascribed to him in the first.
HOMILETICS
Gen 2:7
The first man.
I. MADE FROM THE DUST. This does not imply that in the composition of humanity there is nothing but particles of dust, or “molecules of matter.” Simply it designs to state that the point of departure in man’s creation was the soil out of which all other living creatures were produced; that, so to speak, man was constructed from beneath upwards, the Divine Artificer proceeding with his creation in the same ascending scale of activity that had been observed in the production of the rest of the universefirst the material body, and then the immaterial soul; and that, so far as the former is concerned, man is wholly and solely of the earth, earthy,an assertion which the researches of chemistry and physiology abundantly confirm,the elements of organized bodies being the same as those which constitute the inorganic world, viz; carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, lime, iron, sulfur, and phosphorus. The statement is fitted to impress man with thoughts
1. Of his lowly origin. While the Scripture in general labors to imbue his mind with correct ideas of his obscure nativity, comparing him to a wind, to a vapor, to a flower, to the beasts, to a worm, the sentiment of Moses takes him lower yet for his birthplaceto the dust of the ground, above which the wind blows, from which the vapors rise, on which the flowers bloom, across which the beasts roam, out of which the worm creeps.
2. Of his essential frailty. Being composed of little particles of dust, held together by what science calls “organization,” but Holy Writ designates the power of God, it requires but the loosening of God’s hand, as it were, for the framework of his body, so wondrously fashioned, so delicately carved, so finely articulated, so firmly knit, to resolve itself into a heap of dust.
3. Of his final destiny. Every mundane thing returns to the place whence it proceeded (Ecc 1:5, Ecc 1:7). The vapors climb into the sky, but descend again upon the hills, and seek the plains. The flowers bloom, but, after dispensing their fragrance, shed their leaves upon the earth. The young lions, that, as it were, are sprung from the soil, find a grave at last within their forest dens. As it is with the flowers and the beasts, so is it also with man. “All are of the dust, and all turn to dust again” (Ecc 3:18, Ecc 3:20; Job 10:9; Psa 103:14).
Lessons:
1. Humility of spirit (Job 4:19; Psa 144:3, Psa 144:4; Isaiah If. 1). “Holy living” (Taylor, Gen 4:9).
2. Care for the bodyprotecting its frailty from injury (Le Gen 19:28) and its materiality from mastery (Rom 12:1; 1Co 6:13; 1Th 4:4).
3. Preparation for death (Psa 39:4; Psa 90:12).
II. FASHIONED BY THE HAND OF GOD. Made from the dust, the first man neither sprung from the slime of matter, according to naturalism ( ), nor was evolved from the of pantheism, but was specifically formed by Divine creative power. This marked the first degree of man’s superiority over other living creatures. Deriving existence, equally with man, from the creative power of God, it is not said of them that they were “formed” by God. Let this remind man
1. Of the Divine origin of the body. If the physical structures of the lower organisms display such admirable proportions and striking adaptations as to evince the action of Divine intelligence, much more may a Creator’s hand be recognized in the form and symmetry, proportion and adjustment of the human body. An examination of the hand, eye, or brain, of the muscular or nervous systems, instinctively awakens the devout feelings of the Psalmist: “I will praise Thee, O Lord; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psa 139:14).
2. Of the Divine estimate of the body. Shown by the personal care and attention which God devoted to its construction, since he designed it to be the noblest of his works, the shrine of an immortal spirit, a prophecy and type of the body of his Son, in the fullness of the times to be prepared by another special act of creation (Psa 40:6; Heb 10:8). This estimate he has in many ways confirmed: by abundantly and generously sustaining it, although a partner in the spirit’s sin (Gen 1:29; Gen 9:3); guarding its life with the strictest and severest penalties (Gen 9:5, Gen 9:6); taking it into union with himself, in the person of his Son (Heb 2:6); redeeming it, as well as the soul it enshrines, through his Son’s blood (Rom 8:21, Rom 8:28); and constituting it, as well as the immaterial spirit, a partaker of resurrection glory (1Co 15:42).
Learn
1. The true nobility of man’s descent, and the duty of walking worthy of it.
2. The high value of the body, and the consequent obligation of neither dishonoring nor abusing it.
III. ANIMATED BY THE BREATH OF LIFE. The second degree of man’s superiority to the lower animals. Like them, a living soul, his life is different from theirs
1. In its nature. Theirs was a portion of that common life principle which God has been pleased to communicate to matter; his a direct afflatus from the personality of God.
2. In its impartation. Theirs was bestowed directly and immediately by the fiat of omnipotence; his conveyed into his material framework by a special Divine operation.
3. In its effect. Theirs constituted them “living souls;” his conferred on him personality. Theirs made them creatures having life; his caused him to become a spirit having life. Theirs left them wholly mortal; his transformed him into an immortal (Ecc 3:21).
Let man consider
1. That his body is a temple of the Holy Ghost (1Co 6:19).
2. That his spirit is the creation and the gift of God (Ecc 12:7; Isa 57:16; Zec 12:1).
3. That with both it becomes him to glorify his Divine Creator (1Co 6:20).
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
Gen 2:4-7
Man the living soul.
1. Life is a Divine bestowment.
2. Dust which is Divinely inspired is no longer mere dust; the true life is neither groveling on the earth, nor so much away from the earth as to be no longer the life of a living soul.
3. The creature who is last formed, and for whom all other things wait and are prepared, is made to be the interpreter of all, and the glory of God in them.R.
Gen 2:4. Generations Toldoth, sometimes signifies the origin of the thing treated of, and sometimes the posterity of those who are mentioned. Here it means the origin, or successive production, of the world; as much as to say, “this is the true and faithful account of the origin,” &c.
Lord By this word our translators have chosen to render, throughout their translation, Jehovah, the peculiar and appropriated name of God; which first occurs here, but will be explained more suitably when we come to the third chapter of Exodus, and the 15th verse. It is joined with Elohim here, Jehovah Elohim, by apposition, says Le Clerc, to shew, that the God (Elohim) who created the world is the same Jehovah whom the Israelites worshipped. The Hebrew Doctors observe, that Jehovah Elohim, Lord God, is the full and perfect name of God; and therefore fitly reserved to this place, when the works of God were perfected.
SECOND SECTION
ManParadisethe Paradisaical Pair and the Paradisaical Institutions,TheocraticJehovistic.
Gen 2:4-25.
A.The Earth waiting for Man.
4These are the generations [genealogies]14 of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day [here the six days are one day] that the Lord God [not God Jehovah, much less God the Eternal. Israels God as God of all the world] made the earth and the heavens [the theocratic heavens are completed from the earth], 5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man [Adam] to till the ground [adamah].
B.The Creation of the Paradisaical Man.
6But there went up a mist from the earth [including the sea] and watered the whole face of the earth [the adamah or the land]. 7And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became15 a living soul.
C.The Creation of Paradise.
8And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden [land of delight], and there he put the man whom he had formed: 9And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 10And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted and became into four heads. 11The name of the first is Pison [spreading]; that is it which compasseth 12[winds through] the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. And the gold of that land is good [fine]; there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 13And the name of the second river is Gihon [gushing], the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia [Cush]. 14And the name of the third river is Hiddekel [swift-flowing]; that is it which goeth toward the East of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
D.The Paradise Life.
15And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden, to dress it and to keep it. 16And the Lord God commanded the man saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat [ ]. 17But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die [ ].
E.Paradisaical Development and Institutions.
18And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him [, his contrast, reflected image, his other I]. 19And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them unto Adam to see16 what he would call them; and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him. 21And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. 22And the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman and brought her unto the man. 23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man [ischah, man-ess, because taken from isch, man]. 24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh. 25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1. The present section, Gen 2:4-25, is connected with the one that follows to the end of Genesis 3, by the peculiar divine designation of Jehovah Elohim. It has also a still closer connection with Genesis 4, inasmuch as the next toledoth, or generations, begin with Gen 5:1. That, however, Gen 2:25 is really a separate portion, appears from the strong contrast in which the history of the fall, Genesis 3, stands to the history of Paradise, Genesis 2. Keil denotes the whole division, even to the next toledoth (Gen 5:1), as the history of the heavens and the earth. Upon the completing of the creative work, Genesis 1, there follows the commencing historical development of the world, with the history of the heavens and the earth in three sections: a. Of the primitive condition of man in Paradise (Gen 2:5-25); b. of the fall (Genesis 3); c. of the breaking up of the one human race into two distinct and separately disposed races (Genesis 4). It must be remarked, however, in the first place, that in Genesis 2 there is not yet any proper beginning of historical development in the strict sense, and, secondly, that Gen 4:1 to Gen 6:7 do evidently cohere in a definite unity presenting, as consequence of the history of the fall, 1. the unfolding of the line of Cain, 2. the unfolding of the line of Seth, and 3. the inter-folding of both lines to their mutual corruption. So far, therefore, does the history of the first world proceed under the religious point of view. But the generations of the heavens and the earth go on from the beginning of our present section to Genesis 5. In respect to this, Keil rightly maintains that the phrase eleh tholedoth (these the generations) must be the superscription to what follows (Gen 2:33). The question arises: in what sense? On good ground does Keil insist that toledoth (a noun derived from the Hiphil, in the construct plural, and denoting properly the generations, or the posterity of any one) means not the historical origin of the one named in the genitive, but ever the history of the generations and the life that proceeds from himor his series of descendants (we may add) as his own genesis still going on in his race. This word, therefore, in its relation to heaven and earth, cannot denote the original beginning of the heaven and the earth (Delitzsch thinks otherwise), but only the historical development of heaven and earth after they are finished. For the toledoth or generations of Noah, for example, do not denote his own birth and begetting, but his history and the begetting of his sons. From what has been said it follows, therefore, that the human history, from Genesis 2 to the end of Genesis 4, is not to be regarded as a history of the earth only, but also of the heavens. And in a mystical sense, truly, Paradise is heaven and earth together. Let us now keep specially in view the section of Jehovah Elohim, chs. 2 and 3. When we bear in mind that the name Jehovah Elohim occurs twenty times in this section in place of Elohim that had been used hitherto (the exceptions, Gen 3:1; Gen 3:3; Gen 3:5, are very characteristic), and that, besides this, it is found only once in the Pentateuch (Exo 9:30), the significance of this connection becomes very clear. When once, however, the documentary unity of the Elohim and Jehovah sections is clearly entertained, this section becomes immediately a declaration that the Covenant-God of Israel, originally the Covenant-God of Adam in Paradise, is one with Elohim the God of all the world. Immediately, too, is there established the central stand-point of the theocratic spirit, according to which Jehovah is the God of all the world, and Adam, with his Paradise, is the microcosmic centre of all the world (in respect to the names Jehovah and Elohim, see Keil, p. 35). As far as specially concerns our section, Genesis 2, Knobel gives it the superscription: The Creation, Narration Second. It must be remarked, however, that here the genesis of the earth, in contrast with the generative series that follows, is presented according to the principle that determines the ordering of things; so that Adam, as such principle, stands at the head. (It is according to Aristotles proposition: the posterior in appearance, the prior in idea.) The representation must, indeed, give him a basis in an already existing earth; yet still for the paradisaical earth is it true that the earth is first through man. The paradisaical earth with its institutions, uniting as they do the contrast of heaven and earth, or rather of earth and heaven, is the fundamental idea of the second chapter. For an apprehension of this contrast, in part akin to and partly variant, see Delitzsch, p. 138. From the very supposition of the earth as existing, it appears that the author presupposes still another representation of the creation, and that the present is only meant to give a supplement from another side. It is incorrect to say here, as Knobel does, that the origin of plants in general goes before the origin of man.
2. Gen 2:4. The construction of De Wette is to this effect: At the time when God Jehovah made earth and heaven, there was no shrub of the field, etc. Still harsher and more difficult is the construction of Bunsen: At the time when God the Ever lasting made heaven and earth, and there was not yet any shrub of the field upon the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprouted (for Jehovah God had not yet made it to rain upon the earth, etc.), then did God the Everlasting form man, etc. Both of these are untenable and opposed to the simple expression of the text. (See also Delitzsch and Keil.) Gen 2:4 is indeed not altogether easy. On the day in which the Lord made the earth and the heavens, that is, on the one great day, in which here the hexameron is included (with special reference, indeed, to its closing period), there commenced the history of the heavens and the earth in their becoming createdthat is, in the same period in which they became created. Out of the paradisaical history: Earth and heaven, arose the converse history: Heaven and earth, in a religious sense, just as in a genetic sense there was the same order from the beginning.
3. Gen 2:5-6. And every plant of the field.The word with the negative particle is equivalent to the German gar nichts, not at all. The Hebrew conjunction leaves it at first view undecided, whether the superscription goes on so as to take in the words, and every herb, etc. And yet, on that view, there would be a failure of any concluding sense. The most probable view, therefore, is that which regards the conjunction as merely a transition particle, and passes it over in the translation. According to Knobel and others this narration is actually at variance with that of Genesis 1, as, for example, in its view of the dryness of the earth before the introduction of the plants, etc. (see Gen 2:22), and, therefore, we must conclude that it belongs to another narrator. In regard to this assumption of different documents, we may refer to the Introduction (for the modes of representation in the Jehovistic portions, see Knobel, p. 23; likewise the head Literature, p. 24). The designed unity of both representations appears from the manner and way in which, even according to Knobel, the second of these narrations, in many of its references, presupposes the first. The full explanation of this unity becomes obvious from the harmonic contrast which arises when the universal creation of the world is regarded from the ideal stand-point of the Jehovah belief (see Joh 17:5; Eph 1:4). The author carries us back to the time of the hexameron, when no herb of the field had yet grown. Nevertheless there is not meant by this the beginning of the third creative day, but the time of the sixth. The apparent contradiction, however, disappears, when we lay the emphasis upon the expression of the field, and by the herbs and plants of the field that are here meant, understand the nobler species of herbs that are the growth of culture. In opposition to Delitzsch, Keil correctly distinguishes between and . Delitzsch has not sufficiently removed the difficulty that arises when we carry back the date of this to the time before vegetation existed. There would be (apparent) contradiction (he admits) between the two narratives, but not an inexplicable onethen it is no contradiction at all. It is the paradisaical plants, therefore; these did not yet exist; for they presuppose man. See other interpretations in Langes Positive Dogmatic, p. 242. Keil connects our interpretation with that of Baumgarten: By the being of the plant is denoted its growth and germination. This is ever wont to follow very soon after the planting of the germ. By assuming, indeed, a certain emphasis on the verbs and , we may get the sense: the herbs of the field were not yet rightly grown, the plant was not yet come to its perfection of form or feature, because the conditions of culture were as yet wanting. But this thought connects itself more or less with that of plants produced by cultivation, which, as such, presuppose the existence of man.Had not caused it to rain.To the human cultivation of the world belong two distinct things: first the rain from heaven together with sunshine, and secondly the labor and care of man. Both conditions fail as yet, but now, for the first time, comes in the first mode of nurture. The fog-vapor that arose from the earth (ha-aretz, including the sea) waters the earth-soil (the adamah). It is rightly inferred from Gen 2:6 that the vapor which arose from the earth indicates the first rain. If it means that the mist then first arose from the earth, there would seem to be indicated thereby the form of rain, or, at all events, of some extraordinary fall of the dew. From this place, and from the history of the flood (especially the appearance of the rainbow), it was formerly inferred that until the time of the deluge no rain had actually fallen. But from the fact that the rainbow was first made a sign of the covenant for Noah, it does not at all follow that it had not actually existed before; just as little as it follows from the sign of the starry night which Abraham received (Genesis 15), that there had been no starry night before, or from the institution of the covenant-sign of circumcision, that circumcision had not earlier existed as a popular usage (two points which the Epistle of Barnabas has well distinguished, although the critics have partially failed in understanding it. Epistle of Barnabas ix.). A similar view must be taken of the previous natural history of the paschal lamb, of the dove, and of the eucharistic supper; they were ever earlier than the sacramental appointment. In fact, there is in this place no express mention made of rain proper, and it may well suggest here one of those heavy falls of dew that take place in the warmer climates. Our text may fairly mean, not that the rain was a mere elementary phenomenon, but that it belonged to the divinely ordered economy of human cultivation in its interchange with the labor of man. The most we can say is, that the watering of the soil was a precondition to the creation of man himself. Just as cultivation after this, so must also, primarily, the cultivator of the soil come into existence under the dew of heaven. Moreover, the earthly organization of man consists, in good part, of water. The words Adam and adamah are used here, as we may well believe, to denote a close relationship of kin. As Adam, however, is not simply from the earth (ha-aretz), so the adamah is not simply the theocratic earth-soil prepared by the God who created man. Adam is the man in his relation to the earth, and so is adamah the earth in its relation to man.
[Note on the Summary of the First Creative Account in the Second.Knobel has to admit the internal evidence showing that this second account recognizes the first and is grounded upon it, thereby disproving the probability of a contrariety either intended or unseen. The attempt, however, of Lange, and of others cited, to reconcile the seeming difficulties, can hardly be regarded as giving full satisfaction. Another method, therefore, may be proposed, which we think is the one that would most obviously commend itself to the ordinary reader who believed in the absolute truthfulness of the account, and knew nothing of any documentary theory. The two narratives are a continuation of the same story. The second is by the same author as the first, or by one in perfect harmony with him, and evidently referring to all that had been previously said as the ground-work of what is now to be more particularly added respecting man, and which may be called the special subject of this second part. Hence the preparatory recapitulation, just as Xenophon in each book of the Anabasis presents a brief summary of the one preceding. This reference to the previous account thus commences: These are the generations of the heavens and the earththat is, as has been already told. That refers to the creative growths, births, evolutions, or whatever else we might call them, would be the first and most obvious thought. When told that they mean the generations of Adam, as subsequently given, and this because Paradise is heaven and earth together, or Adam with his Paradise is the microcosmic centre of the world, we admit the justness and beauty of the thoughts, but find it difficult to be satisfied with the exposition. Again, whoever will examine the uses of (these) in Noldius Concordance, will find that it refers as often, and perhaps oftener, to what precedes than to what follows. The context alone determines, and here it decidedly points to the first chapter. There is, however, no difficulty in taking it both ways, as a subscription to the first passage, or as a superscription to the second, at the same time. That the generations of the heavens and the earth means the previous creative account, and not that which comes after, would seem to be decided by the words immediately added, , in their being createdin the day (that is, the time or period taken as a whole) of the Lord Gods making the earth and heavens. To seek for mysteries here in the transposition of the words earth and heavens, would be like a similar search by the Jewish Masorites of something occult in the little ( ) of the word . Either the whole previous time is referred to, or, as is more probable, the earliest part of it, before not only man but vegetation also. Or, in the day, may mean, as some have thought, the first day, when the material of the earth and heavens had been created, but all was yet unformed. Now this seems to be very much what is meant by what follows in Gen 2:5-6. In the day when God made the earth and heavens; here the writer might have stopped, so far as his main design was concerned, and gone on immediately to give the intended more particular account of man; but he is led to enlarge his recapitulating summary by an addition that may be regarded either as parenthetical or exegeticalthe earth and heavens, and every shrub of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb before it grew, etc. He puts the greatest and the smallest things together to denote totality. All was made before man. And then, to make the language more emphatic in the assertion of its being a divine work, and that it was before man, who is excluded from all agency in its production, it is further declared that this first appearance of the vegetable world was not, in its origin, an ordinary production of nature (such as growth produced by rain), and was wholly independent of human cultivation. It had not yet rained in the ordinary way, that is, the regular production and reproduction of the seasons had not yet taken place, and there was no man to till the ground. It was after this first supernatural vegetation that the irrigating processes commenced, when God made a law for the rain ( , legem pluviis, Job 28:26), and caused the mist to go up (the evaporation and condensation) that watered the whole face of the , the earths soil. This assertion of supernatural growths being premised as antecedent summary, the writer immediately proceeds to the main and direct subject of this second section: , and after this (as is demanded by the conversive denoting sequence of event) the Lord God formed man.
The language is irregular and parenthetical, but artless and clear, at least in its general design. The terms employed are those that a writer with those primitive conceptions would use in impressing the idea of the supernatural. The first plants were made to grow without that help of rain and of human cultivation which they now require. A striking difference between this and the first account is that it is wholly unchronological, just as would be expected in a summary of a recapitulation. It is an introduction to man, as showing briefly what was done for him before he is brought into the world, and then what follows is wholly confined to him. Thus viewed, there is the strongest internal evidence that the two accounts are from one and the same author, who has neither desire nor motive to enlarge upon what he had previously said. It is the style of one who understands himself, and who has no fear of being misunderstood, or taken for another, by his reader. The or mist here that went up can mean nothing but the rain itself. It is the same process, and that the word is to be so regarded is evident from its use, Job 36:27 : For He maketh small the drops of water, when they pour down the rain of its vapor, . It may be a question whether (Gen 2:4) is to be taken as the object of , Gen 2:3, as it commonly is, or is to be regarded as connected with what follows, so as to be the subject of the verbal force that is in . This word is not well rendered before, as though a thing could be before it was, unless in an ideal sense, which we cannot suppose to be the writers meaning here. The being in the earth was essential to its being a plant; otherwise it is but the idolon or imago of a plant, according to the crude and untenable view that would represent God as outwardly or mechanically making it and then putting it in the earth to be brought forth (see Introduction to the First Chapter, p.). The word , says Raschi, is equivalent to , until not, or, not yet, and contains averbal assertive force. So the Targum of Onkelos renders it, and the Syriac by a similar idiom, . It would then read: And as for the shrub, it (was) not yet in the earth, the herb had not yet begun to grow; thus giving to the force of a negative verb, like , only with the idea of time. And then, with this negative force in , the , according to the Hebrew idiom, makes a universal negative of the strongest kind, being equivalent to gar nichts, as Lange saysnothing at all. Thus the expression: every shrub was not, etc., which with us would be a particular or partial negative equivalent to not every, is the widest universal in the Hebrew: In the day of Gods making the earth and the heavens, when (as may well be rendered) there was not the least sign of shrub or plant growing in the earth. See Lud. de Dieu: Critica Sacra, in loc.
This is, in the main, the view of Delitzsch, though he still seems to have some perplexities about the time. We get clear, however, of the difficulties of Lange and others. There is no need of bringing this vegetation down to the sixth day, and referring it to the growth of cultivated plants from the adamah. The language will not bear it. In like manner there is disposed of the explanation of some of the Jewish Rabbis, that the plants barely came to the surface on the third day, but for the want of rain did not come forth and reach their perfection until the sixth. Maimonides says justly, that this is against the positive declaration that the earth did bring them forth (Gen 1:12). In refuting it, however, he lays the emphasis on , the field, in distinction from the earth generally, and so regards it as spoken of cultivated plants. But this seems forced, and there stands in the way of it the word , which is especially used of uncultivated growths, as of the desert, Job 30:4; Job 30:7, or of the wild bushes in the wilderness of Beer-Sheba, Gen 21:15.
See the attempts to reconcile the two accounts in Wordsworth, Murphy, and Jacobus. The trouble springs from the assuming of a chronology, and endeavoring to find it, when the chief feature of this second narrative, or of the summary that precedes it, is its wholly unchronological character. There is no time in it. The near and the remote are brought together: In the day when God made the heavens and the earth, from the firmament down to the shrubor, when there was not a sign of a plant in the earthmade them by His divine word, before there was any rain (compare Pro 8:24, , when there were no fountains full of water), though afterwards He made a law for the rain, and the mists went up and descended to fertilize the earth, etc. This absence of rain was somewhere in this summed-up day of creation; its place, however, is not fixed in the series, and it is alluded to not for its own sake, but in connection with the plants as originating from a higher causality.T. L.]
4. Gen 2:7. The Lord God formed man.Knobel: As the principal creation of the earth the author has him created before all his fellow-creatures. This is incorrect, inasmuch as the representation evidently has in view no genealogical or chronological order. It only presents him as the chief divine thought, at the head of the Paradise-creation. In respect to the mode of origin of the divine-formed man the first chapter says nothing; it only indicates that man is of a higher, and, at the same time, of an earthly nature, without being a product of the earth. But now, on the threshold of a history rising and revealing its purposes, there is need to know something more particular in respect to his mode of origin, so that, along with the fact of his existence, we may understand his established relation to God, to the surrounding vegetable and animal world, and to the earth in general. Delitzsch. The spirit of the Old Testament, with all correctness, represents the nature of man, in respect to his bodily substance, as earthly; and just so does physiology determine. In the matter of his body man consists of earthly elements; in a wider sense he is out of the earth (Gen 18:27; Psa 103:14), and at his death he goes back to his mother-earth (Gen 3:19; Gen 3:23; Job 10:9; Job 34:15; Psa 146:4; Ecc 3:20; Ecc 12:7). According to the classical myth Prometheus formed the first man of earthy and watery material (Apollodorus, Ovid, Juvenal), and in the same manner Vulcan made the first woman (Pandora) out of earth (Hesiod). In other places the ancients represent man as generated out of the earth (Plato in the Kritias, and others, Virgil) as well as the beasts. Knobel. The name Adam does not denote precisely one taken from the earth (, ), but one formed from the adamah, the soil of cultivation in its paradisaical state; just as the Latin homo from humus, and the Greek from , do not refer back to the earth-matter generally, but to the earth-soil as adapted to cultivation. This derivation from adamah is adopted by most (Kimchi, Rosenmller, and others). On the contrary, others, after Josephus, derive the word from the verb , to be red, with reference to the ruddy color of man, or the reddish soil of Palestine. Knobel, again, explains it, with Ludolf, from the thiopian , to be pleasant, agreeable, according to which it would denote something of comely form.17 One Jewish Doctor, and after him Eichhorn and Richers, would make the word (Eze 19:10 = ) the etymological ground, and would, therefore, give it pre-eminently the meaning of image or likeness. The two first explanations are in so far one as the primitive contemplation saw the reflection of the reddish earth in the glow of the ruddy cheek or in the color of the blood. In this it must be maintained that the earthly lowliness of man, as thereby expressed, becomes modified by the superior excellence of the primitive paradisaical earth. First after the fall does it thus properly become the lowliness of this lower earth. As, therefore, in respect to one half, the lower descent of the outward human nature is expressed by the name Adam, so also, on the other side, there is the hidden nobleness of the adamah, and the destiny of man to draw the adamah along with it in its development to a higher life. In respect to the Greek word for man, (= , the upward looking), compare Delitzsch, p. 141, and Knobel, p. 25. So also for the Indo-Germanic Mensch, in the Sanscrit manu (from mna, to think, related to manas, spirit), see the notes in Delitzsch, p. 619. The translations of , dust, also clay, soil (Lev 14:42; Lev 14:45; English Version, mortar), are exegetical; Vulgate: De limo terr; Luther: Out of the earth-clod; Symmachus and Theodolion: , God formed him out of the dust of the earth. The verb must certainly have its emphatic distinction here from and . It denotes the curious structure of man according to his idea, as an act of the divine conscious wisdom (Psa 139:13; Pro 8:31).And breathed into his nostrils.The inbreathing takes place through the nostrils; for this is the organ of the breath, but the breath itself is the expression and sign of the inward existing life. From the breath of God comes the life of man (Job 33:4; Isa 42:5), and the breath in the nostrils of man is the divine breathing (Job 27:3). In a similar manner does the Challaic myth make the creature to be formed of earthy matter and the divine blood; the blood is taken for the seat of life (see Gen 9:4). Knobel. The expression evidently presents the formative agency of God in an anthropomorphic form. There is the mouth of God and the nostrils of the man as he comes into existence; it is as though He had waked him into life with a kiss (compare 1Ki 17:21). It evidently means the impartation of the divine life, on which depends the divine kinsmanship of man (Act 17:28-29). (from ), breath, spirit, breath of the spirit, breath of man, life of the spirit, is more specific than , more universal than , but may be interchanged with both, as something that stands between them; yet only in relation to man. Here it evidently denotes something which is common both to God and man, something which goes forth from God and enters into manGods breath of life, that is, the spirit of God in its active self-motion, as in man it calls out the spiritual principle, the spirit of his life, but none the less as the spirit in its actual personality. The , or breath of God, has the predicate (life or lives) from the adjective (Genesis 1), in order to distinguish primarily the living subject, and, in the next place, the life itself. The life, in its most intensive sense, is the unity of the life in all living persons, and in any living thing;it is the personality. (from , to breathe), the lifes breath, the soul of life, anima, , the principle of the animal vitality, and, in this respect, the life itself; in a wider sense it is animus, the personal spiritual soul, the psychical affection, the man himself. In our text it denotes the man in his totality as living soul. In consequence of the formation of the human figure out of dust from the earth-soil, and the animation of this figure through the impartation of the life from God, does man become a living soul. For the psychology of the passage, see the Fundamental Ideas.
5. Gen 2:8. Planted a garden in Eden.As Jehovah-God (farther on, Gen 2:15-16) is named as the establisher of the order of life, of natural science, or of the human knowledge of it (Gen 2:19), of marriage and the law of the family (Gen 2:21; Gen 2:24), as the judge and founder of the religion of the promise and of the moral conflict on the earth, of the earthly state of sorrow and discipline (Gen 3:7), and, finally, as the immediate director of human chastity and the author of the human clothing (Gen 2:21), so also here, in the beginning, is He represented as the first Planter, the Founder of human culture, which is as yet identical with the human cultus or worship. Delitzsch transfers this planting to the time of the first vegetable creation (p. 146); but this is not agreeable to the sense of the text, which does not relate things chronologically, and presupposes the creation of man. In consequence of the previous preparation for the future of man in the bedewing of the earth, an Eden is already originated. The name Eden (enjoyment, pleasure, delight), as the region of Paradise, would denote, according to Delitzsch, a land determinate but no longer ascertainable by us; since the Assyrian Eden, he thinks, which is vocalized by the doubled segol and mentioned Isa 37:12, and the Clo-Syriac Eden mentioned Amos 15, are altogether different. But if the garden in Eden had its name from a determinate boundary and enclosure, and if the paradisaical streams went forth in all the world, then it becomes a very serious question whether the author had in view any distinct boundary of Eden itself, as any determinate land. It appears, at all events, to have been his intention to represent the whole paradisaical adamah as an Eden in respect to its nature and laying out, although he meant by it, primarily, the undetermined wide environs that surrounded man, whilst, at the same time, supposing a distinction between Eden and the earth generally. There is also the passage, Gen 4:16, which seems to presuppose a limitation of Eden to one determinate region; still it must be noticed, in the mean time, that the soil becomes cursed for mans sake. According to the representation, it is a view that takes the form of three spheres: the earth, the Paradise, the garden. At all events, the best supposition in regard to man is that he was created in Eden, although by a new act of God he is early transferred to the centre of Eden, that is, of the Paradise. Besides this place, the name Eden occurs Gen 2:10; Gen 2:15; Gen 3:23; Gen 4:16; Gen 13:10; Joe 2:3; Eze 31:16; Eze 31:18.A garden, . The Septuagint translates it ; the Vulgate: Paradisus. Spiegel explains this word (Avesta, i. p. 293) according to the Zend: Pari daza, is a heaping round, an enclosing, with which the Hebrew (properly, something covered or sheltered) well agrees. It is carried out of the Indo-Germanic into the Shemitic, and is found in the Hebrew, where it has the pronunciation (Par-dhes), Cantic. Gen 4:13; Neh 2:8; Ecc 2:5. Knobel. An explanation, now set aside, is that which derives it from the Sanscrit parada (alien, foreign, wondrous land). The conceptionsGarden of Eden, Eden Garden, Garden of Godby reason of the symbolical significance of these expressions, play into each other. By the garden, according to Knobel, is to be understood a garden of trees. Thus much is clear, that the garden of the paradisaical nature was distinguished for its trees. The garden lay in the eastern district of the Eden region (); there is probably indicated along with this the stand-point of the reporter. The Eastern land is the home-land of humanity.There He put the man.As the creation of Eve is transferred to Paradise, it is as well not to lay stress upon the fact of Adams having been created outside of Paradise; the fundamental idea consists in this, that Adam was immediately transferred from his state of nature (or his universal relation to the adamah) into the state of culture, or his particular relation to Paradise. Both facts are announced before in a summary way, but are unfolded in what follows; just as the facts summarily announced in the first verse of Genesis 1 receive afterwards a wider explanation. Delitzsch.
6. Gen 2:9-14. And out of the ground made the Lord to grow.We must not regard this act as a chronological following of the preceding. Man finds himself well-cared for in Paradise by means of its abundance. This consists in fruit-trees of every kind. It may fairly be regarded here as an indication of the spirituality of the human enjoyment, that the lovely aspect of the trees is named first, then the good that is given along with itthat is, agreeable and healthsome foodbut this spiritual side of the human enjoyment comes out, in its perfection, with the mention of the two trees that form a contrast in the midst of the garden; for, according to Gen 3:3, the tree of knowledge stands likewise in the midst of the garden. The significance and efficacy of the tree of life are more particularly given Gen 3:22; it could have procured for Adam the power of living on forever. That this efficacy is not to be regarded as something purely physical appears from the contrast of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, whose efficacy, again, on its own side, is not to be regarded as purely spiritual (see Gen 3:22). The spiritual side of the tree of life is also supposed Rev 2:7; Rev 22:2. It is, therefore, just a false contrast when Knobel tells us that the narrator supposes in Paradise two trees, of which the fruits of the one strengthen the physical power of life and sustain the life itself, whilst that of the other arouses and advances the spiritual power, and thereby induces a higher knowledge. (!) Truly, the garden appears a region of wonder, on account of this tree not only, but as the place of Gods personal presence, the place of the vocal utterance of a spiritual voice by the serpent, and on account of the cherubim. The wonderful consists, in the first place, in this, that here is the region of innocence, of the integrity both of the human spirit and of the surrounding nature, and that, consequently, here the spiritual and the natural are embraced in perfect union; whilst therefore it is, that outward things become of typical and symbolical significance in their potential measure. It belongs now to the perfection of the garden, not merely that it is watered with its own Paradise rivers, but also, that by means of the four streams that go out from its one united stream it stands in close connection with the whole earth, and sends forth to it its own peculiar blessings. From the reading of the text: a stream went out, instead of, a stream goes out, Delitzsch finds proof that the author speaks of Paradise as of a thing purely past. Much rather, however, does he speak of Paradise after the fall, as of a place at least still existing, but closely shut up by means of the cherubim. That is, the representation is not now purely geographical; it is also, at the same time, throughout symbolic. According to our representation, the stream originates, not in Paradise itself, but outside of it, in the land of Eden; and so here, too, as in the case of Adam, must we distinguish between the origin in nature, and the destiny that was to have its development in culture. In Paradise itself, therefore, does this one stream, on its going out of the garden, divide itself into four () flood-heads (not rain-streams, nor brooks), which as four rivers part themselves in all the world, the stream-heads become head-streams.The name of the first is Pishon: The free-flowing (Frst); the full-flowing (Gesenius). By the name Pishon has been understood 1. the Phasis, 2. the Phasis-Araxes of Xenophon, 3. the Bisynga or Fradatti (Buttmann), 4. the Indus (Schulthess), 5. the Ganges (Josephus, Eusebius, Bertheau), 6. the Hyphasis (Haneberg), 7. the Nile (the Midrash), 8. the Goschah (C. Ritter). See the Doctrinal and Ethical.That is it which encompasses the whole land of Havilah.According to Frst, it is the same with circuit, region. (This is what Havilah probably signifies; according to Delitzsch it means sandy land.) The word (primarily, to surround) may be interpreted of a circuitous flowing round, though it also occurs in the sense of surrounding on one side. The verb may also denote a winding passage through (Isa 23:16, , Go round about through the city), and here it may be better conceived of as a winding through than as an encompassing. We choose an expression that at the same time calls to mind a region of streams.Where there is gold.That is, especially or abundantlythe mother-country of gold, not only in respect to quantity, but also in respect to quality.The gold of that land is good.Besides its fine gold, Havilah is also famous for its spices, such as Bdolach (Num 11:7), similar to manna, or according to Josephus Bdellion, and, similarly named (see Knobel), an odoriferous and very costly gum, which is indigenous in India and Arabia, in Babylonia and Media, and especially in Bactriana. It must have been well known to the Hebrews. To this is added, in the third place, the precious stone , schoham. According to most interpreters it is an onyx stone, sardonyx, or sardius, which belong together to the species chalcedon. The Targumists and others would understand by schoham the sea-green beryl. The onyx, on the contrary, has the color of the human finger-nails, and that is denoted by the name. With this agrees as signifying something thin, delicate, pale (Knobel). In respect to the geography, see further on.The name of the second river is Gihon.According to Josephus, Ant. i. 1, 3, Kimchi, and others, also as might be inferred from the Septuagint translation of Jer 2:18, Ben Lira 24, 27, there was understood by it the Nile, which flows through all the south-lands () that fell within the circuit of the narrators view (Frst). Under the Gihon, moreover, according to the Shemitic use of the word, there have been understood the Oxus, the Pyramus, and the Ganges. , the dark-colored (?), is a proper name for the oldest son of Ham, the ancestor of the thiopians. Thence it is given to the south-land, especially Meroe, and, thereupon, to thiopia and the south-region generally. And yet under the like name may be understood a dark-colored people that dwelt in southern India, in Upper Egypt, and in South Arabia (Ktesias and Arrian). In like manner are there different geographical districts under this name (see Frst: Lexicon).The name of the third river is Hiddekel.The Tigris, the rushing, so named from its violent flowing. Dan 10:4, it is called the great riverso also the Euphrates. The Zend form is tigra, tigr, tigira, swift, raging.18Toward the east of Assyria (Lange: Before or in front of Assyria). The word before Assyria can also mean to the east, but as a preposition it has the more common sense before, frontward. The latter sense, taken freely, is here to be preferred; since the Tigris, in fact, forms the western boundary of Assyria. According to some, Assyria is to be taken here in a wider sense.The fourth river is Euphrates.The outbreaking, the violent. It is the greatest river of Western Asia, and, therefore, called the great river, or the river, without anything more. The origin of the Greek form is explained either from = , or from the Persian Ifrat, Ufrat. For the different derivations, see Frst.
7. Gen 2:15-17. Took the man and put him in the garden.The author takes up again what is said in the 8th verse about the transfer of Adam to Paradise, but adds to it, at the same time, the purpose for which it was done, namely, to dress it and to keep it. According to Delitzsch man was created outside of Paradise; since he must first see the extra-paradisaical earth, in order that he might have a worthy estimation of the glory of Paradise, and of his own vocation as extending thence over the whole world. Such an assignment of a purpose is altogether too didactic. The garden is the place of the human vocation, and of the human enjoyment in its undivided unity. This enjoyment has two sides, to eat and to refrain. In like manner the vocation has two sides, to dress and to keep. The first thing is to dress it; for nature, which grows wild or rank without the care of man, becomes ennobled under the human hand (Delitzsch). Says the same writer, this work was as widely different from agriculture proper, as Paradise itself differed from the later cultivated land, but it was still work; and work was so far from being unparadisaical, that, according to Gen 2:1-3, even the creation is regarded as a work of God. We must distinguish, however, work in its narrower sense, as it stands under the burden of vanity (made subject to vanity, Rom 8:20) from the paradisaical work, or activity. Even of the later Israel is it said: There is no toil in Zion.19 According to Delitzsch, the whole earth, from Paradise out, was to become a Paradise: The garden is the most holy (or the holy of holies), Eden is the holy place, whilst the whole earth around is its porch and court. The comparison is not wholly applicable; since where there are no spiritual orders, there could be no proper mention of court and sanctuary.And to keep it.The garden, as such, is uninclosed and unwalled; still must Adam watch and protect it. This is, in fact, a very significant addition, and seems to give a strong indication of danger as threatening man and Paradise from the side of an already existing power of evil (Delitzsch and others), although, even in that case, the guarding of the garden belonged to mans vocation; since against the misuse of his freedom, he had only to take care of his own free will, and, with it, the possession and the integrity of Paradise. Knobel refers the care with which Adam was charged, to the task appointed him of guarding Paradise against the mischief of the wild beasts.Of every tree of the garden.Says Knobel: The author clearly assumes that in the early period men lived alone from the fruit of trees, and at a later period first advanced to the use of herbs and grain (Gen 3:17), whilst the Elohist, in the very beginning, assigns both to men (Gen 1:29). According to the classical writers, such as Plato (Polit. 272), Strabo, and others, men in the beginning ate herbs, berries, bark, and fruit of trees, especially acorns; the raising of grain came in later. That the paradisaical man did not eat herbs is nowhere said; but the fruit of the trees is prominently presented because of its symbolic relation to the two mysterious trees in the midst of the garden. The free enjoyment of all trees is strongly expressed by the intensive idiom, . So much the more precise, therefore, is the limitation of the freedom.But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.According to Hoffmann and Richers, means good and bad simply. Delitzsch denies this, and rightly. The good, says he, is obedience with its good, the bad is disobedience with its evil consequences. Here it must be remarked, that the conception of physical evil can be, at the most, only as a consequence of moral evil, and that, therefore, the ethical contrast is the main thing, though not to the exclusion of the physical side. The tree, in any case, was a tree that might produce this knowledge; that is, it was the tree of probation, through which Adam might come to a conscious distinction of good and evil, and, thereby, to a moral transition from the state of innocent simplicity into a state of conscious, religious virtue. Did he not sin, then he learned, in a normal way, to know the distinction between good and evilthe good as the actuality of believing obedience towards God, which was, at the same time, the maintaining of his own life in its self-command and freedomthe evil, as the possibility of an unbelieving and disobedient behavior towards God, which must have for its consequent, slavish desire and death. The opinion of Hilarius cannot be sustained (Spicilegium Solesmense, i. 162): Arbor futuri de se mendacii nomen accepit. For, not to know good and evil, is the sign of the infantile childishness (Deu 1:39) or of senile obtuseness (2Sa 19:36); the conscious free choice of the one or the other indicates the most mature period of life (or that of the so-named anni discretionis, Isa 7:15; Heb 5:14). So to know good and evil, and to distinguish between them, is called the charisma or gift of a king (1Ki 3:9), the wisdom of the angel (2Sa 14:17), and, in its higher exercise, of God Himself (Gen 3:5; Gen 3:22). By the tree of knowledge of good and evil man is to attain to a consciousness and to a confirmation of his freedom of choice, and, in fact (according to Gods purpose in his determination for good), to a freedom of powerthat is, to a true freedom available for the choice of good or its opposite. It was designed to bring out the necessary self-determination of a creature choosing freely, either for or against God, either for the God-willed good or the possible eviland so to make perfect its independence. The very idea of a free personal being carries with it the necessity that its relation to God be a relation of free love (Delitzsch). It is an entire perversion of the meaning of this probation-tree to teach, as the Gnostic Ophites did, that, only through the eating of this tree, is man enabled to attain to his self-conscious free development, or, as Hegel and his school have taught in modern times, that sin is a necessary transition-point to good. The victory of Christ in the temptation shows us how it is for man to come to the knowledge of good and evil in a normal, and not in an abnormal, way. The knowledge of the distinction which Adam obtained in this way, was in him from the beginning, though dark and confused. Along with his freedom of choice, heretofore undeveloped, there was established, not only his capability of probation, but also his need of such probation. This probation does, indeed, suppose the previous existence of a divine , or law (Delitzsch, p. 154); but we err when we confound this paradisaical with the law of Moses as it was given to sinners. Moreover, the Mosaic commands are not mere positive instructions; they are, to the extent of the ten commandments, moral laws of nature precisely adapted to the human state, but because of their having become foreign and objective to the consciousness of the sinner, they are, therefore, placed before him in the way of positive revelation. In the , or institutions of Paradise, however, must the abiding laws of life constitute the ground of that revelation-form which is adapted to the commands. That is, in relation to the tree of probation, God could not have made it to be a tree of probation in the exercise merely of an arbitrary positiveness; there must lie in the tree itself an innate efficacy; and a natural speech, that may serve as a warning to man against its use. The sign-word of the tree (or the designating name) would, through the divine interpretation, become to man a positive paradisaical prohibition. Even granting, moreover, that the tree was not properly a poison-tree, still the explanation that belongs to it has been too lightly treated, since it might have led us upon the proper track; but that its tendency must have been to produce a change in the human spiritual frame, is a doctrine to be firmly held (see Langes Dogmatics, p. 409). It becomes important as an elucidation of this mysterious fact, when we are told that the sin of Noah, the second head of our race, became manifest through the enjoyment of wine. To say nothing of the coarse conceptions of Bhme and others as lately taken in a mythical sense by Srensen, we must decidedly protest against the theosophical dualistic representation of the probation-tree as we find it in Baumgarten (p. 43), and still later in Delitzsch. When we remember, says Delitzsch, that the paradisaical vocation and destiny of man had for its aim the overcoming of evil that had intruded into the creation, we cannot wonder at there being a tree in Paradise itself, created indeed by God, but whose mysterious background was a dark ground of death and evil placed by God in ward; which tree, in order that man might not fall into the participation of evil, and thereby of death, is hedged around by the divine prohibition, not as by an arbitrary sentence, but as by a warning rather of holy love (p. 155). We may not resort to the myths of the Thibetans, Hindus, etc. (p. 155), in support of an assertion of such a nature that, according to it, we cannot think of anything determinate or ordained, without setting forth under it, in opposition both to the Scriptures and to the monotheistic consciousness, a material evil (or an evil inherent in matter). According to Delitzsch, the tree actually carried in it the power of death. The question arises: What is meant by the threatening: In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Knobel holds the sense to be, that he should die immediately; because the infinitive absolute before the finite verb, he says, expresses the undoubted, the certain, the actual. But notwithstanding this, Adam must have lived quite a long time after the fall. In vain is it attempted to set aside this difficulty either by the rendering to become mortal (Targum, Symmachus, Hieronymus, and others), or by making it that introduction of pain and sorrow into life which goes before death in our conception of it (Calvin, Gerhard, and others). Still less, indeed, can we think of a death-penalty to be positively inflicted (Batav., Tuch, Ewald, and others). The nearest solution is overlooked, namely, that the expression must have, even here; an ideal symbolical force; in other words, that death here, corresponding to the biblical conception of death, must be taken primarily to mean a moral death which goes out of the soul, or heart, and through the soul-life, gradually fastens itself, in every part, upon the physical organism (Langes Dogmatics, p. 471). The sign of becoming suddenly dead does not necessarily belong to the conception of death. It allows too of a long dying in the physical department. Hoffmann has not thought of this in that very strange exposition of his, which it is hardly worth while to cite. Knobel lays much stress upon it, that man, according to Gen 3:19; Gen 3:22 (as he insists), was not created immortal. It is true, that after the fall the tree of life is named as the condition of permanent duration; but the possibility of falling into death, under the supposition of transgression and separation from the tree of life, is something quite different from what we embrace under the conception of mortality. Knobel, with Clericus and others, would refer the threatening, in the first place, to the hurtful, life-endangering power of the fruit, and supposes, therefore, that the strong expression: thou shalt immediately die, is to be understood in a pedagogical sense (or as a warning is given to children); and yet it would be rightly an announcement of death, since man, through his sin, throws from him the enjoyment of the tree of life. Let it be then a representation of the Hebrew mode of thinking; but the connection of the promise of long life to the observance of the divine commands throughout the Old Testament (Knobel, p. 33) is not a mere Hebraic representation; it is carried still farther in the New Testament in the words: Whosoever believeth on the Son hath everlasting life. And yet it must be perceived that already in the Old Testament, and so certainly here, the conception of life, as also the conception of death, hath its ethical and ideal ground; on account of which the tree of life is not to be thought of as having a merely physical efficacy. Rightly, too, has Keil, who is here in special opposition to Delitzsch, defended the spiritual propriety of the ethical conception.
8. To Gen 2:18-25. It is not good that the man should be alone.Keil: As the creation of man is introduced by a divine decree, so the creation of woman is preceded by Gods declaration: It is not good, etc. On the supposition that the second chapter, like the first, presents the genesis of man in a generic chronological series, as we find it in Delitzsch, there arises a difficulty in respect to the second. Then must man have existed so long a time before the creation of the trees of Paradise that he must have died of hunger; since he would have had around him only a plant-producing district, and would have existed then for himself alone as the one only completed being; just as the body, too, of this man would have been something first completed, and then the soul imparted to this body from without. Without doubt, however, this genetic chronological conception of the second chapter is a misapprehension of its antithetical and complementary relation to the first. It is not good that man, etc. What can this mean after it had been so often said in the first chapter, He saw that it was good? The expression does not denote a condition positively bad, but rather an incompleteness of being, whose continuance would eventually pass over from the negative not good, or a manifest want, into the positive not good, or a hurtful impropriety. It must be observed that this point of time lies between the last preceding declaration respecting God on the fifth day: and He saw that it was good, and the final judgment very good, at the close of the sixth. According to Knobel the sense would be this: Jehovah shows that a solitary existence is not good for man; He determines upon the creation of some being that may correspond to him, and forms first the beasts for the purpose of seeing whether they would satisfy the human want. (!) To this conception the text is throughout opposed, and especially in the words: I will make a help for him () as his opposite (his converse), not merely his like (Delitzsch). The exposition of Delitzsch: He needed such a one that when he had it before him he might recognize himself, obliterates the peculiar point of the expression. It allows, too, of its application to the relation of one man to another. The opposite (or converse) here spoken of, depends not upon any if, or casual condition. What is meant by this obliteration becomes evident farther on. The primary thing (he seems to think) is to provide a help for man in his vocation-destiny; but then there comes also into view the possibility that he may transgress the command of God, and die the death, in which case the aim of the creation would be rendered vain. How suspicious this! the making the motive for the creation of the woman to be this future possible eventualityespecially since Eve herself it is who realizes that possibility. Moreover, Delitzsch means that Adam would then, as the second seduced, have been rather the object of the divine compassion (but Eve, the first seduced, what of her!), and finally leaves us to conclude that it does not mean: I will make one like to him that he may propagate his race. But see Gen 1:28, where the theosophic deriving of the propagation of the race from the eventuality of the fall is clear, and without reserve, and forever cut off. When there is given to the sense to be conformable, or correspondent (see Knobel), it does not bring out the emphasis of the word, in this place, according to the original import of the root ; although, on the other side, the sensual meaning, anteriora, i. e., pudenda (Schultens, and others), can only be regarded as a coarse exaggeration of the expression.
Gen 2:19. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field.Obviously does the representation that follows serve as an introduction to the representation of the creation of the woman; that is, the order observed in mentioning the creating of the beasts is determined by a motive not at all chronological, but looking only to the fact itself. But in what could this motive lie? In bringing the beasts before him, was there something of a purpose in the Creator to awaken in man a consciousness of the need of some help of kindred birth to himself? This is the supposition of Michaelis and Rosenmller. Delitzsch and Keil have something of the same thought (p. 48). On the other hand, it is the supposition of Jacob Bhme and other theosophists that from looking at the beasts in pairs, there was awakened a sinful desire in the as yet androgynic Adam. These wild phantasies (Myst. Mag. p. 116) have yet been able to influence the latest representations of the paradisaical relations. Bhmes views of the sexual relations are perfectly abominable. It has been maintained that in the first chapter the creation of the stars is laid on the fourth creative day for the purpose of counteracting the heathen star-worship; since the stars, or heavenly bodies, are brought in as conditioned by the preceding creations, especially that of light. In analogy with this view, and in opposition to the animal-worship of the heathen-world, would the passage before us represent the beasts as creations subordinate to man: in the first place, because man had to give them names, and, secondly, because among them all he found nothing of like birth with himself, to say nothing of any superiority. At all events, for the Oriental mind, the passage presents a very significant elevation of the woman, as human, over the lower animal-world, and her equality of birth with the man. It is no real difference, as Knobel holds it is, that here the Creator forms the beasts out of the ground, whilst in the first chapter they come forth (and yet in consequence of the creative word) from the earth. Creating and forming are just different points of view of the same conception. The apparent difference proceeds partly from this, that here we have the more definite, namely the forming of the beasts out of the earth. The beasts of the field; taken here in the comprehensive sensethe wild and the tame.And every fowl of the air (the heavens).The fish of the sea and the reptiles are passed over. Keil finds the ground of it in this, that both classes, the beasts of the field and the birds of heaven, are like men in being formed out of the earth, and, therefore, stand to him in nearer relation than the water-animals and the reptiles. But the earthy matter is found also in the two last, although it may not be without meaning that both the classes here preferred were formed out of the adamah. More to the purpose is the second ground mentioned by Keil, that God brought the beasts to Adam to show him the creatures that had been ordained to his service. At all events, the domestic animals are of these two classes. It is specially to be considered, moreover, that in these beasts there is already a more distinct pairing, which is a symbol of human marriage; especially is this the case with the birds. Still the main purpose set forth is: to see how he would name them. With the intuitive knowledge of the beasts there follows the naming of them; for speech is the thought outwardly realized20 (on the essential connection of thinking and speaking, see Keil, p. 47); and with the naming commences the dominion. Consequently the first science to which God introduces man is the science of nature; his first speech, to which he is led for the mention of zoological properties, is the naming of the animals. That this his naming was an actual calling out, and that the assigned domestic animals followed his call, lies included, as matter of fact, in the very representation itself. From this centre spreads out the knowledge of man over all nature.
Gen 2:20. And the man gave names.Here the cattle have the first place in the selection, because their place, in the future, is next to man.But for Adam.We do not translate for man, since the principal thing here is the care for the individual man, for Adam. The new knowledge satisfied his need but not his heart.
Gen 2:21. A deep sleep to fall., a deep sleep, in which the consciousness of the outer world, and of his own inward life, is wholly gone. Sleep, in and of itself, is ordained for the divinely created human nature, and is as necessary for man, as a creature of earth, as the change of day and night for the universal earthly nature. But this deep sleep is different from natural sleep, and God causes it to fall upon man in the day-time, in order that out of him. he might create the woman. Keil. Thereto the remark of Ziegler: Everything out of which some new thing is to come, sinks down before the event into such a deep sleep, In fact, this preparation for a new being suggests to our minds the preceding creative evening. In Job 4:13, denotes a deep sleep in which a dream-vision (a clairvoyant or seeing dream) unfolds itself. On this account, probably, have some interpreters thought that here also there was intended an ecstasy or vision.And took one of his ribs.According to Bhme, man had lost the magical propagation (of which he was capable by means of his androgynic nature), through his longing in sleep (the forty-days sleep of the temptation) for the sexual contrast, and that the woman proceeded from him not in consequence of a creative act, but by means of the divine fiat remaining in Adam; because God saw that now he must have the object of his desire, since he could no more propagate himself magically. The confident theosophist here becomes Moses tutor (p. 111). According to Hoffmann, God must have made the woman not out of parts of mans breast, but out of his abdomen, where there might be found a portion of the body capable of being lost. Keil strives in a manner worthy of acknowledgment to express himself fairly in respect to these fantasies (p. 49). As in themselves they wrong not only the scriptural text, hermeneutics, and reason, but also the moral feeling, so are they still more strange through their combination with the consequences of the fall. On the other hand, Delitzsch finds something of an ideal human in the manner and way of the womans creation (p. 160). Still as to the further formation, or restoration of Adam, it is not perhaps to be understood that he closed the cavity that was made by putting flesh in the place of the rib that was taken away, but rather, with De Wette, he closed the flesh in its place. In respect to the literal conception, the question must still arise, Whence could such flesh have been taken? But it is just this filling from without, by which that vacuity, or that want, which was ordained to man, is removed. Delitzsch lays stress upon this, that Adam must have been already complete as man before Eve was taken from him. But thereby the symbolical side of the representation is marred. So far as the fact is concerned, it is satisfied by recognizing that the sexual contrast is first called into being in the way of the unfolding of the first human form. This fact, on its physical side, is ever reflected in the child-world. Delitzsch presents the view that the outward form of Adam was not double-sexed. To speak generally, it was without sex. In its most refined nature Adam had the sexual contrast in himself. With its going forth from the unity of his personality, there necessarily connected itself that configuration which was demanded for the then commencing sexual life. The expression: he built (), indicates the farther maternal appointment of the woman (from , to build, comes , ben, a son). In respect to the wide-spread view of antiquity concerning the sexual unity of man, see Knobel, p. 35.
Gen 2:22. And brought her unto the man.In the passage above we recognize God as the first teacher of language; here he appears as the first bridesman; speech is, in some respects, emblematical of the divine, and so, too, is marriage. Delitzsch.
Gen 2:23. This is now.Literally: this once, or this time. In contrast with the long missing of his help, he finds at last his desire realized. She it isor this is it. The demonstrative pronoun not only expresses, by its threefold repetition, the joyful appropriation of Adam, but also serves as a specific feminine indication. He immediately recognizes the fact that she is formed out of his being, out of his solidity (his bone), out of his sensibility (his flesh), and yet his counterpart; therefore, in correspondence with the fact of her derivation from him, and her belonging to him, does he give her the name maness (woman, as the old Latin has it, vira from vir). It is not exactly certain that the woman was taken from The heart-side: nevertheless it is a probable interpretation of this symbolically significant narration. At all events is she taken out of his breast, and not out of the lower part of his body. According to Knobel it is, because she stands by his side (Psa 45:10) and is his attendant, his companion, and his helper. The Hebrew readily expresses the conception of attendance through such phrases as at hand, by the side (Job 15:23; Job 18:12), , to be a companion, a friend (Jer 20:10).
Gen 2:24. Therefore shall a man.The question arises whether this is something farther said, and to be understood as Adams speech, or whether it is the remark of the narrator. In Mat 19:5, Christ cites this language as the word of God. That, however, makes no difference; since Adam may utter the word of God derived from the divine fact, as well as the narrator. It seems to favor the idea of the narrators speaking, that he so often inserts his remarks with an (wherefore; Gen 10:9; see Delitzsch). On this account Keil decides that it is the language of the narrator, especially since it is spoken of father and mother. Delitzsch, however, insists that the words must be taken as a prophetic or divining expression of Adam himself. The word must evidently have the significance of a moral life-ordering for all humanitya meaning which results from this expression maness, or woman. It is, therefore, most closely connected with what precedes, and suits better here the mouth of Adam than that of the narrator. With the latter it would have been merely a historical remark, with which, moreover, the future tense would not have been consistent. In the mouth of Adam it is a law of life for all human time, and, indeed, of such a nature that it expresses, at the same time, a feeling of self-denial in that he gives to his children, in the conclusion of marriage, a free departure from the ancestral home. It is evident that here all the fundamental laws of the marriage-life are indicated. 1. The foundation of the same, the sexual affinity; 2. the freedom of choice (as this avails also for the wife in relation to the recognition of the man, and the free departure from father and mother); 3. the monogamic form of marriage and its original indissolubility. They become one fleshan expression which does indeed include the sexual connection, but, as something lying beyond all that, it expresses the essential unity and higher wholeness of man in man and wife. 4. The relativity of the departure from father and mother; the first relation is not taken away by the second, but only made subordinate to it; it supposes the relations to be normal.
Gen 2:25. And they were both naked.In this view, that the first men went naked, all other antiquity agrees with the Hebrews, e. g., Plato: Politicus, 272; Diod. Sic. i. 8. Knobel. Expositions of this condition of nakedness entirely opposed to each other are found in Knobel and Delitzsch. They had, therefore, in the beginning, no feeling of shame, and none of that moral insight to the beginning of which such feeling of shame belongs. After the entrance of the latter they made themselves aprons to cover their shame (Gen 3:7), and at a later period they were furnished with clothing from the skins of beasts. People wholly uncultivated go perfectly naked, those that are somewhat cultivated have partial coverings, whilst those who have a complete civilization go wholly clothed. Knobel. On the other hand, Delitzsch: Their bodies were the clothing of their inner glory, and this glory (rightly understood) was the clothing of their nakedness. And, finally, Keil, with a more apt conception of the case: Their bodies were made holy through the spirit that animated them. Shame first came in with sin, which took away the normal relation of the spirit to the body, begat an inclination and a desire in conflict with the soul, and turned the holy order of God into sinful enticement and the lust of the flesh. In the view of Knobel, Grecian art must be accounted a coarser thing than many a crude mythological representation. Put as the first men must be distinguished from mere naked savages, so also are they not to be regarded, according to a Jewish Midrash cited by Delitzsch, as something transparent or luminous which the clouds of glory must have overshadowed. Nakedness is here the expression of perfect innocence, which, in its ingenuousness, elevates the body into the spiritual personality as ruled by it, whilst, on the contrary, the feeling of shame enters with the consciousness of opposition between spirit and sensual corporeity, whilst shame itself comes in with the presentiment and the actual feeling of guilt.
[Note on the Time-Successions of the Sixth Day and of the Eden-Life.This second account, in its latter part, appears to be an enlargement, or magnified picture, of the sixth day. Taking it in its intrinsic character, or apart from any outside difficulties of science, it strongly suggests two thoughts: First, its pictorial aspect, on which we have already dwelt (Introd. to Genesis 1 p. 153), and, secondly, that the events here narrated, or painted, could not have been regarded by the narrator himself as all taking place, in their consequential nexus, within the time of a few solar hours, or the latter half of one solar day. He could not so have told the story had such a view been constantly present to his own mind. The consistency of impression would be utterly destroyed by the rapidity. Here is a consecution of events growing regularly out of each other, each one preparing the way for what follows. Here are formations, growths, seeming natures, conditions of life, wants growing out of such conditions, adaptations to such wants, preparations for such adaptations, a course of discipline for man, a development of knowledge and of language out of such discipline, the means for such development, a strange state of humanity called a trance or deep sleep, a wondrous change in the previous human nature arising out of itall most briefly sketched, but all there, in coherent continuity. Besides this, there is the preparation of a part of the earth for the new inhabitants, a state of conscious innocence without shame, implying some course of life, longer or shorter, to give the representation any moral significancethe ordaining a law indicating some course of life according to it, a divine intercourse and teaching, a probation, a temptation, and a fall into sin. All of this, at least down to the making of Paradise, was on the sixth day, and the rest in consecutive series with it. Now did this chain of events, or the greater part of them, take place in the afternoon of one solar day? It is not a sufficient answer to say that Gods almighty power might have caused such a rapid shifting of scene. It is a question of style, of consistency, of descriptive impression. It might have been so; but then the aspect given of causation, of series, of adaptation, would be but a show, a seeming. It would be an appearance of a causation without that consistent nexus that makes it easily conceivable; it would be a seeming succession without that proportion of antecedent and consequent which we find it difficult to separate from it; events, great events, growing out of each otherso treatedand yet without any real growth, or that proportional gradualness without which growth has no true meaning. There would seem to be a new formation, or a re-formation of the animal races brought into the pictureor if it refers to the old, a modification of them for the instruction and discipline of man. They are to be the means of developing his powers of knowledge and of speech. Through their unlikeness to himself and their unfitness for rational human intercourse, there is awakened in him the desire for higher society. And then that most mysterious trance-state of being, in which there is vailed from him, as now from all science, that ineffable transformation out of which comes the duality of our human nature. The fact is told us according to the easiest conception, but it was a trance-vision to Adam, and we have no reason to suppose that his narrating descendant had the knowledge of it in any revelation more objective than was given to his ancestor. Adam had longed for some one like himself, inspired from above, and lifted out of the surrounding animality, yet sharing with him the earthly nature. The language ascribed to him shows the vehemence of his desire, the deferring of his hope, and the patience of his waiting: , diesmal, this now, ipsa tandemthere is an intense significance in this small Hebrew particlecome at last, bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh. Three times does he repeat this feminine (see Delitzsch, p. 161). Bone of my bone:can we doubt as to the origin of the peculiar symbolism in which the narrative is clothed? His want was satisfied, and the vivid picture of his dream becomes the language, the only possible language, perhaps, of a divine work which no merely human speech could adequately set forthone of the deep mysteries of God, itself shadowing forth the still deeper mysteries of the Incarnation and the Church.
Similar suggestions of time present themselves in what is said of the planting of Paradise: And the Lord God caused to grow, etc. Did the great trees grow in the same time with the herb and the flower? Confine it all to a few hours and the difference is as nothing; yet growth, without proportion according to the natures or products grown, is in itself both conceptionless to the sense and idealess to the reason. We may conceive it, however, from a picture, or a vision, and such a mode of representation, therefore, as appearing in the style, is one of the strongest critical arguments for the vision-theory of the creative revelation. It is perfectly consistent, too, for in the subjective delineation time is given in perspective. But the grouping shows that the great things represented could not have been thus, unless the picture itself be but a phantasy, or phantasmagoria, not supernatural or contranatural merely, but wholly unnatural, according to any conceptions our human faculties can form of time, succession, cause, and effect. Great truths, great facts, ineffable truths, ineffable facts, are doubtless set forth. We do not abate one iota of their greatness, their wonderfulness, by supposing such a mode of representation. It is not an accommodation to a rude and early age, but the best language for every age. How trifling the conceit that our science could have furnished any better! Her field is induction, and, by this creeping process, though she may travel far relatively, she can never ascend to the great facts of origin that belong to the supernatural plane. Her language will ever be more or less incorrect; and, therefore, a divine revelation cannot use it, since such use would be an endorsement of its absolute verity. The simpler and more universal language of the Scripture may be inadequate, as all language must be; it may fall short; but it points in the right direction. Though giving us only the great steps in the process, it secures that essential faith in the transcendent divine working, which scienceour science, or the science of ages hencemight only be in danger, to say the least, of darkening. It saves us from those trifling things commonly called reconciliations of revelation with science, and which the next science is almost sure to unreconcile. It does so by placing the mind on a wholly different plane, giving us simple though grand conceptions as the vehicle of great ideas and great facts of origin in themselves no more accessible to the most cultivated than to the lowliest minds. There is an awful sublimity in this Mosaic account of the origin of the world and man, and that, too, whether we regard it as inspired Scripture or the grandest picture ever conceived by human genius. To those who cannot, or who do not, thus appreciate it, it matters little what mode of interpretation is adoptedwhether it be one of the so-called reconciliations, or the crude dogmatism that calls itself literal because it chooses to take on the narrowest scale a language so suggestive of vast times and ineffable causalities.T. L.]
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. In respect to the opposition between this section and the preceding, see the Exegetical and Critical Notes of the former. It must be very clear that in the present section the chronological order stands in the background, whilst, on the contrary, the symbolical presents itself in a more significant degree.
2. The present section is distinguished by the name Jehovah-Elohim: The meaning is, that Jehovah, the Covenant-God of His people, is also the God of all worlds, the Lord of all creatures, who made Adam for His first Covenant-child, and appointed him His vicegerent in this dominion. Adam is the princeps, and so the ideal prius of the creaturely world. This point, of the Covenant of God with Adam, appears in Cocceius as the foundation of the federal theology. With Schleiermacher, again, it is modified into the representation of a religiousness overlying the contrast of sin and mercy.
3. Nature presupposes man, if it would be prevented from running wild. Only in man, through him, and with him, can it find its glorious transformation. Therefore was man also, in his integrity, the presupposing of nature in her integrity; his religious and moral destiny is the condition of her higher destiny, his cultus the foundation of her culture. In pure nature, moreover, are the nobler plants as well as the nobler animals to be regarded as in a special sense an appurtenance of man; in a special measure, therefore, are they conditioned in their being and well-being, by his being and well-being. Whatever, too, there might have been before man, it was still as though it were not, so long as it found not in him its cosmical destiny. It was all an enigma; the solution was first to be found in man.
4. The moistening of the earths soil before the creation of man points to the share of the waters in the creaturely formations (and sustenance), especially the human. Through the observation of this came Thales by his system. In reference to the essential elements and relations of human life, however, it is predominantly dichotomic, as other places of Holy Writ (Ecc 12:7; Mat 10:28) distinctly represent.
Concerning the relation of the corporeity of man to the earthly nature, compare Schuberts History of the Soul, 10. The constituents of the animal body: Calcareous earth (bone), nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, oxygen gas, iron (in the blood), sulphur, phosphorus (in the nerves), silica (in the teeth), and, combined with this, fluoric acid.
In respect to the spiritual nature of man as akin to God, compare Gen 3:6; Mat 22:32; Jer 31:3; Luk 15:11; Joh 1:49; Act 17:28-29; Rom 8:16; 2Pe 1:4; Rev 1:6; Rev 2:17, and other places.Delitzsch disputes against the supposition that there is in man an uncreated divine (p. 144); for the word , Gen 1:27, embraces, he says, the essential being of the entire man. Of the man, certainly, as a whole, but is it so especially of his spiritual nature? Is man, moreover, as an eternal individual thought of God, by virtue of his election in Christ, a thought in some way created? We cannot say that God has created the thought of his love. The older theology was very much afraid of the idea of emanation. If God imparted anything to man from his own being, it meant either that God must have given away some of His own being, or that something still of His being could have sinned in man. We must, by all means, avoid both representations as we must generally do in respect to every emanation-view. But does there follow from this the pure creatureliness of the human spiritthat is, of its God-likeness (or that in it called divine, or which is supposed to have come from God)? Or is it only, as Delitzsch says, the of the (the breathing of the Spirit)? Still it is a , a human spirit. And certainly this needs the spirit of God for its well-beingfor its own life (see 1Co 2:14; Jud 1:19). The mere existence of the human soul does not fail from the fact of its unspiritualness (the want of the higher spirituality, or its sensuality). Delitzsch touches upon the true relation when he says, a creative word, although of a divine being, is not the Logos clothed with the eternal being of the Father. Yet still does the decree concerning humanity embrace in Christ the individual elect. Between the emanation-representations, on the one side, and the pure creatureliness on the other, lies the conception of the free impartation of life in the mystery of the quickening: life from life, light from light, spirit from spirit. Man may be begotten of God by the seed of the new birth, which is the word of God; and when we take this as the basis of our belief that he can receive the Holy Spirit, we cannot deny that original state of man which corresponds to it.
But the passage contains already the germ of a trichotomy-body, soul, and spirit, which impliedly pervades the Holy Scripture, and is most expressly set forth 1Th 5:23; Heb 4:12 (see Langes Dogmatics, p. 307). A similar trichotomy, as is well known, is found in the writings of the Platonists, and so, too, in connection with biblical doctrines and Platonic ideas, among the oldest church-fathers. This continued, until through the heresy of Apollinaris, the trichotomy became suspected, and in the following time of the middle ages, gave place to the more popular dichotomy. In modern times, again, in connection with a deeper study of psychology, trichotomic views presented themselves. It must herewith be remarked that the dichotomy, when simply held, is no more in contradiction to the trichotomy, than those dual places of Holy Scripture in which only God and His Logos, or the Wisdom, or the Angel of the Lord, are named, contain a contradiction of the trinity. The triad just as easily holds together for a dual (soul and spirit being taken as one) as for a monad. Or rather, the monad resolves itself over all, first into a duality, then into a triad.
That the spirit is the principle and the form of unity in manhis derivation from God, and his relation to Godis declared in Ecc 12:7. It is God who has given the spirit. In like manner does the same text of the Preacher say that the body is the finishing and the form of appearing for man, showing his descent from the earth, and his relation to the earthly sphere. But that the soul is the form of being in man, the configuration and the form of life, his descent from and his reciprocal relation to the whole world, is declared in the very expression living soul.
The (breath of lives), as the divine principle of all life, imparted to man an individual divine principle of life, and in consequence thereof it became, in the whole, a living soul, and in the vitality, or vitalizing, a conscious self-revealing soul. Man, as related to the eternal and the divine, is spirit; man, as related to the universe, is soul; man, as related to the earth, or to any particular world-sphere wherein he dwells, is body. Concerning the relation of the psychological system of Delitzsch to the conception of Von Rudloff, see Notice of Remarkable Writings, in the German Periodical, edited by Von Hollenberg, No. 3, 1859.
For the various defective and marring statements respecting the triune form of mans being, see Langes Dogmatics, p. 307. Gnosticism refuses to regard the corporeity as belonging to the essential being of man (so, too, the Book of Wisdom, Gen 9:15). Hegelianism regards the soul as only the band that connects body and spirit. Later psychologists and theologians (Heinroth, Hoffmann, and others) have denied to man, in himself, a spirit-being; he has spirit, they say, only so far as the spirit of God enlightens him. Beck speaks of a spiritual power, at least, as belonging to the human soul. It must be held fast, however, that man could not receive the spirit of God if he was not himself a spiritual being (were not the eye adapted to the sun, etc.). It is, at all events, a supposition of the Scripture, that since the fall the spiritual nature is bound in the natural man, and does not come to its actuality (see Jude Gen 2:10; Langes Dogmatics, p. 311). In relation, however, to the body of man, we must distinguish between his , the organism, and his flesh , the material merely, the filling out of his appearance. In relation to his soul, we must distinguish between soul as the animal principle of life, and as conscious form of being. In relation to his spirit, we must distinguish between his spiritual nature and the element of the spiritual in which the individual spirit lives, and which enters into it.
7. For the doctrine of the divine image, see the remarks on the first chapter. For what belongs specially to the immortality of man, see the title Literature as above given. We must distinguish, however, a threefold conception of immortality: 1. The paradisaical immortality of Adam; 2. the ontological immortality of human nature; 3. the religious ethical immortality which is shared by man through his communion with Godthe life in its deeper significance, or the eternal life. As to what concerns the immortality of Adam, the Scripture supposes that he could avoid death under the condition of continued normal rectitude in the strength of his communion with God, or that he might fall into death through an abnormal conduct conformable to his connection with the earth. But the Scripture does not suppose that man could have remained immortal without objective conditionings for the eternal renewal of his life. These conditionings are embraced in the symbol of the tree of life (see below). There is, too, the further disclosure, that man, in the case of the confirmation of his innocence, must undergo a metamorphosis resembling death, and yet not death, in order that he might pass out of his first physical state of existence, where there is yet a possibility of his dying, into a second spiritual state of existence which is raised above the sphere of death. This appears from the translation of Enoch, in connection with the long enduring of the Macrobii (the early long-living antediluvian patriarchs), from the translation of Elias, and, above all, from the glorified form of Christ after his resurrection. It appears, too, from the passage, 2Co 5:2-3 (see Langes Dogmatics, p. 318), and from the doctrine of the apostles respecting the transformation of Christians who should be living at the end of the world (1 Corinthians 15). The form of death that proceeds from sin had opposed itself to this tendency of man to transformationhad changed and subverted it. In respect to the various ecclesiastical views of the original immortality, compare Winer: Comparative Representation, p. 49. 2. The ontological immortality of man. At the bottom of the wide-spread prejudgment that the Mosaic books, as also the Old Testament generally in its first periods, did not teach the doctrine of a personal immortality, lie the following misunderstandings: 1. In various ways was the ontological supposition of the imperishable continuance of man which pervades the whole Old Testament (namely, in the doctrines of Sheol, of the Rephaim in Sheol, of the conscious condition, and in the expressions for life, in Sheol), confounded with the doctrine of the ethical eternal life. This has also occurred to one of the latest writers on the subject before us (H. Schultz: The Presuppositions of the Christian Doctrine of Immortality, Gttingen, 1861). As we must distinguish, however, between the conceptions of the physical and the ethical life in the Scriptures (a life without God no life, but death), and between the conceptions of the physical and the ethical death (a death without the sting of conscious guilt no death), so also must we distinguish between the conceptions of the physical and the ethical immortality. Although the Scripture does not acknowledge the physical, without the ethical, as the true immortality, still it denotes it as continuous individual existence with the two attributes of consciousness and imperishability (Isa 66:24; Rev 14:11). 2. The pathetic and poetical expressions for the mournful condition in Sheol have been regarded purely as dogmas, without calling to mind that there are praises of the rest in Sheol of a directly opposite character (as in Job 3), and that, in like manner, the dogma of the perfect nothingness of the present worldly life may be deduced from many of the songs of the Church. 3. The fact has been overlooked that the immortality of the soul is just as distinctly a supposition of the Old Testament as the existence of God, and that on this account neither article is expressly taught, but only appears in language on occasions which call it out, and then wholly as something thus presupposed. 4. No distinction has been made between the first germ-form which is peculiar to this doctrine, as it is to most others in the earlier books of the Old Testament, and its later development; and, therefore, too, has there been no distinction made between the ramifying ontological definitives (such as Sheol, Rephaim, appearings of the dead, awakenings of the dead, questionings of the dead), the ethical definitives (such as covenant with God, confidence in God) and the synthetic, out of which the doctrine of the resurrection gradually came forth (such as the tree of life, the translations of Enoch and Elijah, together with the doctrine of the resurrection that prevailed in the prophetic period). Still less has it been considered how gradually Sheol came to be regarded as a place of life, how gradually the shades come to form two divisions, those that are enjoying the holy rest, and those that are the subjects of penal sufferinghow gradually faith in the living God becomes faith in that eternal life which consists in communion with him (Psalms 16), and how gradually the resurrection comes to its most definite form (2 Maccabees 7). The decisive word, as Christ interprets it, Mat 22:32, is the designation which God gives to Himself, Exo 3:6. Its meaning is that the doctrine of covenants made with the pious by a personal God contains in itself the supposition of their own personal imperishable nature. For an explanation of this point it must be observed: 1. That the abode in Sheol is to be regarded primarily as the continuance of the death-doom incurred by sin. Just as death, the wages of sin according to Paul, or the birth of sin according to James, begins in this world with sin (the inner death according to John), with mortality and sickness, so does it also continue on in the other world under the relative ideas of nakedness, imprisonment, restlessnessin a word, under the intensified form of a penal or disciplinary relation to a future redemption. Therefore it is that even in the pious of the Old Testament, the condition beyond the grave is reflected in this world-consciousness, presenting itself in a form for the most part gloomy, sad, trembling, and terrific. 2. It must be kept in mind that Moses had to establish the theocratic belief of the Jews in direct contrast with heathenism, and especially the heathenism of the Egyptians, from the midst of whom they came, and was therefore led to give the strongest and most significant emphasis to the present life; because the Egyptian religion was most specifically a worship having relation to the state beyond the gravethat is, to death. 3. Add to this that it was in entire correspondence with the disciplinary degrees by which Israel was to be educated that Moses should represent the retribution as being principally in this world, and, indeed, as impending every moment, like something that followed close upon every step of human conduct. In entire conformity to truth did he direct the people in this first step of belief in retribution; for, in fact, retribution is an immediate (or ever-impending) thing. Everywhere, however, the hope of a future life gleams out of his doctrines and his institutions. The promise of long life was the outward hull of the promise of eternal life; the symbolic death-offering was the emblem of hopeful resignation to God in death; and how shall piety in death find its reward otherwise than in the time beyond the grave? Above all, it was the covenant of God that furnished the richest guaranty (Exo 3:6).
[Idea of a Future Life in the Old Testament.The doctrine of a future life is in the Old Testament as well as in the New, but in a different manner. In the latter it is for all who read, declared undeniedly, if not dogmatically; in the former it is for the devout and believing. There is thrown over it a vail of holy reserve, making it all the more impressive when the truth is seen through it. But for this the Sadducee had no eyes. He could not find texts declaring it preceptively as he found the law laid down for marrying a brothers widow. He came to our Saviour with his puzzle, and doubtless deemed it unanswerable. The course taken by Christ, Mat 22:29, is very remarkable, and it is astonishing how little weight it seems to have had with writers of the Warburton school. He does not meet the caviller with the texts we would have expected. He does not cite such passages as Psa 17:15 : I shall be satisfied when I awake in thy likeness; or Psalms 16 : Thou wilt not leave my soul in Sheol; or Psa 73:24 : Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel and afterward receive me to glory; or Isa 26:19, where a resurrection seems to be spoken of; or Dan 12:2, where it is expressly declared. The Sadducee would probably have been prepared with some explanations of these, such as are now offered by the modern rationalist. Instead of them our Saviour quotes one of the most common passages in the Old Testament: I am the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob. The Sadducee had heard it read hundreds of times in the synagogue, but saw nothing in it about a future life. It may have been to him, in other respects, a favorite passage; for though called infidels in modern times they were the strictest of Jews, glorying strongly in their ancient patriarchal descent. I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob: this they were familiar with; but Christs appendix was as startling to them as it was conclusive: He is not the God of the dead but of the living. Gods covenant with man proves His immortality. He does not deal thus with beings of a day. He does not thus solemnly declare Himself the God of things non-existent. Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, are still present realities, not living in their children, simply, but rather their children living in them. The divine care of a chosen people thus continued from generation to generation implies a continued being in the individuals that compose it, and without which the whole series would have no more spiritual value than any linked succession in the animal or vegetable world. They still live unto Him.
Let the reader test this by endeavoring to fix in his mind the idea that the Old Testament writers all regarded themselves as beings destined soon to depart into nothingnessin other words, that they were all sheer animal materialists. Let him carry along this impression, and keep it constantly present in reading the Psalms, the Prophets, or even the Book of Proverbs. What a discord will arise between it and many of their vivid utterances, even though there is nothing in them, dogmatically or didactively, about a future life. Did men who believe in no hereafter ever talk so? Whom have I in heaven but Thee, and there is none in all the earth that I desire beside Thee: Flesh and heart fail, but Thou art the strength (the rock) of my soul: Thy favor is life: Thy loving-kindness is more than life: My soul faints for Thee, the living God: For with Thee is the fountain of life, and in Thy light do we see light: Thou art our dwelling-place in all generations: Doubtless Thou art our Father even though Abraham be ignorant of us and Israel acknowledge us not; Thou, Oh Lord, art our Father and our Redeemer: Art Thou not from everlasting, Jehovah, my God, my Holy One? we shall not die. Or take that oft-repeated Hebrew oath: As the Lord liveth and as thy soul liveth; what meaning in such a connection of terms? How does all this lofty language immediately collapse at the presence of the low materializing idea! Even the language of their despondency shows how far they were from the satisfied animal or earthly state of soul: Shall dust praise Thee? Shall Thy loving kindness be declared in the grave, or Thy righteousness in the land of oblivion? It was bidding farewell to God, not to earth, it was losing the idea of the everlasting covenant and its everlasting author, that imparted the deepest gloom to their seasons of scepticism. It was in just such travail of the spirit that the hope was born within them. This was the subjective mode of its revelation; and, thus regarded, the very texts which the Sadducee, ancient or modern, would quote in favor of his denial, testify to a true spiritualityto a state of soul most opposite to his own. And this style of language is not confined to the devotional or prophetical Scriptures. It gleams out in expressions interspersed among the historical details of the Jewish home-life. What a people, says Rabbi Tanchum (citing the words of Abigail, 1Sa 25:29), where even the women speak so sublimely, and beyond even the philosophers of other nations, about souls bound up in the bundle of life (or lives, ). See Pocockes Notes to Porta Mosis, p. 93. It may be very easy for the rationalizing interpreter to put another face on such a passage as this, but it may be only because in his case, as in that of the Sadducee of old, there is a vail upon his heart in the reading of the Old Covenant.
Such an expanding spiritual sense (in distinction from the merely fanciful or the cabalistical) is for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear; and, thus regarded, it may be said that the future life of the Old Testament, even with this vail thrown over it, has far more of moral power than the Greek Hades, or any spirit-world mythology of other ancient nations whom the rationalist would represent as surpassing the Jews in this respect. The latter were doubtless far behind the Greeks in distinctness of conception and locality; but this was because God did not mean to leave His people to their fancies. He gave them, and especially the pious among them, the spirit of the doctrine, but so kept it in holy reserve that they could not turn it into fables.T. L.] 9. Paradise.See the article Eden in Winer, and the literary catalogue there given. See also Herzogs Real-Encyclopedia. Paradise (Hebrew, ; Septuagint, , that is, a walling or fencing round, a place enclosed as a garden), like all facts in Genesis, especially of its earlier history, was, on the one side, an actuality, on the other a symbol; and the latter, indeed, in a special degree. In favor of its actuality there is, first, the fundamental thought: there was a home of the human race; secondly, the territory of this home, the region in which the Euphrates and the Tigris had their sources, or Western Asia as appears probable from other reasons; thirdly, the mention of the well-known rivers Phrat (Euphrates) and Hiddekel (Tigris), together with other features. In favor of the clear symbolical significance of Paradise there is the figure of the one stream that afterwards divided itself into four different streams running out from thence into the world, as also the inclosure of the garden, and especially the two trees with their wonderful significance. The theological views respecting Paradise embrace two extremes: whilst some would regard it as extending over all the earth (Ephraim the Syrian; and a multitude of Such extravagant opinions as cited by Calmet: Comment. litter. in Genesin, p. 81), others, on the other side, would reduce it to one common section so appropriated as to have a commensurate influence upon the first men. Between these lies the sound view of the church, which supposes for the pure a pure sphere of nature, for the care-needing a motherly bosom of nature, for the innocent a heavenly, peaceful, holy region, for the child-like a garden with its fruits (see Langes Dogmatics, p. 396). The exegetical views respecting the passage divide themselves into the historical, the allegorical, and the mythical. The historical views, again, fall into two classes: those that maintain the possibility of yet determining the region of Paradise, and such as suppose the configuration of the earth to have been so changed by the flood that the place of union of the four rivers cannot now be pointed out. Both assume a significant change of the earth, especially since the fall of Adam, or the beginning of the human race. The allegorical views divide themselves into the Gnostic or the theosophic-allegorical (Philo, Jacob Bhm, and others), and into the
mystic-allegorical (Swedenborg and others). The mythical views may be divided into the predominantly theological or philosophical, or the predominantly geographical. First Class: a. Calvin, Huetius, Bochart, and others: Paradise, they say, lay in the district in which the Euphrates and the Tigris unite (Schat al Arab); the Pishon and the Gihon are the two principal mouths of Schat al Arab. b. Hopkinson: Paradise was the region of Babylon; the two canals of the Euphrates form half of the number of the four rivers, c. Rask: The same region probably, only let there be added to the two well-known streams the two subordinate streams of the Schat al Arab. d. Harduin: Galilee, e. Hasse: Paradise lay in East Prussia. Second Class: Change in the course of the rivers. Clericus, and others: Paradise lay in Syria (Kohlreif and others: Damascus). Third Class: Philo: De Mundi Opificio; Jacob Bhm: Mysterium Magnum. Fourth Class: See the article Swedenborg in Herzogs Real-Encyclopedia. Fifth Class: The mythico-theological, or strictly mythological, view, which makes it the story of the four world-rivers that come from the hills of heaven, and wander over the earth (Von Bohlen and others). Sixth Class: The mythico-geographical. Sickler, Buttmann, Bertheau: Geographical Views that form the Ground of the Description of the Situation of Paradise, Gttingen, 1848. Winer distinguishes a literal view (Hengstenberg, Tiele, Baumgarten), a half-literal, which attempts to separate the distribution of the streams from the matter of fact contained (Less, Cramer, Werner, and others), an allegorical (Von Gerstenberg), and a hieroglyphical, not very distinguishable (J. G. Rosenmller and others), p. 290, wherein he protests against the conjectures of Hllmann and Ballenstedt.
According to Verbrugge, Jahn, and others, the one Paradise-stream may be understood of a region abounding in streams. We suppose that the stream has a most special symbolical importance, and denotes, generally, the well-ground of the Paradise-earth. With this, however, there is easily connected the historical view of Reland and Calmet. According to this, Pishon denotes the Phasis which rises in the Moschian mountains, stands in connection with the gold-land of Colchis so famed in antiquity (Colchis = Chavila), and flows into the Black Sea; Gihon is the Aras or Araxes (the Phasis of Xenophon, , to break forth = ), which likewise rises in Armenia, and flows into the Caspian Sea. But Cush is the land of the Kossans, which Strabo and Diodorus place in the neighborhood of Media and the Caspian Sea. According to this, Armenia would have been the territory of the ancient Paradise. Knobel also had first presented the grounds (p. 28), which are in favor of Armenia, out of which, moreover, the postdiluvian men proceeded. On this account have Reland, Link, Von Lengerke, Kurtz, Bunsen, and others, supposed it to be Armenia. It is objected, however, to this: 1. That the names Havila and Cush, in other places, belong to the South. The name Havila, it may be said generally, is not geographically determined; but the name Cush, together with the Cushites, can just as well be extended from the north to the south as that of the Normans (see Kurtz: History of the Old Testament, p. 59). 2. No Armenian district can be summarily denoted as the native land of gold, bdellium, and the onyx. In regard to the gold, however, Colchis presents no difficulty. Just as little are the bdellium and the onyx to be denied of this district, since it evidently has something symbolical. Objection 3d: It is said that the cherubim are not to be found in Armenia: but where on the earth was the home of these? And then, too, must many indications point to a more northern highland. But the places commonly cited for this purpose, Psa 48:3; Isa 48:13, prove nothing, and Eze 28:13 is a pure ideal painting. Moreover, the analogies of the Albordi, the Medo-Persian mountains of God, and the Indian mountains Meru, appear to be merely reflexes of the Paradise-story; and the same may be said of the Chinese mountain-tract Kuenlun. In other respects the analogies and combinations collected by Knobel are communications of great interest. Keil states a reason why the Cyrus (now the Kur) should be put in place of the Phasis (p. 42); it is the fact that the rising of the Phasis lies beyond Armenia. This reason would be decisive, if we had to insist upon the pure literalness of the origin of the Paradise rivers. He holds, in like manner, that the Gihon is the Araxes: the sundering of the four streams he explains by changes in the earths surface, yet not alone through the flood (Note, p. 44). Finally, according to Delitzsch, the Pison must relate to the Indus and its river territory to India, whilst the Gihon is the Nile (pp. 149, 620). Afterwards he came to regard the combination of Bunsen as having a good degree of probability (p. 150), and then he represents the mutually opposing difficulties by the concluding alternative: We must either acknowledge the incomprehensibility of the narration, or accommodate ourselves with the admission that the certain knowledge of the four rivers has been lost in the disappearance of Paradise itself.The actual and symbolical importance of Paradise. The garden in Eden. Historical. The heavenly earth-bloom which surrounded the new-born man, who is to be regarded, indeed, as full-grown, and yet childlike and inexperienced. The point of the earths congeniality, wherein the divine earth-culture is in unity with the earthly naturewhen the fruit-trees are of the noblest quality, the grain grows wild, the beasts attach themselves to men in the domestic state, whilst there is allotted to men an abundance of simple food (fruit of trees, the nourishment of children) to be procured by an easy labor of the body, and a thoughtful care on the part of the mind.Symbolical significance of Paradise. The general correspondence between the pure, peaceful, serene, and blessed man, and the pure, peaceful, serene, and blessed world of God or the inward communion with God, and, corresponding to it, the outward, sensible presence of God in the surroundings of humanity. In its more special significance: 1. The heavenly disposition of the earth, the rich paradisaical soil; 2. the objective paradisaical aspects of the earth, as the subjective in the contemplation of children and of men attuned to a festal life; 3. the promised land, the consecration of the earth through the salvation; 4. the kingdom of glory above (Luk 23:43; 2Co 12:4); 5. the earth glorified for its union, at some future time, with the heavens (2Pe 3:13; Revelation 20).The vocation in Paradise. Historical: The serene, free activity of the child in contrast with the necessity and the pains of labor proper. The true keeping of entrusted good against a damage yet unforeseen, especially through self-keeping in contrast with the later anxious watching. Symbolical: The calling of the pious and blessed, according to its positive and negative sides. A holy office of labor, a holy office of defence, and, through both, a holy ministry of instruction.The Paradise-rivers: 1. Historical (see above). 2. Symbolic. The four world-streams in their high significance, as the streams of life and blessing that flow conditionally from the paradisaical home of man.The trees in the garden. Historical: The abundance that surrounded the first man still simple and conformable to his childlike degree; food both lovely to the eye and ennobling in its efficacy. Symbolical: The riches of the pious and their freedom from want (Psalms 23).The two trees in the midst of the garden. Historical: Nature in its centre endowed with a wonderful power of health, as also with intoxicating gifts of dangerous efficacy, which, through an enjoyment rash or immoderate (or, in general, having only the form of nourishment), exert a destructive influence, and both alike represented there by a central vegetable formation, whether it be tree or bush. Symbolical: The tree of life: The power of health and life in nature, which, in connection with the word of God, rises to a fountain of everlasting life in Christ soteriologically, and to be the nourishment of everlasting life in Christ sacramentally.The tree of knowledge of good and evil. Nature as the tree of probation every way, namely in excessive, in dangerous, and in forbidden means of enjoyment.The paradisaical command. Historical: The warning, inviting, and dissuading signs of God in the productions of nature themselves, and the transformation of the signs into miraculous words for the ear through the present spirit of God. The mention of all the trees in the garden is in so far a command as the arbitrary abstinence from permitted enjoyment has for its consequence the inclination to forbidden enjoyment. There is also a reminder in it that he has no need of the forbidden enjoyment. Symbolical: The revealed will of God, in general, not a constraint nor an abridgment, but only a healthful barrier for the sake of freedom and happiness.The beasts brought before Adam in Paradise. Historical: Original sympathy between the animal and the human worlds. Symbolical: The destiny of man, to learn to understand, through the gospel, the sighing of the creature, or to have, in general, a right knowledge of the animal-world and of nature, and how rightly to use them.The naming of the beasts. Historical: First exercise of the human spiritand especially of speech. Symbolical: The religious and scientific development of man through nature.Human speech. Historical: Hereditary disposition taking root in the very life of the spirit and its plastic organization, awakened through the most excited contemplations of childhoodsuch as that of life in the beast. Symbolical: Mans first prophecy of nature, a presage of his destiny to know and predict perfectly the law and gospel of nature.The creation of woman. Historical: The formation of the human pair falls in the period of the physiological creation of the man. Not after the manner of ready-made or at once completed being, but in the way of becoming, does the one developing human form become perfected in the contrast of one man and woman. Man, as a personality, is not conditioned through sexual completion or integration; and man and wife are not, somehow, only two halves which make one whole in a personal sense, but perhaps in a social. The wife, however, is just as much whole man as the man himself. She proceeds not only from the substance of the man, but also from his trance-vision in that deathlike sleep into which he had been cast by God. In respect to substance, as formed from one of mans ribs, she comprehends less than Adam; in respect to form she is a creation of secondary power in the region of paradise. God brings Eve to Adam. Marriage is instituted by God, not only in respect to the divine creation of its contrast, but also in respect to the divine guidance of the individual choice. Man must not anticipate the decision of God, but neither is he to reject the destined one whom God brings before himthe one who through a divine revelation, as it were, and a divine consideration, is marked out for him as his counterpart.Adams salutation and blessing. Symbolical: The first of all high and sacred songs of love. Marriage the principle of the family state, superordinate to all other domestic relations. Marriage in contrast with the sins of sodomy and fornicationin contrast with incest (leaving father and mother, etc.)in contrast with an arbitrary and sinful taking and forsaking. (The paradisaical indissolubility of marriage is conditioned upon its paradisaical infallibility.) Duties to father and mother receive an emphasis from the fact that they are measured by the law of love. The greatness and the limit of the parental right. It extends to, but not into, the marriage state.The nakedness of the first human beings. Symbolical: The childlike simplicity, the freedom, beauty, and majesty of innocence.
[Excursus on the Paradise Rivers.The search for the Gihon and the Pishon in the north is attended with the greatest difficulties. Chief among them is the necessity it involves of finding another Cush in the same direction. The language of the writer gives the impression of a territory of great comparative extent, and that could not easily be misunderstood by a reader familiar with, the geographical terms employed. : that is, the river that goes round the whole land of Cushclear round ita wide and notable circuit. The sense of winding or meandering through cannot be got from the verb, and the references to Isa 23:16, and Other places ( , , Psa 48:13 : Go round about the cityround about Zion), do not support it. The ancient view that the Gihon was the Nile, and Pishon the Indus, though having difficulties of another kind, is more near to what would seem to be the general idea of the passage: four great rivers (waters rather) prominent in the earth, and having their courses, in some way, connected with Eden. Even if the Nile and the Indus are not the rivers, it is more easy to see how they came to be anciently, and almost universally, so regarded, than to find anything corresponding to this graphic representation in the region north of the Euphrates and the Hiddekel or Tigris. One thing is clear on the very face of the account: the writer himself had no difficulty, and thought of none for the reader. He is certainly not speaking of things supposed to be obliterated by the deluge, but of places recognized, however vaguely, in the knowledge of the day. To this assumed knowledge the picture is presented, though with that inadequacy of conception, and that generality or undefinedness of language, which necessarily marked the first geographical notions of mankind. It was very much as an early Greek writer would have done, in a similar case, who had nothing else to go by but the map of Eratosthenes, or the still older one of Hecatus. This does not at all detract from the inspiration of the account, whether we adopt the vision-theory, or some more objective mode of raising the conceptions in the narrators mind. In either case such conceptions would be shaped by his supposed knowledge, as this would also be the ground of presentation to other minds. The picture which St. John had of the Euphrates, in his apocalyptic vision, was doubtless according to the geographical ideas, more or less correct, which he had previously possessed of that river. Geographical language has undergone a great change. Everything now, and for a long time, has been so precisely defined that we need to get out of our modern conceptions to be in a condition to understand satisfactorily the most ancient modes of dividing and describing the earth. The nomenclature has become greatly enlarged and varied. We have rivers, lakes, seas (the Greeks in Homers time called these two last by one name, ), oceans, friths, arms of the sea, gulfs, bays, sounds, etc. In the earliest times they were not fixed, and we cannot be always certain, therefore, that a general name like , a flood or flowing water, presented just that limited conception in every case that we now invariably connect with river, flumen, , etc. For examples of the wide sense of , see such passages as Psa 93:3 : The floods lift up their voice, , lift up their dashing waves, ; Psa 66:6, it is joined with , and most obviously used of the Red Sea; see also Psa 89:26. So Hab 3:8, where and are spoken of in the same way; comp. Isa 48:18. We deduce, too, this wide primitive sense from its employment in metaphors where there is to be denoted width, enlargement, fulness: Peace like a river, , Isa 66:12, like a flood; so Isa 59:19, enemy come in like a flood. Beyond the floods of Cush, Isa 18:1; the same expression, Zep 3:10. See especially Jon 2:4 : , the flood went round me (the deep sea); compare with this Homers , streams of ocean, Iliad xiv. 245. So it seems to be used, not so much of a river, in the limited sense, as of any great water, in such passages as Job 22:16, Psa 46:5. In Psa 24:2 it denotes the floods of chaos, the old Tehom rabbah, or great deep, and is put in direct parallelism with : For He hath founded it upon the seas, and built it upon the floods, . See the same word used in the same way, Eze 31:15.
Thus the , or great water, in the passage before us, Gen 2:10. In the Eden territory itself it might have had the form of a lakean idea, in fact, which the whole aspect of the account greatly favors. It was certainly not a spring or fountain-head to four commencing streams, but rather a reservoir in which all were joined, whether as flowing in or flowing out. From thence they were parted, or began to be parted (, see remark on and references, p. 202) into four . This is rendered heads in our version, and so the Vulgate, in quatuor capita. But they both mislead in their literalness; the Hebrew never having, like our word, the sense of fountain-head or spring; the Shemitic tongues called the remote upper part of a stream a foot or a finger rather than a head. It became four principal waters or floods, four arms (brachia) or great branches. Two of these were rivers within the modern limits of the term, but very great rivers; so that one comes afterwards to be almost constantly called with the article as a proper namethe great river, the sea or flood. See Gen 15:18; Gen 31:21; Num 22:5; Deu 1:7; Deu 11:24; Jos 24:2-3; Jos 24:14-15; 2Sa 10:16; Neh 2:7; Isa 7:20; Isa 11:15; Isa 27:12 and others. From such a use as this, perhaps, came the more common secondary or specific application of to rivers proper. The other two, probably, presented a different appearance. Beyond the bounds of the Eden territory they may have become friths, or arms of the sea, or two diverging shores of a great water soon losing sight of each other, yet each still keeping the name as more applicable, in fact, to them (if we may judge from its primary sense) than to the streams on the north.
Such a view may not, at first, seem in harmony with our preconceptions, but there are considerations to be mentioned which, on closer examination, will more and more divest it of any strange or forced appearance. In the first place, two of these are determined, and we may regard them as furnishing the necessary data for the determination of the others according to some sense once clearly recognized. They are waters in close and even immediate connection with the Euphrates and the Tigris, not at their obscure sources, or springs, where they could not be recognized as , but where they both appear as parting from a common junction in the Eden-land. The two well-known branches are north of this junction; we must, therefore, look for the others on the south, and the region first to be examined in our search for Eden is that in which the Euphrates and the Tigris come together. This was near the head of the Persian Gulf, where most of the ancient authorities agreed in fixing it, and to which place also there points a concurrence of Arabian and Persian tradition. Here Calvin and Bochart find it. But where, then, are the two southern , one of which goes round the land of Havilah, the land of gold (India, says the Jerusalem Targum), and the other goes round the whole land of Cush, that is, Southern Arabia (see Gen 10:7; 1Ki 10:1; Homer: Odyss. i. 20)? The branches of the Schat al Arab, which completes the junction of the Euphrates and the Tigris, fall altogether short of this graphic description. We might regard this delta as the remains of the ancient confluence in Eden, but it will not answer for Pishon and Gihon. The key to the difficulty, we think, will suggest itself, if the reader will keep in mind the view here taken of , and carry it with him in a steady contemplation of all the waters that meet in this region of the earth. An ancient map, such as that of Ptolemy or Strabo, or the still earlier one of Hecatus, would be best for this purpose; but the simplest delineation could hardly fail to awake the thought that in the general contour of the system of waters presented by these two mighty streams as they come down from the north, and the two diverging seas, or shores of seas, that, parting just below their junction, sweep round the land of India on the one side, and Arabia on the other, we have the data that determine for us the location of the ancient Eden-land. It suggests, too, the origin of the general language, and of this special naming. Knowledge has not yet introduced geographical distinctions; the internal wastes of seas and their connections are unknown; the pioneers or travellers on either diverging shore simply recognize them as two great waters, two mighty , and they name them according to their most visible characteristics and directions. Hence the earliest representation, which is afterwards enlarged and becomes a fixed tradition. One is the broad-spreading Pishon, trending far away to the eastern land of gold and diamonds, the other is the deep-flowing Gihon (compare the favorite epithet of Homers Ocean-River, , Odyss. xi. 13; Iliad xiv. 311), surging far round to the south and the west. Observe, too, the contrast they present to the other names, the fertilizing Euphrates (), and the swift-darting Hiddekel or Tigris. The inland and maritime features could hardly have been distinguished by more significant epithets.22
But such an opinion should be fortified by historical argument, and this, we think, is found in a fact of Greek archology, having much interest for its own sake, but to which sufficient attention has not been given in its bearing on the names, and the primitive significance, of these neharim. Homer calls Oceanus a river. It had been so called, doubtless, long before his time. He connects with it, indeed, much wild mythology, but that does not affect the fact, nor the interest, of such a naming. Whence came it? It is not a sufficient explanation to call it poetical. All early conceivings of nature were poetical in this sense of vastness and wonder. The great unknown of things was full of it, and the wonderful was ever divine. Hence Homers divine ether, divine fire, divine sea ( , Iliad xvi. 365; xii. 177; Odyss. v. 261compare , montes Dei, Psa 36:7). But Homer, though a poet, speaks here in the most matter-of-fact style. He believes in Oceanus as he believes in the Peneus and the Eurotas. Ulysses navigates this ocean-river in a black ship; he sails along its one shore until he leaves it and enters the , the swell of the inland sea, Odyss. x. 639; xi. 1. Homers poetry makes him none the less a good witness for the most ancient geographical ideas, and to this purpose does the prosaic Strabo speak in quoting him: Homer, he says, not only calls the great ocean a river ( ), but gives the same name to a part of it; otherwise he would have (absurdly) represented Ulysses as going out of the ocean into the ocean. See Strabo: lib. i. 75; also lib. i. 3; ii. 3, 5; ii. 18, where he speaks of the four great sinuses which were regarded as inlets from the ocean-stream, the Caspian and the Pontus on the north and the Persian and Arabian sinus on the south. See, also, how he speaks in other places of the Northern Oceanus, and its supposed connections. It is worthy of note, too, how Homers frequent , and Strabos use of it in his remarks upon him, corresponds to the primary sense of the Hebrew , as a full, majestic flowing rather than a gliding or rapid running stream, like rivus or amnis. It would take up too much space to cite other passages from the Greek poets, Herodotus, etc., where similar language is used. One reference, however, may be made to Pindar: Pyth. Carm. iv. 250,
;
because in it this river Oceanus is directly connected with the Persian Gulf. Jason is represented as returning by the channels of Oceanus and the Erythrian or Red Sea, by which name the Greeks denominated not the Egyptian but the Persian sinus. Josephus names it in the same way, Ant. lib. i. ch. i. 3, where he says the Euphrates and the Tigris go down into the Red Sea, whilst Gihon (Geon, as he calls it) runs through Egypt, the Greeks calling it the Nile. He seems to have regarded the Egyptian river as in some way connected with the Scripture Gihon on the unknown South.
This usus loquendi may be explained by supposing that the sons of Javan, Elisa and Tarshish, Kittim and Rodanim, carried it with them from the old
home-land in the east, and applied it in their pioneering among the friths and sounds of the Mediterranean. The Egyptians, or sons of Ham, had it in the same way; and this makes simple and natural what otherwise might seem forced or far-fetched, in such an interpretation of the earliest geographical language. This idea, too, of a great Oceanus river with its one far-stretching continuity of shore winding round an extensive portion of the earth, must have had its origin in the east, and in that region of it where two such vast shores met each other, and, at the same time, some great inland water. It would never have come from any aspect of things presented to the first migrations in the Mediterranean with its many islands, sinuses, friths, and sounds, ever breaking up such continuity, and seldom affording a view in which land does not show itself, however distantly, in some direction. Hence it was that this part of the earth got the name of the isles of the sea, so frequent in Scripture. As such, it became opposed to the continent or main eastern land of Asia; the two together making up the world, or orbis terrarum, and thus presented in the parallelism of Psa 97:1 :
Jehovah reigns, let the earth (the land) rejoice, .
The idea appears in all the old representations of the world down to the map of Ptolemy, and in this point of view it is not extravagant to regard the scriptural account of the Paradise-streams as the seed from which it all grew. Once loosed from its sober scriptural moorings and become a myth, there was no limit to the fancy. It was transferred to every great and unknown sea, and the legend of Jason, the old ocean circumnavigator, arose from the desire ever manifested by the Greeks to give to every world-idea that came to them a national aspect. Hence it took so many traditional forms. Pindar, as we have seen, makes him return home by the way of the Persian Gulf and thiopia; Appollonius Rhodius brings him back by the Ister, or Danube, and a branch, or break-off, of the ocean-stream ( ; see Argonautica iv. 283, 637), into the Ionian, and so, round again, into the dangerous Libyan Sea; whilst the writer of the other Argonautica (falsely ascribed to Orpheus) gets him somehow into the boreal regions, making him return by the German Ocean and , the most ancient name for Ireland. See also the treatise De Mundo, falsely ascribed to Aristotle (Arist.: Opera, Leip. iv. sect. 3d). So again. Strabo tells us (lib. i. ch. ii. 10) that Homer transferred some things from the Pontus, such as the Symplagades and the Aan isle of Circe, to the voyage of Ulyssesthat sea having been anciently regarded as another Oceanus. It may be said, too, that when the primitive idea began to float away into the boundless and unknown, Cush went with it, passing over into Eastern Africa, the land of the Habessenians (Abyssinians), , as the Judaico-Arabic translator (Arabs Erpenianus) renders this very name in the place before us, Gen 2:13. thiopia is afterwards carried still farther south and west, and the name is sometimes given to what was obscurely known of Western and Central Africa, or the land of the Niger and Senegal. Thus it becomes a word for the remote and unknown regions of the South,23 as Tarshish is used for the distant West. In this way, we think, it is employed Zep 3:10, and Isa 18:1, the land of the shadow of wings, (so the Syriac renders it, ), terra umbr alarum, that is, as Abulwalid explains it, whose wings or sides are shaded (obscure or unknown)the land , beyond the floods of Cush. The thought gives force and vividness to the passage Psa 68:32 : Even Cush shall stretch forth (, cause to run swiftly or eagerly) her hands unto God. The two lands of Cush, the one at the rising (the Arabian Cush) and the other at the setting sun (the African), were distinguished in Homers day, and it is not difficult to see how the African thiopians came from the Arabian, or Saban, Cush, by crossing the lower narrow part of the Red Sea (one of the windings of the Gihon), instead of being derived from the Egyptians above, that is, from Mizraim, the younger brother of Cush. In thus regarding the Red Sea as a continuation of the Gihon, as in fact it was, if our view be correct, we may understand how the Nile may have become connected with the name, and afterwards been taken for the Gihon itself.
The Indian Ocean in the most ancient times was the widest extent of water known. It was, too, nearer the primitive birth-place of man in the East, and, therefore, known before the Mediterranean. Even after men became acquainted with the latter, it was, in comparison with the older water, but a , or a , an irregular broken mass of bays and islands instead of one long continuous flow. Here, therefore, in this earlier region of the Indian and Persian seas should we naturally look for the origin of that name Okeanos which it is so difficult to deduce from the Greek. This is what Diodorus Siculus does, Lib. i. 19, in what he says of the journey of Osiris to India. The derivation of Okeanos from , as we find it in some of our lexicons, is wholly untenable, since denotes only the trickling flow of a fountain, and never enters into any of the many epithets of ocean used by the poets, which it could hardly have avoided doing had it belonged to the radical idea of the name. is , , , , etc., but never . Besides, the has every appearance of a prefix, being either privative (turned into ), as Suidas holds to accommodate it to an absurd derivation of his own, or, as is far more likely, the article lengthenedthe kean, or keon. The etymology which traces it to ogyges, ogen, (if there ever was such a word in Greek) has as little support in any traceable significance, as in any tenable phonetic ground. A word meaning ancient could never have been a primitive name, although, inversely, such a name as Okeanos, when its primitive significance had been lost, might be used for the old and the unknown. We may disregard, in the same way, what is said of the Coptic oukame and the Arabic kamus. The true explanation of this name will, we think, suggest itself in a careful consideration of four things: 1. The obvious fact that the is a prefix, as Suidas regards it, and that it must, therefore, be the article; 2. what Josephus says when he calls Gihon , Geon, as mentioned in the scriptural description of this great encompassing water; 3. the graphic nature of the Scripture language as suggesting an idea held and emotionally conceived by the writer and his first readers; 4. the part of the world in which, even according to Greek historians, the name Okeanos had its origin. In the light of these considerations there is no extravagance in saying that — is – .24 In other words, it is the old full-flowing Gihon that was connected with the Eden-territory, and whose long winding shore went round that laud of Cush in the neighborhood of which the name was first found. This is in perfect accordance with the usage of the root , or , wherever it occurs. It does not denote turbulence (an angry river). That notion has come from the effort to connect the Gihon with the Araxes (Greek: ). It denotes, rather, force and fulness (see Job 37:8), like the , which is such a favorite epithet for , and hence stateliness, as in the Aramaic, where it is used of a soldier or an army issuing forth to battle. So Pishon, the spreading (redundans), the wide-flowing, , from , dispergerea fluvio redundante, Ges.; comp. Hab 1:8; Mal 3:20 or Mal 4:2; Jer 50:11. The image is wholly lost in the Phasis, or any other stream in the mountains of Armenia, where some have so earnestly sought to find it.
The difficulty of finding any other place for Eden but the neighborhood of the Persian Gulf is shown in the labored effort to transfer the famed Cush of the Scriptures, or the land beyond the floods of Cush (the terra obumbrata, or land of the shadow of wings, Isa 18:1, with its expanding bounds), to the Caucasian tribe of the Cossans () barely mentioned by Diodorus and Strabo along with the Mardi, the Uxii, the Elymaei, and other predatory hordes of like insignificance who inhabited the sterile plains near the Caspian lake. If we studiously compare Isa 18:1 and Zep 3:10 with Gen 2:13, the inference can hardly be avoided that , beyond the floods of Cush, can mean nothing more nor less than beyond the encompassing Gihon, , the flood or water that goes round the whole land of Cush. In truth, what other floods or water can it mean? Such a description would never have been lost, and must be supposed to have been in the mind of every subsequent writer, prophet, or historian, that refers to a land so surrounded. A like studious contemplation will convince us that Psa 68:32; Isa 18:1, and Zep 3:10, are all one prophecy, the gathering of Gods chosen, His suppliant people, , as Zephaniah calls them, dispersed to the remotest regions of the earthbeyond the floods of Cush, beyond the Gihon, even from the remoter thiopia, just as Tarshish and the isles, Psa 72:10, are used to indicate remoteness in the other direction.
It only remains to fortify what has been said by adverting to the fact that this mode of speech (that is, calling the sea a river, or a stream, and, inversely, a great river a sea) remained in the Hebrew down to its latest use as a living language. We may refer to Isa 19:5, where the Nile is called both and in the same verse; Isa 27:1, the leviathan or crocodile, , in the sea; Isa 21:1, the burthen of the desert of the sea, supposed to mean Babylon on the Euphrates; Job 41:23, where the Nile is indicated; Nah 3:8, the same; see also Eze 32:2, ZeGen Gen 10:11, and others, and compare Koran Surat xx. 39, where, in the same manner, the Arabic () is given as a name to the river, when it is said that Moses was cast into the sea, and the sea cast him, with the ark, upon the shore. See also Lud. de Dieu: Critica Sacra, 555, and Bochart: Hierozoican, vol. ii. 789, where he cites Pliny as calling the shore of the Nile not ripam, but litus, a name usually given to the shore of the sea. Compare, moreover, the long note on the oceanic streams of Western Asia in Rawlinsons Herodotus, Appendix, vol. i. p. 446. The usage still exists in the Oriental languages. To this day , the sea, is applied in Arabic not only to the Nile, but to any great flumen, or wide-flowing water; and they speak of the shore of such a river as they would of the shore of the sea. If the account in Genesis had been originally given in the Arabic language, whether in its oldest or latest forms, there can hardly be a doubt that it would have been expressed in similar terms. The word would have been alike applicable to the great inland rivers and the two long winding oceanic shores.
Nor is such usage so strange as it might at first seem to our stricter occidental logic. Rigorously defined as inland streams, our greatest and our smallest rivers have the same specific appellation. To the eye, too, that views them merely as traced upon the map, they all appear as single lines. To the actual sight, however, and to the emotion, the case is quite different. These refuse the logic that would place the Amazon and the Tweed in the same category. Such mighty sea-like flowings as the St. Lawrence and the Mississippi claim more affinity to the Atlantic and the oceanic Gulf-stream than to the canal-like Mohawk, or to the mountain-torrent of the Housatonic. From the actual and the emotional, thus regarded, arose this early language which is still continued, in the East, in its application to such rivers as the Euphrates, the Indus, and the Nile. In the same manner, in our North-American Indian tongues, is the term great water, like the Hebrew , used not only of an arm of the sea, or of the great lakes, but even of such rivers as the Ohio and the Missouri. Such a mode of speech is, in fact, one of the striking evidences of the subjective truthfulness of this early scriptural account. It represents an actual, though perhaps indefinite, knowledge, and the emotional naming that grows naturally out of it. It shows that it is not itself a myth, though, doubtless, the seed of myths that afterwards came out of it. Legends, historical or geographical, are the result of a later process. They do not belong to the most primitive ages, occupied, as they must be, with the greatness and novelty of the real as it lies before the sense. The mythical succeeds. It betrays a semi-philosophizing spirit, a disposition to create an ideal by carrying the actual beyond its ascertained or supposed bounds, or to make some primitive knowledge, or event, the representative of a wide unknown. In this early story of the Eden-streams there is the seed of the Egyptian and the Greek oceanic legends. Its sober truthful character, like that of the modest Hebrew chronology, is shown by its matter-of-fact limitation, and its evident appeal to existing observation. The mythical spirit would have carried the Pishon and the Gihon not only round Havilah and the whole land of Cush, but, as it afterwards did, round the whole earth known or unknown. This Eden account, too, may be regarded as the beginning of geography. We need only trace the successive delineations of the earth, from the earliest map of Hecatus down to that of Ptolemy and the modern charts of the world, to have the thought suggested that their ever-widening scales were simply expansions from this primitive central sketch.T. L.]
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
In relation to the whole section.Gods government of men in the beginning.His covenant with Adam. 1. His gift and blessings: a. The soil of the earth prepared for man; b. the hand of God the instrument of his formation; c. the breath of God, his innermost life; d. Paradise his home, the wide earth his country; e. the abundance of Paradise his food; f. the beasts his school for the study of form, and his attendant service; g. the wife his helper. 2. The commands laid upon him in Paradise: a. To dress the garden and to keep it; b. to beware of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; c. to give names to the beasts (that is, contemplate, recognize,25 and distinguish the nature of things); d. to keep holy the society of marriage.The glory of God as displayed in the first paradisaical world (His power, wisdom, goodness, love).The creation of man: 1. So grand the preparation made for him (Gen 2:4-6); 2. so wonderfully and richly grounded (Gen 2:7), so carefully established (Gen 2:8-18), and so gloriously completed (Gen 2:19-25).The appearing of man upon the earth as the revelation of its destiny: 1. The presentation of its fundamental idea, of its purport, its aim; 2. the perfection of its structure; 3. the solving of its enigma; 4. the consecration of its being; 5. the bond of its connection with heaven; 6. the beginning of its transformation from a state of pure nature to a paradisaical spirit-world.Man and nature. Man: 1. The elevation of nature; 2. the exaltation of nature, and at the same time, 3. the pupil of nature.The first transformation of nature through the entrance of the first man a prognostic of its second transformation through the second man, the one from heaven (1 Corinthians 15).The history of Adam a history of the heaven and the earth.The reflected splendor of the glory of the first humanity in the glory of Paradise.The inward connection and reciprocity between man and nature: 1. His innocence, its beauty and its peace; 2. his fall, its ruin or subjection to the law of vanity; 3. his resurrection, its hope of renewed glory.The man and his wife as the crowning work of creation.The bridal of Adam a presignal of the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev 19:7).The old as well as the new world prepared for a marriage chamber.
The First Section (Gen 2:4-6).The earth waiting for man, a figure of the humanity waiting for the God-Man.
The Second Section (Gen 2:7).The creation of Man 1:1. The formation of man the work of Gods master-hand; 2. the nature of man: akin to the earth and akin to God, or at the same time earthly and divine; 3. the character of man as a unit, a living soul.Man in his unity, in his duality,in his threefold nature.The original human dust of the earth in the splendor of heaven.
The Third Section (Gen 2:8-14).Paradise.Paradise: 1. As a fact in the earth, the bloom of the earth, the home of the first Man 1:2. as an emblem, of the paradisaical disposition of the earth, of its paradisaical power, namely for children and in festal contemplation, of its paradisaical prefiguration, as of the new paradise in the other world and in this.
The Fourth Section (Gen 2:15-18).The first man in Paradise. His relation to the earth-world, to Paradise, to the vegetable world, to the animal world, to Eve.The Paradise-life, moreover, not an unrestricted state: 1. Limitation of action: the calling (to dress and keep); 2. limitation of enjoyment (not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil); 3. limitations in the treatment of nature and especially of the beasts (no enclosing); 4. limitations on human society (regulation of marriage and domestic life).The restrictions upon life the measure and the development of freedom. The ground features of the paradisaical life: heavenly innocence, festal work, pure enjoyment, clear knowledge, quiet waiting (the deep sleep), inward love and greeting, unconstrained and childlike being.Single verses and themes. Gen 2:4. The history of the heaven and the earth in the history of man.The rich significance of the name Jehovah-Elohim: 1. Jehovah is Elohim; 2. Elohim is Jehovah (analogous to the New Testament in respect to the name Jesus Christ, that is, Jesus is Christ, Christ is Jesus).
Gen 2:6. The world without man a desert; the world everywhere incomplete until man comes (the child of the election). The first dewy rain and its blessing a presignal for all times (children yet believe that they grow from the rain).
Gen 2:7. The creation of man as, 1. a divine forming; 2. a divine inbreathing (so goes the ideal before the life, art before the realization, the shadow or the type before the truth).The descent of man, his earthly descent (Adam from adamah); his divine descent (a soul from Gods breath of life).The original harmony and unity of the earthly and heavenly nature of man. How we ought to be on our guard against those suspicions of matter, of the body, and of the sense-nature, which claim to be profound, and yet are not taught in the Scriptures.Why the church has always held dualism to be spiritually dangerous. Man, in his being an exaltation of the dust, a humility of the spirit. The nature of man a type of his destiny: 1. To build the dust into form; 2. to reveal the inspiration of God in his life. The lowliness and the sublimity of the first man Adam without father and mother, a foreshowing of the wonderful descent of Christ.Paradise (Gen 2:8-14, see number 9 of the Doctrinal, etc.). Paradise at the beginning of the world, and Paradise at the end (the tree of life in the beginning and the tree of life at the end, Revelation 22).The rivers of Paradise, figures of the spiritual life that, proceeding from Paradise, spreads through the world. Gold, spices, and precious stones according to their higher paradisaical appointment, or the riches of the earth an emblem of the higher heavenly riches.The calling of Adam (Gen 2:15): In the first chapter he is appointed ruler of the earth. This divides itself here into two aspects, 1. to dress, 2. to keep. The calling of Adam a type of our calling. The entrusted goods (spiritual talents, outward goods of culture, spiritual goods): First to dress it, that is, to increase, ennoble; second to keep it, that is, to guard it against injury and loss.
Gen 2:16. In Adams life, calling and enjoyment are united; therefore are they both paradisaical; so in a still higher degree are calling and enjoyment united in the life of Jesus (Joh 4:34).
Gen 2:17. The paradisaical freedom not without limitation. Outward restraint educates to a free self-restraint. As God binds Himself in His love to man, so also should man bind himself in love to God and to obedience. For it is the self-limitation that first shows the master. Freedom and limitation, right and duty, inseparably united. The tree of probation, 1. a fact (a hurtful enjoyment of nature, as explained from Gods spirit and word); 2. an emblem of all natural enjoyment that is hurtful and destructive. According to Gods will, the tree was primarily only a tree of probation; it first became a tree of temptation by the coming of the serpent. The threatening of death is indirectly a promise of imperishable life. Death is the wages of sin.The animal world. How the right treatment of these rests upon the right knowledge and naming of them. Peace in the paradisaical nature (all the animals are brought before Adam).
Gen 2:18, etc. It is not good that man should be alone. Gods judgment respecting the unmarried state, 1. as universal, 2. as conditional.How all the riches of nature leave man still alone in the failure of kindred society. Man alone, in the midst of all the beasts, with all his knowledge. The true helper of Man 1:1. As his image; 2. as his counterpart (his antithetical complement).The marriage of man, how grounded, 1. on the judgment of God; 2. on the solitary state of Man 1:3. on his deep sleep (trance-vision, see Job 4:13); 4. on the divine creating of the woman out of the side of the Man 1:5. on Gods bringing Eve to him; 6. on the love-greeting of Adam; 7. on its rich and noble destiny.
Gen 2:25. The clothing of innocence: 1. The purest, 2. the fairest, 3. the most substantial. The infinite contrast between innocence and coarseness. The nobility of marriage: communion of the spirit, the consecration of the sexual association.
Starke (Gen 2:7): Out of the dust of the earth, which by moistening with water is capable of an easy moulding. How thoughtless the conduct of men, who adorn their body made from earth and to earth again returning, whilst losing all care of their immortal souls!
Gen 2:15. Even in a state of innocence man must work, and not go idle. 1. He must be ever active like God; 2. he must have joy in the work of his hands, as God has (Gen 1:31); 3. he must have opportunity to show, as God does, wisdom, power, and goodness to the creatures committed to him.
Gen 2:17. This is the covenant which God established with Adam. On the one side was God, and on the other side Adam, who in his own person represented the whole human race.See that thou dost immediately choose the best way, and hold fast to the tree of life which is Christ. Taste this fruit, so shalt thou become well.God the first lawgiver.
Gen 2:20. Is the question asked what language did Adam employ in this transaction? the most probable answer is that it was the Hebrew.
Gen 2:21. Since at the present day a man has twelve ribs on each side, some have supposed that Adam must originally have had thirteen ribs on one side. It is, however, more probable that God must have given him another in place of the one he took away.
Gen 2:22. Luther: Therefore stands fast this consolation against all the teaching of the devil, namely, that the marriage state is a divine state, that is, ordained of God Himself. As Adam gave names to the beasts, so also did he name his wife, and that, too, after himself: maness (woman); on this ground is the custom to be defended whereby a wife lays aside the paternal name, and takes that of the husband.
Gen 2:24. Some would deduce from this merely a prohibition of incest with father and mother.(!) Others would derive from it a proof that in contracting marriage children need not trouble themselves about the approbation of their parents. As this, however, is clearly opposed both to divine and human commands (it is still more opposed to the divine command, we may add, when parents force their children to a marriage) so is it, on this account, the more strongly indicated that the man as well as the wife, go forth from the fathers house and commence a family of their own. To this we may add that with the vocation of marriage, the childlike dependence must also cease, though the filial obligations of love, reverence, and care, do still remain. Col 3:19; Eph 5:25; Mat 19:4; 1Co 7:2.
Burmann: The rest of God in the week is a type of the heavy week and labor of our Mediator Jesus Christ, who in the hard toil of His soul was wearied even unto death for our salvation, and, finally, on this seventh day, entered into his rest (Isa 53:11). So are then here also created a new heaven and earth, and creatures, namely, new men; a new light of the Gospel, new fruits of righteousness, new water welling up to everlasting life.Wherein does Paradise agree with heaven?And, therefore, is the family state established as the fountain-head and origin of all human society.
Schrder: Moses makes the primeval history of the microcosm follow the history of the macrocosm.The hints already obscurely given here and there in the first section (comp. Gen 22:21) in relation to the fall, assume a more distinct form in the second, as though it were designed as a prologue to that world-historical tragedy which begins with chapter 3.The hypothesis of the so-called Pre-Adamites, that is, of men who lived before Adam, is clearly and distinctly excluded by the remark at the end of Gen 2:5, that before Adam there was no man to till the ground. As a proof to the contrary there is also 1Co 15:45, and Act 17:26.The body of man appears, therefore, as a fine artistic structure of God.Stand in awe, oh man! for upon each of thy consecrated members was the finger of God! Herder.As Isaiah says: Thou art our father, Thou art our potter, and we are Thy clay (Isaiah 64). Luther.The spirit of life comes to the human soul as a gift from God immediately received into the human frame (Gen 1:26-27). The soul of the beast, at Gods command, has its origin in that breath of God which pervades the elements of nature (Gen 1:2; Gen 1:20; Gen 1:24).Only as inspired by God does the soul live its true life, its human life; only by means of a vitalizing communion with the divine spirit has it true independence, and a blessed continuance.
Gen 2:8-15. The whole earth as very good was created to be a garden of God. But the Father, out of His abundant goodness to His human child, plants in this garden a little garden more peculiarly His owna little Paradise in the greater.God planted: The image is grounded on that of a human gardener (Joh 15:1; Isaiah 5).Elsewhere the Scripture gives the name Paradise to the abode of the blest, when we, perhaps, would say to be in heaven (Luk 23:43; 2Co 12:4; Rev 2:7).A garden: And what could have been a fairer place for the planting of our race? The schools of wisdom in the East are usually gardens, blooming places by the side of rivers. Herder. Moses expressly tells us, how this garden was gloriously filled by the Lord with fruit-trees of every kind, that the appetite of man might have no excuse. Calvin.The description of the fruit of the trees: Captivating to the sight and good for food, is not without its purpose; it shows that inclination and the proof of sense in respect to food and drink should be guides to men. Herder.Among the trees of Paradise two enigmatical names strike us. Both belong to the same place; both are found in the middle of the garden.
Gen 2:17. The God of the covenant is called Jehovah-Elohim. A covenant requires two sides.Dying, death, the sense of these words he can only anticipate, according as their contrast with the sense of the tree of life grows more clear. At the moment of the fall began the death of man. Death waxes stronger with us until it outgrows life, and conquers it.
Gen 2:20. In his wedded wife man receives what no help or friendship, however fair it might be, could otherwise have given him.One heart and one soul.Man gives names to the beasts.As the son of God he discerns his fathers footsteps, that is, the divine ideas in the things created.
Gen 2:21-25. The becoming many out of one. This is the way of God.
Roos: The sleep of Adam.
Rambach: God acts like a painter or a sculptor who draws a curtain before him when he is working upon an excellent picture or an artistic statue.Adams eyes are veiled that Gods love may unveil itself. The old writers noted six examples in the Scriptures where a miraculous work follows sleep: 1. The case of Adam, 2. of Elias (1 Kings 19), 3. of Jonah (Genesis 1), 4. of Christ (Matthew 8), 5. of Peter (Acts 12), 6. of Eutyches (Acts 20). Moreover, the Son of God is become weak that He might have His members strong. Calvin. (Eph 5:25; Col 3:19).The wife is from a rib; she is taken from near mans heart. As in man there appears an image of the Creator, so does the wife present an image of His providence. The man was created without; the wife was created in Paradise. Her place is by the fireside and in the nursery, but nevertheless most true it is that the world is ruled, in a most peculiar manner, from the mothers bosom.
God builded. (Gen 2:22.) Designedly does Moses use the expression to build, that he may teach us how in the person of the wife the human race finally becomes perfected; whereas before it was like to a building only begun. Others refer it to the domestic economy, as though Moses meant to say, that at that time the right ordering of the family state became completea view which does not deviate much from the first interpretation. Calvin.It is worthy of note that what Moses adds: and brought her to him, is an elegant description of the espousal, or the marriage presentation. For Adam does not rashly follow his liking, but waits for God, who brings her to him; as Christ also says: what God hath joined let not man put asunder. Luther.
Gen 2:23. Love here makes the first poet, lawgiver, and prophet. It is the song of songs proceeding from the mouth of Adam. Herder.Adam makes himself known to his wife, in that he gives her a name in the very act of declaring her origin. With their name the beasts become the property of Adam; with her name does the wife become his own (Isa 43:1; Psa 147:4). He names himself man; the relation to woman causes man now to become a man, in a peculiar sense. Through marriage the circuits of human love are made wider (Eph 5:25; 1Co 7:3; 1Co 7:39; Mat 19:6; Mat 19:9).In the Scriptures, idolatry and the denial of God are called fornication and adultery. The hieroglyphs of the anti-Mosaic law of marriage have been renewed by Christ in their full splendor. To the Gospel does humanity owe the restoration of its original worth. In our old German speech the word marriage is the stem-word of all law, fidelity, order, religion, covenant; not so in the new.Naked. In the nobler class of men the bodily formation still reveals itself through its spirituality.
Lisco: The development of individuals, and of the whole race, is grounded on society. The monastic solitariness is not the will of God (Ecc 4:9). If man would reach his destiny, he needs help in the sphere of the bodily as well as that of the spiritual. The root of all other society is that marriage state, established by God, out of which are evolved the three relations of the family, the church, and the state; in like manner, on account of their root (is it merely on this account?) are they divine institutions. All determinations of God have for their aim the highest good of man; but how greatly, through sin, are the blessings of communion, the advantages of society, perverted into mischief! This peace between man and beast belongs also to the prophetic Paradise (Isa 11:6). Before the fall nakedness was moral, modest, chaste; after the fall it becomes indecorous, a remembrance of the fall, an enkindling of sin.
Gerlach: In the Hebrew writings, the first man is called simply Adam, that is, man; for man is just as much the designation of the human race as it is the proper name of the first man. In the first man there was contained the whole human race, which on that account is called children of Adam (sons of man) or Adam (man) simply (just as it is with the names Israel, Edom, Moab, Ammon).Adam from adamah. Nature must be ruled by one like herself, but who, nevertheless, belongs to a higher order, even as humanity has for its lord a God-Man.The breath, the condition of the bodily life, is an emblem of the divine life which is breathed into man.Just as heaven and earth were originally created as a contrast whose two sides must more and more interpenetrate each other, so also in man is there the body from the dust, and the spirit from God.Man must not be simply a living soul; he must also have a life-making spirit, even as the second Adam possessed it, and all believers receive it from Christ (1Co 15:47).As being from the dust, man belongs to the earth, and, therefore, to corruptibility; like the other animals which die in respect to their individual being and only live on as creations, he has a natural life; as far as that was concerned he could die, but through the spirit derived from God was he related to Him as an imperishable personality, and, therefore, also could he keep from dying (there was given to him the possibility not to die); for even the dust in its relation to him, as also the earth itself, was created for a higher life of glory.Garden-work in a mild climate is the easiest and the most appropriate for the childhood of humanity. In this may the active powers exercise themselves for the more severe employments of agricultural labor. The oldest known fruit-trees, the domestic animals, and the grain, were the portion that remained to him out of this original time.For the tree of knowledge, etc. To know good and evil is the conscious freedom of the will (Isa 7:16; 1Co 8:3).No want (for he lived in abundance), no enticement of the sense merely (for that arose first after the fall (Gen 3:6), could mislead him to transgress the command, but only his self-exaltation, his striving after a false self-sufficiency and independence.In a way of childlike feeling does Luther regard the tree of knowledge (standing as it did in the midst of the garden) as the church of the yet innocent man.This tree of the knowledge of good and evil has become Adams altar and pulpit, in which he ought to have learned the obedience he owed to God, to have known Gods word and will, and to have thanked Him for it; and so, if Adam had not fallen, this tree would have become like to a common temple and cathedral. Therefore must we be on our guard against every view that would represent the tree as proceeding from the devils kingdom, or as being hurtful in itself.
Calwer Manual: The body from the dust of the earth, the spirit inbreathed by God: Thus man belongs to two worlds, the earth and heaven; he is akin to the least of all created things and to the highest, the uncreated, from whose efflux is his spirit.The work in Paradise: There for them was their desire and joy, which afterwards becomes a burden, care, and toil.The forbidden fruit. God only forbids us that which brings to us danger and hurt, and that is often in the proportion of one to many things allowed and right, and which is useful and healthful to us.The threatening of death. Not a sudden dying like an immediately accomplished fact, but, thou wilt become subject to death; it means, to become mortal. With us, too, is death only the end of dying, which last begins often long before. That the man was created before the woman, and that, therefore, a precedence is adjudged to him, is clear from 1Ti 2:13.
Gen 2:19 : God the Creator is also mans first schoolmaster. It is also indicated in this place that before the fall the animal world had been more confiding and dependent on man than it is now, and that it gladly yielded itself to his dominion; whilst now, in part, it stands to him in a hostile attitude (Rom 8:19-20).Not all marriages are from God, decided in heaven, but all can become sharers in its blessings if they seek it.
Bunsen: There follows now the representation of the thought of creation, in connection with Paradise and the fall, in contrast with what precedes as the work of creation in its chronological progress. There man was necessarily the last thing, here he is necessarily the first. For God as eternal reason can only think Himself (or He must ever be essentially His own thought), and, therefore, in creation He can only think His image, the conscious finite spirit. What lies between is the mediation of the eternal with the finite. This second history of creation is neither addition nor complement to the one preceding; it is not, to say the least, its repetition. It is the figurative representation of creation as proceeding outward from the central point of the everlasting idea (the doctrine of the fall that follows this [in Bunsen] is Platonising and Gnostical).
Footnotes:
[14][Gen 2:4.. Rendered by Lange genealogies. More properly generations in the primary sense, and without any reference to time, like , or . Births, Greek: , whence the name of the book in the Septuagint. It is directly applied to births, or successions (one thing, or event, proceeding from another), in nature, and this may be regarded as primary. For example, see Psa 104:2, , before the mountains were born, generated.T. L.]
[15][Gen 2:7.Lange renders: und so ward der Mensch eine lebendige Seele. Luther has alfo. The Hebrew has simply , which we render: and man became, like the Vulgate and LXX.; but the verb seems to have an emphasis, which Lange rightly aims to give, and so man became, etc.: in this special manner, namely by the divine inspiration directly; since the animals also are called , living soul, though their life comes mediately through the general life of nature or the , as mentioned Gen 1:2. See Psa 104:29.T. L.]
[16][Gen 2:19., to see. Lange: um zu sehen. Some of the Jewish commentators raise the question whether this has for its subject God or Adam. If the latter, then has the sense of judging, determining, which it will well bear.T. L.]
[17] [Why should we go to the remote thiopic here, and take a secondary sense of a secondary, when the primary derivation seems to lie right before us in the Hebrew: from , man from the earth, whether homo be from humus or not. The reasoning of Gesenius will not bear close examination. There must have been a name for man, he says, much earlier (multo antiquior) than the tradition of the Mosaic cosmogony. As far, however, as we can learn anything of the first history of the race, from whatever source derived (biblical, heathen, or mythological), cosmogonies, or notions about cosmogonies, belonged to the earliest human thinking, and might as well have furnished the ground of the most popular names as anything else. The question, however, is not about a name for man (any name), but this name Adam which seems the established one in the Hebrew books. What more natural origin than the traditional could there have been, even without deriving it from a cosmogony? Names ever have a reason for them, though that reason, in many cases, may be lost or undiscoverable. They are given from that fact or quality which most impresses us in the thing named. Man is ever returning to the earth, and this might easily suggest the name, and the idea, too, that in some way he also came out of the earth: Who am but dust and ashes, , Gen 18:27; Job 30:19; Psa 103:14. Homo and humus certainly suggest each other, and the etymology is not wholly impaired by the n in the genitive. Those names are most impressive and likely to be most ancient that are taken from the sorrowful aspect of humanity. Such is the case with that other Hebrew appellation for man, , weak, sick, afflicted. Compare it with Homers (mortales), which he seems so fond of using, and in similar connections of thought. , although having the more exalting sense when in contrast with (see Psa 49:3; Isa 2:9; Isa 5:15), is clearly allied to (the n lost or compensated by the long vowel). The plural , the n in the Arabic and in the Arabic name for woman = , show this beyond a doubt. The first name for man, or the more common one, would not ho from strength, or from a ruddy color. These do not distinguish him, at least, to the emotions. They are not such as would affect the soul, like his sorrowful return to the earth. Afterwards, when he forgot himself in his pride, and began to boast, he might call himself () , vir, hero, strong onebut these names are not the primitive ones. Least of all would be think of calling himself anmuthig according to Knobels notion, that is, pleasant, agreeable, handsome one. Certainly not, if his primitive condition were that which the higher criticism, in spite of history as well as of revelation, is determined it shall be. The squalid dweller in the cave, surrounded by wolves, and bones, and stone-axes, and hardly distinguishable from his beastly companions, would be the last one to be called, or who would think of calling himself, the agreeable one, according to this derivation for which the rationalists go to the thiopic.
The same thought of depression, lowliness, and dependence, may be traced, if we mistake not, in the Greek as contrasted with the later . The etymology favored by Lange, , is untenable. So we may say of the kindred one sometimes given, , turning the eye upward, to denote the proud commanding look (comp. Ovid: Metam. lib. 1:85). It is not only unphilological, but also too artificial for a common name, though it might do for a poetical epithet. It would rather seem to come directly from , to feed, nourish, bring up. The alpha is probably an article, as contracted in , or with the rough aspirate and the nun euphonic. , man, a nursling, a foundling, a child of earth and nature. So from the same verb is , often used for the feeble young of animals, and so applied, especially by the comic poets, to a feeble, worthless man. In this way we account for what otherwise seems strange, the contemptuous use of as distinguished from ; as , Oh fellow, Oh poor creature!
The higher we ascend in language, the more numerous, in all departments, as well as the more impressive, do we find names derived from this sense of human frailty. It is the wailing cry called out of man by a feeling of the contrast between his hopes and his apparently dark earthly destinybetween his ideal and his actual, his young vigorous life and the certainty of the death that awaits him. Who am but dust and ashes! Notwithstanding what Gesenius would maintain in respect to its improbability, this style of naming belongs to the earliest patriarchal speech. Whether it was before or after any cosmogonical traditions (a question on which Gesenius and Knobel would seem to lay so much stress), it certainly points to an older idea as its origin; and what more likely to have been such than the Scripture favored derivation on which we have been dwelling?T. L.]
[18][There would seem, at first view, but a faint resemblance between hiddekel and Tigris. There can be but little doubt, however, of their etymological connection. The in may be the article hardened, or it may be part of the syllable (sharp, swift) in composition. The remainder and Tigris have cognate lettersDKL, TGR. The intermediate or transition form is seen in the Aramaic ; Arabic, ; Diglath, DGL. The Zend TGR is the same word.T. L.]
[19][The reference here would seem to be to Num 23:21, which the German Version gives: Keine Mhe in Jacob, und keine Arbeit in Israel; no toil in Jacob, no labor in Israel, instead of our more correct Version: no iniquity in Jacob, no perverseness in Israel.T. L.]
[20][For a very able and a very full discussion of this primitive namingthe philosophy and the theology of itsee Kaulens Sprachverwirrung, pp. 90106.T. L.]
[21][This is doubtless true of that decisive act of God (whether the inspiration, or the image, or both) that in a moment constituted the first man, and the species homo, which, a moment before, was not. But this does not exclude the idea that the human physical was connected with the previous nature, or natures, and was brought out of them. That is, it was made from the earth in the widest signification of the term. That it was not a mere plastic shaping, or outward mechanical structure, is implied in what Lange says just below in respect to the non-passivity of the earth. There are immense difficulties connected with the idea of an outward Promethean image, a dead organization which, although having the appearance, is really no organization at all in the strict sense of the word, any more than the marble statue or the waxen image. No one supposes that the making of the human body was an immediate making de nihilo. It was made from earth, and this earth already had. its nature according to its varieties of carbon, nitrogen, etc., and these, as natures, connected with other natures, entered into the human body. If it is not a creation de nihilo, which is expressly contrary to the language of the account, we must suppose a connection with nature to a certain extent. What difficulty or danger, then, in giving to-the phrase from the earth, the widest sense consistent with the idea of mans having an earthly as well as a heavenly origin? It is this latter idea, and the higher psychology connected with it, that furnishes to the faith its shield against all mere theories of development that may proceed, with weaker or stronger evidence, from a naturalizing science. From the one thus first inspired, and constituted homo, came all humanitythe one humanity, as a transmission of that one inspiration and that one spiritual image (see Remarks, Introduction to the First Chapter of Genesis, p. 156). Even on this view, however, the human body did not precede the human soul, as Lange observes in what follows; since, whatever may have been the precedent causation, it was not a human body, any more than it was a human soul, before that decisive man-creating, man-constituting act which made the species, or the specific character, of both.T. L.]
[22] [The annexed figure would present the outline appearance of the supposed Eden-region, with its four great waters, or neharim, as given by the modern maps:
[23]Our English version of Isa 18:1 mars the passage by its rendering of the interjection : Woe to the land, etc. It should be Ho, as in Isa 55:1, : Ho, every one that thirsteth. Whether it is a particle of threatening, of lamentation, or of invitation, depends entirely on the context. Here it is a call to the far-off: Ho, to the land of the shadow of wingsthe land of the expanded wingsbeyond the floods of Cushbeyond the Gihon, that ancient river that went round the whole land of thiopia. Ho, to the remotest Cush!T. L.]
[24[The Greeks never allow the h, either as aspirate of as guttural, to stand in the middle or at the end of a word, either native or derived. Such a word, therefore, as Gihon, Kihon, or Kehan, would necessarily become Geon, as we have it in Josephus, , or . Just so the Hebrew , Ge-hinnom, Gehenna, becomes ; , Johanan, Iohan, becomes , . In roots, too, allied to the Shemitic, they have for , as Hebrew: Greek: , ; Hebrew:Greek:. The article having become constant as a prefix in -, and lengthened because of its emphasis, shows the former particularity of the name, and at the same time its celebrity: The Gihon, the Kehan, the , the Ocean-river.T. L.]
[25][Gen 2:19 : To see what he would call them, . As this is commonly read and understood, , to see, is referred to God. It corresponds, however, better with the context, and the view that Lange takes of it, to refer it to Adam in the sense of judgingthe sight of the mindan easily derived secondary sense, appearing in other places in the use of this common verb, and becoming, in fact, predominant in the Rabbinical Hebrew. It is simply the transfer that takes place in the Greek – (to see, to know), and perhaps in most languages: that Adam might see (judge), what he would call them. It denotes an intuition or an intuitive judgmentthe first calling out of his faculties in the observation of things. It is no objection to the other sense that it is anthropopathic, although it would seem to represent something like curiosity on the part of Deity. The view taken, however, which is equally correct, lexically and grammatically, makes it the beginning of the first development of language in the perception of some intuitive fitness between names and things named.T. L.]
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
The LORD God made the earth etc.
As this is the first verse in the Bible, in which we meet with the sacred name of LORD GOD, joined together; the Reader would do well to pause over it, with profound reverence, and to seek grace from God, who alone can impart information, concerning Himself, to the mind, that he may have a proper conception of the meaning of the expression; so that, both in this passage of the Divine Word, and in every other, where it occurs, he may be brought under suitable impressions. And in order to help the Reader; in this most interesting subject, I would, once for all, beg of him to observe, that in what part soever of the Bible, he meets with the name of the Lord, in large letters, thus; LORD; it always means JEHOVAH. And wherever the name of the Lord is expressed in small letters, thus; Lord; the original is not JEHOVAH, but Adonai. The translators of our English Bible, by this method, meant to shew that there is a difference in the word itself: but have not pointed out, in what that difference consists. Perhaps they could not exactly do it. Neither, therefore, shall I attempt it. All I shall venture to do upon the occasion, by way of help to the humble Reader, is to give him my observations upon the subject, and which I beg him to accept as observations only, and not as a matter of determination. By the glorious incommunicable name of JEHOVAH, in scripture, which is translated LORD, in great letters, is meant the Necessary, Self-existent, Independent, and Eternal Being; and considered in a covenant-way, as a promising and performing God. And in confirmation of this, it is worthy the Reader’s most serious attention, that as we do not meet with this glorious name of JEHOVAH God, until creation-work, the heavens and the earth and all the host of them were finished; so the Lord, himself, in after ages, Son 1 led upon Moses, to observe that He was not known by this name, among the Patriarchs, until the new creation-work, in redemption, was promised; and God had entered into covenant with Israel, that in his seed (meaning the Lord Jesus Christ after the flesh) should all the families of the earth be blessed. See Exo 6:2-3 . It may be proper, also, for the information of the humble Reader, to add, that this glorious and incommunicable name of JEHOVAH, is equally applied to all the Persons of the Godhead, in various parts of scripture. In proof, I subjoin a few instances. To the Father, see Isa 40:28 , under the character of Creator. To the Son, Isa 43:3Isa 43:3 , where the Son is considered under His peculiar title of Redeemer. And to the Spirit, in His divine offices, in redemption-work, Isa 61:1-3 . For a proof, in one and the same chapter, where, to each, is distinctly and severally ascribed this glorious name; see Isa 63:9-10Isa 63:9-10 . And, no less, to the Three Sacred Persons, in confirmation of the unity of the Godhead; see Deu 6:4 , explained by the Lord Jesus himself, Mar 12:29 . – I only repeat, under this article, that when the word Lord occurs, in smaller letters, in the Bible, and means not JEHOVAH, but Adonai; the original carries with it the idea of a Lord or Ruler; an Almighty Helper or Supporter. And, in this sense, it is peculiarly applied to the Person of the Lord Jesus, when at any time He is spoken of, in his mediatorial character, in the great work of redemption. A striking example we have in Psa 110:1 . The LORD said unto my Lord: that is, JEHOVAH said unto my Adonai. Hence, the Lord Jesus assumed that name, and applied it to Himself. See Mat 22:44 ; Mar 12:36 ; Luk 20:42 . For further proofs, see Abraham’s address to the Lord, under this character, Adonai JEHOVAH, Gen 15:2 . See, also, other proofs, Isa 25:8Isa 25:8 ; Psa 16:2 ; Isa 28:16 , etc. etc.
VI
MAN IN PARADISE
Gen 2:4-25
We commence with the fourth verse which begins the new division of the analysis, to wit: “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth,” and that division extends to the close of Gen 4 , but our present chapter will discuss so much of it only as is found in the second chapter.
In reading this chapter one is impressed, even in the translation, by a marked difference in style between it and the first chapter of Genesis. How, then, do we account for this great difference in style? A sufficient and simple answer is that in every chapter the style corresponds to the subject matter. Some of you will recall a paragraph from Alexander Pope with this couplet:
When Ajax strives some rock’s vast weight to throw, The line too labours, and the words move slow.
This essayist on style then goes on to show that in describing the nimble-footed Camilla there is no labor in the line, and no slow motion in the words. The first chapter of Genesis consists of terse, abrupt, sententious sentences, each as rugged as a granite mountain. The nature of the subject calls for that style. The second chapter, following the usual method of Genesis, takes up certain items tersely stated in the first chapter and enlarges or expounds the statement. This calls for a smoother and more flowing style.
A thinking reader will also note another change in the second chapter. The first chapter uniformly uses the word, “God,” but the second chapter, “Jehovah God,” and this change from the name of “God” to “Jehovah God” appears a number of times, not merely in Genesis, but in many succeeding books, and is just as marked in the psalms as it is in Genesis. The word “God” is employed when the Deity is spoken of in the abstract. The words, “Jehovah God,” are employed when there is a revelation of the Deity spoken of in covenant relation. The name, “Jehovah,” is always used when you want to show God’s covenant relation with man, and you find both of these names, or titles, of God oftentimes in the same verse (see Gen 7:16 ; 1Sa 17:46-47 ; 2Ch 18:31 ). God in the abstract is Elohim, or just “God,” but God in covenant relation is “Jehovah Elohim, ” or “Jehovah God.”
As we look over this second chapter at first glance, there seems to be on the face of it another diversity from the first chapter in the order of creation. In the first chapter the chronological order is strictly followed, man coming last; in the second chapter the mind is fastened on the man who came last in the first chapter, first in dignity, and the other things and beings are discussed in their relation to him without intending to convey the idea that this is the chronological order of their creation. The radical critics have been accustomed to claim that these three marked changes between the first and second chapters indicate different authors and different documents. There is no convincing reason for accepting this explanation. The book of Genesis is not a patchwork of different documents by different authors crudely and artificially joined together; one purpose runs through the book. Whoever wrote one part of it wrote all the parts of it, from whatever source his materials were derived.
Just here it is important to call your attention to the uniform method of historic treatment in the book of Genesis. From the first sentence to the end of the book there is a designed descent from the general and comprehensive to the particular. For example, the first verse, in a few words, states that in the beginning God created the universe. The second verse descends to this particular: the condition of the created earth matter as being without form and void, and darkness over the face of the deep. The author does not attempt to state how much interval of time passed from the creation of the matter of the universe to this particular state of the chaos of the earth matter. Having thus shown what the chaotic state was he then shows the several steps by which this chaos, under the mighty energy of the Holy Spirit, is changed into order.
The first eleven chapters are a race history. Then there is a descent to a particular man and a family and a nation. Another uniform method of the book of Genesis is, that in tracing the kingdom of God all of the families of whom the elect line does not come are first given and then sidetracked. It gives the generations of Ishmael before it gives the generations of Isaac, and the generations of Esau before it gives the generations of Jacob.
In this second chapter, as has been said, following the methods of a descent from the general to the particular, the author takes up certain brief statements of the first chapter and sup- plies details that are not given in the first. Among the examples are these: In the first chapter, following a chronological; order, there is the bare statement that God commanded the earth to bring forth grass and the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit. But the second chapter supplies a detail that at first there was no rain but only a mist that went up from the earth and watered the face of the ground, and caused the seeds of things which had been created to germinate; then the first chapter states in general terms that God made man, male and female, without detail. This second chapter tells us how man’s body was made from the dust of the ground, and how the spirit of man was communicated, and then it shows how the female was derived from the man. This is a detailed elaboration) or explanation, of the brief statement in the first chapter.
The second chapter then goes on to supply the detail of how God provided a garden for the man, and how he came under covenant law to God, and the stipulations of that covenant. This detailed information of the second chapter is very important as showing the dual nature of man, how that his body was formed from the dust of the earth. Here it is clear that the teaching is that man’s body was not evolved from any lower form of animal life. There is an evolution clearly taught in the Bible, but it is an evolution of each seed according to its kind, and not the transformation of one kind into another kind. Whatever potentiality has been previously involved in any seed may be evolved out of that seed. From a seed of wheat there is first the blade and then the stalk and then the ear, and then the full or ripened ear, but barley is not evolved from a wheat seed. Each one is according to its own kind. No research of man has ever found an example of one kind being evolved from a different kind. It would destroy all law and take away from man the value of his reason in observing nature’s course, or the course of the God of nature so as to profit by it. This second chapter is equally clear as to the origin of man’s spirit. The spirit of the first man was not by any process of evolution derived from any spirit of beast or demon, but a direct creation of God, an impartation from God. Marcus Dods, in his book on Genesis, exceedingly lucid and brilliant, though many times tending to the theory of the radical critic, asks a question: “Was the first man a rude and ignorant savage or a highly civilized man?” You may rest assured that the first man was the highest and noblest of his kind, fresh from the hands of his Creator, created upright, in righteousness, knowledge and true holiness, wonderfully dowered and commissioned. He was superior not only to the rude and ignorant savage, but to the highest type of present civilization.
This leads to another thought, viz.: that the savage tribes to today are not merely ascending from a primeval degradation in the scale of beings, but are examples of a degeneration from a previous higher type. On this point the whole theory of Darwinian evolution is hopelessly at war with revelation and common sense, and also with all of the clearly proved facts gathered by man’s research. This thought is further carried out by the fact that race memory has embodied in tribal and I national myths proofs that man has not ascended from a primeval cave dweller or a remote stone age to the present golden age of civilization, but that there has been, according to the teachings of history time and again, a descent from the primeval golden age to a silver, then a brazen, and then an iron and then a stone age. As an instance, take Ovid’s “Metamorphoses” as embodying the classical idea of first a golden, then a silver, then a brazen and then an iron age, and this is in harmony with the myths and legends preserved among all people. By a kind of race memory they all look back to & higher and nobler position than that now occupied. This erroneous evolution theory goes a long way back and finds first, cave dwellers, or troglodytes, and an evolution from the cave dweller of the stone age to the present civilized time. But the Bible itself, as well as present history, shows that troglodytas or cave dwellers existed contemporaneously with higher types. The Horites mentioned in Genesis were troglodytes living in caves. This evolution theory begs the question and contradicts the facts as well, in demanding almost infinite periods of time between these several generations. Not long ago the phosphate beds of Ashley, South Carolina, were discovered, and in excavating for these phosphates there were found all mingled together the bones, skeletons of animals including man, that, under this theory, must have been separated in countless ages of time from each other.
We have in this second chapter a description of a garden, or paradise, in the district of Eden. I need not cite the words of this description, for you have the book before you. Captain Mayne Reid, in the Desert Home, describes a fertile, well watered valley, mountain locked on every side, full of flowers and fruits, that may convey to you some idea of paradise in a valley of the mountains. Or you may get some idea of paradise in a valley of the mountains from Johnson’s Happy Valley of Rasselas. The record says that this park was fertilized by a river system, which, in leaving the garden, parted into fear beads that became mighty rivers. Two of these rivers — the Euphrates and the Tigris are easy to locate, and the other two may be easily inferred. In the Armenian mountains is yet to be seen a beautiful valley in which, from the same water system, four famous rivers rise, not far from each other. The springs of these rivers are not many miles apart. The Euphrates, leaving this valley, flows, in general terms, south, reaching the Indian Ocean through the Persian Gulf. The Tigris flows east and then south until it unites with the Euphrates before it reaches the sea. The Halys and the Araxes also rise in the same valley, one of them flowing northwest into the Black Sea, and the other, east into the Caspian Sea.
There were two remarkable trees in this garden, the tree of life and the tree of death. From what is said in the third chapter, and indicated by its own name, the object of the tree of life was to furnish the fruit that would ultimately eliminate the mortality of man’s body so that long continuance in the use of this fruit would make his body as immortal as his soul. On the other hand, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil fruited unto death. Many of the commentaries have found in this story of the garden of Eden a mere allegory. All subsequent references to it in the Bible clearly prove that this account is strictly historical. By following out your marginal references abundant proof texts are to be found in both Testaments that the memory of this famous garden lingered long lathe minds of the race. In the New Testament, at the very close of it, paradise regained, with its water of life and the tree of life, is set forth as the antitype of the earthly garden of Eden. It is quite important to note that the man had duties in this garden. He was to tend the garden and, as in the commission stated in the first chapter of Genesis, he must subdue the earth. This shows that labor preceded sin and has in it a natural dignity not to be despised.
It is well to note that this man in this garden, without being at all startled, had direct communication with God; without fear or shame he met and communed with his Creator. The biblical account clearly shows that this man stood in covenant relations with his God. The very fact that some things are prescribed and other things proscribed is an evidence of a covenant relation, the Creator freely permitting some things, sharply prohibiting other things with severe penalties attached to disobedience. The prohibition not to eat of the tree of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, except on a penalty of death, is a stipulation of this covenant. Some have questioned the propriety of such a moral test. But a test in this form is more excellent than one like an ordinary law of nature demonstrating its own consequences.
Men have had some difficulty in locating the garden of Eden from the description given in this second chapter, but their difficulties arise from supposing there has been no change since primeval times. For example, the Hiddekel, or Tigris, is said to compass all the land of Cush, and commentators, keeping in mind the territory of Cush in Africa, experience a difficulty in locating this river. They should notice that the descendants of Cush first occupied the very territory which the Tigris compasses, and later some of them settled in Arabia and others of them in Africa. A passage in Ezekiel, which the reader must find, tells us that the garden of Eden was destroyed. By which is meant not the annihilation of its mountains and its rivers, but such a change as, were you now to see the location, you could not identify it from the description given in Genesis. Several curious theories of the location of the garden of Eden have been inflicted upon the people. A Methodist bishop is quite sure that it was near where Charleston, South Carolina, now is. Another says that it was at the North Pole and that the aurora borealis is still a reflection of its pristine glory, and that there is an opening into the hollow of the earth at the North Pole and paradise went down into that hole, and only the aurora borealis outshines and that God had hedged it about with impassable ice. The discovery of the North Pole, if it was a discovery, clearly disproves the existence of such a stake as the north pole.
One of the most suggestive thoughts in this chapter is the way in which God made the man sensible of his need of a companion, and of the kind of a companion that he must have. The animals in pairs passed before the man and he noticing that they were all in pairs a lion and a lioness, a tiger and a tigress, and so on thus suggesting the thought to him that these lower creatures had mates, and he had none, but further suggesting that because of his difference in nature, he being in God’s image and infinitely above any lower animal, he could not find a mate among them. Having thus prepared man’s mind to see the necessity of a companion, God, by a spiritual anesthetic, brings man’s body into a state of painless insensibility, and while in that state takes from him a part of himself near his heart, and out of that fashions man’s companion.
Here arises an important question: “Was the spirit of Eve a direct creation like Adam’s, or was her spirit derived from him as well as her body?” This brings up two theological theories, one called the theory of direct creation of spirits, and the other the theory of derivation by traduction. It has always seemed to the author that the common theory, that the souls of men are all of them, each in its turn, a direct creation of God, is utterly incompatible with biblical facts. It would disprove hereditary depravity or the necessity of regeneration. Education only would be needed. When the companion was presented to man, Adam said, Isha, which means woman, and woman means derived from man. When she was presented to him she was presented to him in her entirety –body and soul and he called her woman i.e., derived from man. So that Eve was as much a descendant of Adam as you are. In other words the man, when created was the whole race in potentiality, and every other human being, including Eve, was derived from him. A very important doctrine will be seen to be dependent upon this when we come to the next chapter, when we come to the fall of man. If Eve was a descendant of Adam, race responsibility did not rest upon her. Her sin might bring death to her but only to herself, but Adam’s sin would bring it to all to be derived from him.
God himself married this first pair, and our Lord, in the nineteenth chapter of Matthew, indicated the ceremony by the words which he quotes. In looking upon this first pair, we come upon a somewhat startling statement prefaced by “therefore”: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife.” The usual idea seems to be that the right of the matter is that a man shall take her to his father’s and mother’s house, but the Bible says that a man shall leave his folk, and all the wives can understand why this is so. They cannot go to the father-in-law and mother-in-law and feel at home under the dominion of those who are practically strangers. She wants her home. She is willing enough to receive counsel in the home life from her mother, but not so well from his mother. So he should not always be telling her how well his mother could make biscuits and pies and coffee and desserts. Let her tell him how her mother used to do it. The truth is, when they marry, they had better go off to themselves.
In two of the finest passages of Milton’s Paradise Lost is the poet’s conception of the man’s first consciousness after his creation and how Eve awoke and found herself. I once took the passage about Eve waking and finding herself, and made it the theme of an address before a college of young ladies. I suggest that every reader read these two passages.
When we come to the New Testament we find proof corroborating the Genesis account of the origin of the woman. It distinctly affirms that Adam was first formed, then Eve, and that the woman was made for the man and not the man for the woman, and that the man is the head of the family, from which are also derived some beautiful lessons about Christ the Second Adam, and the church derived from him; that as the first Adam slept while the woman was taken from his side so Christ died that from his death might come his companion, his spouse, his church; that Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it.
QUESTIONS 1. How do you account for the difference of style between the first and second chapters of Genesis?
2. What says Alexander Pope on the variation of style?
3. What is the style in the first chapter? The second?
4. What variation in the use of the names of God, and how do you account for it?
5. 1s this peculiar to the Pentateuch?
6. Why, in this section, is man’s formation placed before vegetable and other animal life?
7. Does the first chapter or the second present the chronological order?
8. Is the second chapter an independent and conflicting account of creation?
9. What is the uniform method of historic treatment in the book of Genesis?
10. Of what do the first eleven chapters of Genesis consist?
11. What details are supplied in the second chapter not found in the first chapter?
12. Give an account of the origin of the first man’s dual nature.
13. Was he, either in body or soul, developed from lower animals?
14. Was the first man a rude and ignorant savage, or the highest type of his kind?
15. Are the savage tribes of today merely ascending from primeval degradation in the scale of being, or are they examples of a degeneration from an original higher type?
16. Does race memory, as embodied in the tribal and national myths, indicate that man has ascended from cave dwellers of a remote stone age, or has descended from a primeval golden age to silver, brass, iron, and stone conditions?
17. Give a classic myth on this point.
18. Give Bible proof that troglodytes (cave dwellers) were not separated in incalculable periods of time from highly developed and civilized types, but were contemporaries.
19. What bearing have the phosphate beds of Ashley, South Carolina on the theory that immensely long periods of time separated the several forms of lower animal life from each other and from man?
20. What ideal homes in fiction may possibly represent how the garden of Eden was enclosed and safeguarded?
21. Locate and describe it. What curious theories about it?
22. How was this park fertilized?
23. What two remarkable trees were there?
24. The use or purpose of the tree of life?
25. Of the tree of death?
26. Is this garden story allegory or history?
27. Cite Old Testament proofs that the memory of this real garden lingered long in the minds of the race. (See Gen 13:10 ; Isa 51:3 ; Eze 28:13 ; Eze 36:35 ; Joe 2:3 .).
28. Cite scripture proving its destruction. (See Eze 31:9 ; Eze 31:16 ; Eze 31:18 .)
29. Man’s duties in the garden?
30. Nature of his communion with God?
31. Scripture proof of Adam’s covenant relations with God? (Hos 6:7 .)
32. Was it a covenant of grace or of works?
33. What prohibition expressed its stipulation on man’s part?
34. What is the excellency of this moral test?
35. How did God make man sensible of his need of a companion?
36. Origin of the woman’s body?
37. Was her soul a direct creation as Adam’s, or was it derived from Adam?
38. Who married the first pair, and what New Testament scripture indicates the ceremony?
39. The deep sleep that fell upon Adam and the woman’s derivation from him therein were typical of what? New Testament proof?
40. If either be done, why should the man leave his folk for his wife rather than the wife her folk for the husband?
41. In their antitype show that both leave their folks.
42. Where in Paradise Lost do you find Milton’s conceptions of how the man first consciously found himself and the woman herself? Sir Egerton Bridges Edition, pp. 297-8 and 205-6.
43. Cite New Testament corroboration of the Genesis account of the origin of woman.
VII
THE ANGELS
We have seen in the second chapter of Genesis the happy estate of the man and woman in paradise. We learn in the third chapter about the fall of man and his expulsion from that garden. No more fundamental subject can be considered by a Bible student, and we are not going to leave it until you are thoroughly grounded in the significance of the fall of man. But we are not prepared to commence the study of the fall until we consider somewhat the origin, nature, office, and history of another very distinct class of created beings called angels, through one of whom man was seduced to sin against God. So you see that the subject of this chapter is the creation of the angels, their relation to God and to man and the use of the serpent as an instrument in the temptation. Many Bible words of general signification take on by special usage a particular and official meaning; for example, the words, “apostle,” “deacon,” “church,” or “angel.” Primarily “apostle” means one sent. In this original meaning one sent by another is an apostle. Jesus was an apostle; so was Barnabas. But by special use the term is restricted to the highest office in the earthly church, and confined to the twelve apostles and to Paul. So “deacon” means primarily a servant. In this original sense any one who serves is a deacon. Jesus was a deacon. But by usage the term is restricted to a particular office in the apostolic church. The Greek New Testament term rendered “church” means primarily an official assembly called out for the transaction of secular business, but later designates a particular congregation of Christians. In like manner “angel” primarily means a messenger of any kind. Any one bearing a message from another is in this original sense an angel. Many passages in the Old Testament use the phrase, “angel of Jehovah,” to designate a preliminary manifestation of the Son of God before his incarnation. In this original sense the pastors of the seven churches in Asia are called the angels of the churches. Yet this general term “angel” by abundant usage, designates a special class of created beings, neither human nor divine above the one, below the other appointed unto a distinctive office. These constitute the hosts of the heavens.
When, then, were they created? There was but one creative period, and that period is set forth in the first chapter of Genesis and in the second chapter down to the third verse. In that time were finished not only the heavens and the earth, but “all the hosts of them” (Gen 2:1 ). Now the hosts of the earth are the created beings that inhabit the earth. The hosts of the heavens are the angels. The order in which the earth’s hosts that is, the animals of sea, air, and land, culminating in man were brought into being, has been set forth in previous chapters. But a consideration of the origin of “the hosts of the heavens” has been deferred until their contact with man brings them prominently into the earth history.
In the Psa 148 all the creation, including the angelic hosts, are invoked to praise Jehovah, their Creator:
Praise ye him, all his angels:
Praise ye him, all his hosts. . . .
For be commanded, and they were created.
Here the creation of the angels is associated in time with the rest of creation. Even more particularly in this association set forth and attributed to Jesus Christ in Col 1:16 : “In him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions, or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him and unto him.” It is true that the Son of God, by his incarnation, was subsequently made a little lower than the angels whom he created (Heb 2:7 ), but after his resurrection and ascension he was again exalted above them: “Who is on the right hand of God, having gone into heaven; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him” (1Pe 3:22 ).
The hosts of heaven met Jacob at a later day (Gen 32:1 ) and are an innumerable company. “The Lord came from the myriads of holy ones” (Deu 33:2 ). “The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands upon thousands” (Psa 68:17 ). “Thousands of thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him” (Dan 7:10 ). “Innumerable hosts of angels” (Heb 12:22 ). “I heard the voice of many angels) . . . and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand and thousands of thousands” (Rev 5:11 ).
The creation of the angels preceded that of the universe matter, and of course, that of man. In other words, the first creation was when the angels were made. We know this to be the case, because in the Psa 104:4-5 , these angels were employed in bringing the chaotic earth matter into order. From the passage, Job 38:7 , we are told that the sons of God watched it, had participated in it, and when it was completed shouted for Joy over the world when it was created. They rejoiced over the beautiful consummation.
By nature the angels were incorporeal, i.e., pure spirit (Psa 104:4 ; Heb 1:14 ; Eph 6:12 ), and sexless (Mat 22:30 ), and immortal (Luk 20:36 ), possessed of superhuman and yet finite wisdom and power (2Sa 14:20 ; 2Pe 2:11 ; Mat 24:36 ; 1Pe 1:12 ; Eph 3:10 ). Angels are not a family, but a company. They are without ancestry or posterity. Each stands or falls in his own individuality. As they could not fall through a progenitor, nor become corrupt through hereditary law, they cannot, when fallen, become subjects of redemption through a second federal head (Heb 2:16 ). Of angels, therefore, we may say: They are created and therefore finite beings; by origin they are called the sons of God (Job 1:6 ; Job 2:7 ); by nature they are spirits (Psa 104:4 ) ; by character they are called “holy ones” or “saints” (Job 5:1 ; Psa 89:5-7 ; Dan 8:13 ; Jud 1:14 ). Later we shall find them ministrators of the law (Gal 3:19 ), heralds of the gospel (Luk 2:9-13 ), and servants of Christ’s people (Heb 1:14 ).
ORIGIN OF SIN Now we come to the origin of sin. From the most ancient times the origin of evil has baffled the inquisition of proud human philosophy. The Bible account of it is both simple and satisfactory. It originated with the angels. These angels were created free, moral agents, under law, on probation, with power to determinate choice, hence liable to fall. The greater number of them stood the test. In 1Ti 5:21 , those who stood the test are called the elect angels. But many fell from their state of innocence. See 2Pe 2:4 , and Jud 1:6 : “The angels which kept not their first estate.” The leader and chief among them was Satan, who “stood not in the truth” (Joh 8:44 ), falling through pride (1Ti 3:6 ). He was first called Lucifer, which means “son of the morning.” He loses that name and takes the name Satan. This chief of the fallen angels has many Bible names. As expressive of his primacy and supremacy over other evil spirits he is called Beelzebub. As indicative of his hostility to man he is called Satan, which means adversary. As descriptive of his methods of malignity against man his name is devil. In this word is the idea of one who sets at variance. Those whom he seeks to set at variance are God and man. When he approaches man he slanders God; when he approaches God he accuses man. Hence, in his work of variance he is both an accuser and a slanderer. When he approaches Eve he slanders God. When he approaches God he accuses Job. In view of the result of his work he is called Apollyon, the destroyer. He is never a constructionist, but eminently a destructionist. He does not build; he demolishes. Because of the form he assumed in the temptation of man, he is called the Serpent, the Dragon. Very sinuous, tortuous, slimy, and subtle are his ways. On account of his rage and predatory character he is compared to a roaring lion. He is called the tempter because he incites to evil. He is called the receiver because he tempts by lies. That he may deceive he comes as an angel of light, and that he may trap the unwary he sets cunning traps as a fowler who ensnares birds. But all the time he is a liar and a murderer, and the father of lies and murders. He is the father of all false religions. He uses the lusts of the flesh, the pride of life, and the course of the world in turning men away from God. He first blinds, then binds and then stupefies, and so he keeps his goods in peace. He is an awful and hideous reality, apart from God the most stupendous factor in the universe. He is limited in power and in the time allotted him to work his evil deeds. Now, as I stated, the angels, like man, were on probation. The best statement of that case that I have ever seen is in Milton’s Paradise Lost, fifth book, commencing at the 520 th line: Raphael said to Adam:
“Son of heaven and earth, Attend: that thou art happy, owe to God; That thou continuest such, owe to thyself, That is, to thy obedience; therein stand. This was that caution given thee; be advised. God made thee perfect, not immutable; And good he made thee; but to persevere He left it in thy power; ordained thy will By nature free, not over-ruled by fate Inextricable, or strict necessity: Our voluntary service he requires, Not our necessitated; such with Him Finds no acceptance, nor can find; for how Can hearts, not free, be tried whether they serve Willing or not, who will but what they must By destiny, and can no other choose? Myself, and all the angelic host, that stand In sight of God, enthroned, our happy state Hold, as you yours, while our obedience holds; On other surety none: freely we serve, Because we freely love, as in our will To love or not; in this we stand or fall.”
Now comes a much more serious question. What was the occasion that led the devil to sin? God did not make a devil; he created him a good angel, but created him free to act, to stand or fall. Now, the devil sinned, and we find his sin to be pride or ambition, but we have not yet found the occasion for that sin. If you are familiar with Paradise Lost you will see that Milton says the occasion was this: That God introduced his Son to the angels, and announced that from that time he was to be king of the angels and that they were to serve him. Milton bases his statement on the passage in the first chapter of Hebrews, “When he bringeth his only Begotten into the world again he said, Let all the angels of God worship him.” Now, Milton makes that take place before there was any universe. A fair interpretation of that scripture is that when Jesus died and rose again that was bringing his Begotten into the world again God said, “Let all the angels worship him.” That is the true explanation, that they were to worship not the Son of God in original divinity, but the Son of God in raised humanity. So Milton was mistaken about the occasion. Jesus Christ made the angels, all of them. He made the one that became the devil, and I don’t suppose that the devil’s pride or ambition would ever have led him to rebel against the one who created him through any desire to succeed him. The question is, What was the occasion that excited the pride of the devil? Now, the Bible does not say, but I am going to give you my own opinion, and you can take it as an opinion. My opinion is that, in one of those meetings in heaven like that described in Job at which all the angels at stated times come up into the presence of God, he announced to them that he was going to create this world and make man in his image and likeness, and that this man through obedience, if he observed the commandments of God and should eat of the tree of life, would become immortal and be lifted up above the angels, and that it should be the office of the angels to serve this man. Now I think there is where the devil protested. He was willing enough for God to be over him, but he was unwilling for a creature, made originally lower than himself, to have a destiny that would one day put any being above him. Every saved soul will be far above any angel. That is my opinion. If I had time I believe I could show you inferentially, of course not specifically, for I would then have to give you scriptures.
Now, in the second book of Paradise Lost Milton tracks the Bible out much more clearly about how sin originated. When the devil, after being cast out of heaven, is leaving hell to go back to find on earth this people that were to be created below him and one day were to be above him, he meets at the gate of hell Sin and Death, both horrible. And Just as he and Death are about to fight, Sin intervenes. Sin is a beautiful woman from the waist up, and a snake from the waist down. She says to Satan: “Death is thy son. I am Death’s mother. I am not only Death’s mother, but I am thy daughter. Don’t you remember that time in heaven when your pride was excited, that fearful pain came in your head and it was opened and out I leaped full grown like a beautiful woman? And every angel said, ‘Sin, Sin, Sin.’ But, looking at my beauty, they became enamoured of me, and especially thou, and thy espousal to Sin produced the progeny, Death, and Death’s espousal to Sin produced the progeny of the hellhounds of remorse.” That is Milton’s idea, powerfully set forth, marvelous. That coincides with what we were discussing in the New Testament about sin. There is first enticement, then desire, then will, then sin) and sin when it is full grown bringeth forth death. That part of Milton’s work is true.
We are now compelled by the facts of the Bible story about to be considered to take some note of a great mystery. And that is the power of spirit over matter and over less powerful organisms of life. “Unquestionably, when permitted, Satan can stir up a cyclone, or electric storm that leaves death in its path (Job 1:16-19 ); or incite to robbery and murder (Job 1:15-17 and 1Jn 3:12 ). He can hypnotize inferior animals (Mat 8:30-32 ), and make them obey his will. He can, by consent of the subject, take possession of man’s mind and make it his servant. Hence, the demoniacal possessions of the New Testament. One of the clearest revelations of Scripture is the immediate influence of spirit over matter and the immediate impact of spirit on spirit. We could not otherwise understand Gen 1:2 ; Gen 2:7 ; Psa 104:30 ; 1Pe 1:21 ; Joh 3:3 ; Luk 1:55 ; Joh 8:27 ; Act 5:3 , and many other passages. The formation of the earth, the communication of man’s soul, the incarnation of our Lord, the quickening of regeneration, the resurrection, inspiration, demoniacal possession, the preparation of dying infants for heaven, the stampeding of cattle, panics in armies, mesmerism, hypnotism and a thousand other mysteries find their only explanation in the doctrine of immediate impact of spirit on matter or on another spirit.
The account of Genesis speaks of the serpent, the instrument, only. But fairly interpreted it implies what is elsewhere so forcibly taught, that the serpent was merely the instrument of a mighty spiritual power in the temptation of Eve. That grandest of all epics, Paradise Lost, reveals throughout a profound study of the whole Bible. It thus sets forth a possible method of the entrance of Satan into the serpent:
So saying, through each thicket dank and dry, Like a black mist low creeping, he held on His midnight search, where soonest he might find The serpent: him, fast sleeping soon he found In labyrinth of many a round self-rolled, His head the midst, well stored with subtle wiles: Not yet in horrid shade or dismal den, Nor nocent yet; but, on the grassy herb, Fearless unfeared he slept: in at his mouth The devil entered; and his brutal sense, In heart and head, possessing, soon inspired With act intelligential; but his sleep Disturbed not, waiting close the approach of morn.
Just as the devil can take possession of a man and make him demoniac, so the devil took possession of the serpent. The use of the serpent as a means, and the most suitable means, arises out of his power and his cunning. I will quote what Richard Owen says about the serpent: “He out climbs the monkey, out swims the fish, out leaps the zebra, outwrestles the athlete, and crushes the tiger.” In Ruskin’s “Queen of the Air” we find: “There are myriads lower than the serpent, and more loathsome in the scale of being . . . but it is the strength of the base element that is so dreadful in the serpent; it is the very omnipotence of the earth. . . . It is a divine hieroglyph of the demoniac power of the earth, of the entirely earthly nature. As the bird is the clothed power of the air, so this is the clothed power of the dust; as the bird is the symbol of the spirit of life, so this is the grasp and sting of death.”
You will notice that after the curse was pronounced upon him, because of what he had done, the serpent was condemned to crawl, evidently implying that he had not crawled before. In two or three books of the Bible we have an account of fiery, flying serpents, and beyond all question the particular serpent that tempted Eve was a flying serpent. That only shows that his power was greater then than it has been since. He was condemned to crawl and clipped off his wings. Nataerialists will tell you that there were serpents with wings, and all tradition represents the dragon with wings. So that the Bible, nature and tradition agree in the representation that the serpent employed for the temptation of Eve was winged so that he had power in the air as well as power on the land. EP After the curse was pronounced upon him he must crawl and ‘ pick his food up from the ground as I have seen them do. I have seen a rattlesnake swallow a mule-eared rabbit. He licks him all over and covers him with saliva, rolls him over in the sand and then swallows him whole with the dust that is on him. That is how the serpent eats dust.
SUMMARY We have seen the creation of the angels. We have seen that a part of these angels kept not their first estate. We have seen the sin which they committed, pride, and we have seen that Satan is the chief of the fallen spirits that were cast out. We have seen why he came to earth, to slander God and accuse man, to make them sin, to keep them from attaining to the position that they would be above him and bring them to the position that they would be under him. But, “Know ye not,” says Paul, “that the saints shall Judge angels?”
QUESTIONS 1. Why defer to this connection the account of the angels?
2. Illustrate the special or official meaning of the several Bible words of general signification.
3. What the literal or etymological meaning of the term “angel”?
4. What the special meaning?
5. Scriptural proof of their creation and by whom?
6. Before or after man’s creation?
7. Why the Bible account of their creation less particular than that of man’s?
8. What can you say of their number?
9. What their work in the creation of the earth?
10. The nature of the angels as distinguished from man?
11. Why may not sinning angels have a savior?
12. Give statement of these beings from the following viewpoints:
(1) As to creation;
(2) As to origin.;
(3) As to nature;
(4) As to character;
(5) As to service.
13. With what beings did sin originate?
14. With which one of the angels did sin originate?
15. According to the New Testament, what was his particular sin?
16. Give several names of this chief of the fallen angels, and their meanings.
17. What Milton’s misconception of the occasion of sin?
18. What probably the real occasion?
19. What Milton’s conception of the origin of sin?
20. Give Bible proof of the impact of spirit on spirit, and the influence of spirit over matter.
21. What was the instrument of the temptation, and Milton s description of the entrance of Satan into it?
22. What was the state of the serpent at first, and what the change in that state in the curse?
23. New Testament proof of the nature and extent of their punishment?
24 Why delay the final punishment of the angels!
25. Scripture proof that the angels good and bad must report then work regularly to God?
Gen 2:4 These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Ver. 4. Jehovah God. ] Moses first calls God JEHOVAH here, when the universal creation had its absolute being. This is the proper name of God. The Jews pronounce it not; we profane it, which is to them a great stumbling block. The first among the Christians that pronounced Jehovah was Petrus Galatinus. But if ye would pronounce it according to the own letters, it should be Jahua, as Jarmuth, Jagnakob. This essential and incommunicable name of God, is by the more ancient better minded Hebrews called Hashem , “the name,” by an excellency; and Shem hamphorash , “the expounded name,” because it might be expounded by a name of twelve letters, which is this, say they, Ab, Ben veruach hakkodesh , that is, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. They call it also Tetragrammaton , or the name consisting of four letters. In reference whereunto, likely, the Pythagoreans used to swear by , quaternity , or the number of four ; which they also called “the fountain of everlasting nature,” .
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Gen 2:4-9
4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven. 5Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. 8The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. 9Out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Gen 2:4 This is the account Literally it is these are the generations (BDB 41 CONSTRUCT BDB 410). This phrase is the author’s way of dividing Genesis into literary segments (cf. Gen 5:1; Gen 6:9; Gen 10:1; Gen 11:10; Gen 11:27; Gen 25:12; Gen 25:19; Gen 36:1; Gen 36:9; Gen 37:2, i.e. this is the author’s way of outlining his book). Some scholars see it as introducing a section (i.e. Derek Kidner) while others see it as closing a section (i.e. R. K. Harrison and P. J. Wiseman). It seems to do both. It is possible that Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:3 deals with the creation of the cosmos and Gen 2:4-15 focuses on the creation of mankind which is contextually related to chapters 3 and 4.
day The Hebrew term yom (BDB 398) is usually used of a 24-hour period of time. However, it is also used of a longer duration as a metaphor (cf. Gen 2:4; Gen 5:2; Rth 1:1; Isa 2:11-12; Isa 2:17; Isa 4:2; Psa 90:4). Possibly Gen 2:4 a is a subtitle heading and 4b starts the discussion. See SPECIAL TOPIC: Day (Yom) .
the LORD God This is literally YHWH Elohim which combines the two most common names for God. This is the first time they are used together. Many modern scholars have assumed two authors for Genesis 1, 2 because of the use of these divine names. However, the rabbis assert that they refer to the characteristics of deity: (1) Elohim as creator, provider and sustainer of all life on this planet (cf. Psa 19:1-6)and (2) YHWH as savior, redeemer and covenant making deity (cf. Psa 19:7-14). It theologically implies the ever living, only living God. The Jews became afraid to pronounce this holy name lest they break the commandment about taking God’s name in vain. So, they substituted the Hebrew term Adon (husband, owner, master, lord) whenever they read the text aloud. This is why in English YHWH is translated LORD. See Special Topic below.
SPECIAL TOPIC: THE NAMES FOR DEITY
earth and heaven The order of these words is reversed from Gen 2:1 but why is uncertain.
Gen 2:5 shrub of the field This refers to wild plants (cf. Gen 21:15; Job 30:4; Job 30:7).
plant of the field This refers to cultivated, domestic plants.
Gen 2:6 a mist This (BDB 15, KB 11) is the Akkadian term for (1) flood or (2) flow of subterranean water. This possibly means that watering occurred by flooding (used to rise, BDB 748, KB 828, Qal IMPERFECT). The Arabic parallel is fog which is the origin of the translation mist. We would say a heavy dew.
This again may have reflected the circumstances in the Garden of Eden alone. Geology seems to confirm the ancient results of water on the earth’s surface long before the special creation of Adam and Eve.
Gen 2:7 formed Literally this means to mold clay (BDB 427, KB 428, Qal IMPERFECT, cf. Jer 18:6). This is the third term used to describe God’s creative action in relation to mankind (make, Gen 1:26 (BDB 793, KB 889); created, Gen 1:27 (BDB 135, KB 153) and formed, Gen 2:7). The NT reveals that Jesus was God’s agent in creation (cf. Joh 1:3; 1Co 8:6; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2).
man of dust from the ground Man is the Hebrew term, Adam (BDB 9), which meant (1) a pun on the term red (cf. Exo 25:5; Exo 28:17; Num 19:2; Isa 63:2; Zec 1:8) or (2) ground (adamah, cf. Gen 2:6), possibly alluding to red clay clods. This reflects the lowliness and frailty of humanity. There is a dialectical tension here between mankind’s exalted place (made in the image and likeness of God) and lowly frail condition! Animals are formed the same way in Gen 2:19. It is also possible that it refers to mankind’s origin from the dust (cf. Gen 3:19; Psalms 103; Ecc 12:7). This denotes mankind as clay and God as potter (cf. Isa 29:16; Isa 45:9; Isa 64:8; Jer 18:6; Rom 9:20-23).
breathed. . .the breath of life The VERB breathed (BDB 655, KB 708) is a Qal IMPERFECT. The NOUN breath (BDB 675) shows that God took special care with the creation of mankind. However, humans still physically function as do all the animals on the planet (i.e. breathe, eat, excrete, and reproduce). Humans uniquely can relate to God, yet we are intricately bound to this planet. There is a dual aspect to our nature (spiritual and physical).
man became a living being Humans become a nephesh (BDB 659, KB 711-713, see note at Gen 35:18 ), but so do the cattle (cf. Gen 1:24; Gen 2:19). The uniqueness of humanity is God’s personal forming and breathing. Humans do not have a soul, they are a soul! We are a unity of the physical and the spiritual. We will always have a bodily expression except for the intermediate state between death and resurrection (cf. 1Th 4:13-15).
Was Adam a primitive man or a modern man? How is he related to other hominids of antiquity? Stone-age men were present in the Mt. Carmel region 200,000 years ago. When was Adam created? Is he the end of development or is he first of a special creation?
Gen 2:8 garden This term (BDB 171) is used in the sense of an enclosed park. The Septuagint translates it with a Persian word, paradise.
in Eden In Hebrew Eden means delight or happy land (BDB 727 III, KB 792 II). Notice the garden is not called Eden, but located in Eden. This is obviously a geographical location, a place name. The related Sumerian term can mean fertile plain. The description in Gen 2:8; Gen 2:10-14 is very detailed which is meant to convey its precise location but its geographical location is unknown. Most commentators place it (1) at the mouth of the modern Tigris and Euphrates Rivers or (2) at the head waters of these rivers.
However, the names of all the rivers do not fit modern geography. How much of the earth was changed by the Flood is uncertain. The similarities of the Mesopotamian and biblical accounts would logically put the garden in Mesopotamia but this is only speculation. See Who was Adam? by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, p. 46.
Gen 2:9 tree of life. . .tree of the knowledge of good and evil This last clause may be a parenthesis (cf. NET Bible, p. 7). Gen 3:3 implies that there was only one tree, while Gen 3:22 implies two trees (i.e. Tree of the the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life). The tree of knowledge of good and evil has no parallel in ancient Near Eastern literature. This tree was not magical, but it seemed to offer to humans a way to be independent from their creator God or at least promised that they might gain knowledge and insight equal to or in competition with God. This is the essence of sin. It is also possible that it offered Eve a way to dominate Adam, which violated the created mutuality.
generations = Family history. For the 14 in Bible, see the structure of the Book as a whole (p. 1). These are the Divine divisions, in which there is no trace of the Elohistic and Jehovistic theories. It should be seen here if anywhere. But note: there is only one in which Elohim is used (No. 1); only one to which Jehovah is peculiar (No. 10): five have both titles (Nos 3, 4, 7, 9, 12). Four have neither title (Nos 6, 8, 10, 11). All the speakers use “Jehovah” except the Nachash, Abimelech (to Abram, not to Isaac), sons of Heth, Pharaoh (of Joseph), Joseph’s brethren, Joseph himself.
in the day = when. See on Gen 2:17 and App-18. Compare Gen 1:5; Gen 3:17.
LORD God = First occurance. See App-4, and note above.
II. THE GENERATIONS OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH
Man in Innocency before the Fall
Genesis 2:4-45
1. The earth his abode (Gen 2:4-6)
2. The creation of man (Gen 2:7)
3. The garden of Eden (Gen 2:8-14)
4. Man in the garden. His commission (Gen 2:15-17)
a. To keep the garden
b. The commandment
5. No helpmeet for Adam found (Gen 2:18-20)
6. The formation of the woman (Gen 2:21-22)
7. The union (Gen 2:23-25)
This is not a new version of the creation or a repetition of the account in the preceding chapter. The relationships of the created man to nature and to His Creator are now more specifically introduced. The name of God appears now no longer as Elohim but another name precedes the word Elohim; it is the name Jehovah. This name is used because it is the name of God in relationship with man. Jehovah is the Son of God.
In Gen 2:7 we have the creation of man revealed. Jehovah God formed him out of the dust of the earth; He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Here is that which distinguishes man from the beast. The animals also are living souls, but not immortal. Man alone became a living soul by the inbreathing of Jehovah Elohim and that constitutes man immortal.
The garden of Eden was situated in a fertile, pleasant plain, somewhere near the two streams still known by their names, the Euphrates and the Tigris (Hiddekel). The tree of life represents Christ, while the rivers of water are clearly the types of the Holy Spirit. What the tree of knowledge of good and evil was no one knows. The command was given to test man in his innocency. Adam unfallen had not the knowledge of good and evil. That knowledge was acquired by the fall. The test, therefore, involved not some great moral evil but simply the authority and right of God to prohibit something. The tree of knowledge then represented responsibility.
Thou shalt surely die means literally dying thou shalt die. This does not mean eternal death, but physical death.
The formation of the woman is highly typical. Adam is the figure of Him who was to come (Rom 5:14), the last Adam. Here Christ and the Church are foreshadowed. The deep sleep into which Adam was put by Jehovah Elohim is typical of the death of the cross, The woman, built out of his side, is the type of the Church. As the helpmeet of Adam was bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh and also the bride of Adam, so is the church the body and the bride of Christ. The woman was brought to Adam and presented to him. But Christ will present the Church to Himself (Eph 5:27). Marriage is indicated in Gen 2:24 and quoted in Mat 19:5, 1Co 6:16, and Eph 5:31. Both were naked, the suitable condition for innocence.
Lord
Lord God
Lord
LORD (Heb. Jehovah)
(1) The primary meaning of the name LORD (Jehovah) is the “self-existent One.” Literally (as in Exo 3:14), “He that is who He is, therefore the eternal I AM:”
But Havah, from which Jehovah, or Yahwe, is formed, signifies also “to become,” that is, to become known, thus pointing to a continuous and increasing self-revelation. Combining these meanings of Havah, we arrive at the meaning of the name Jehovah. He is “the self-existent One who reveals Himself.” The name is, in itself, an advance upon the name “God” (El, Elah, Elohim), which suggests certain attributes of Deity, as strength, etc., rather than His essential being.
(2) It is significant that the first appearance of the name Jehovah in Scripture follows the creation of man. It was God (Elohim) who said, “Let us make man in our image” (Gen 1:26); but when man, as in the second chapter of Genesis, is to fill the scene and become dominant over creation, it is the Lord God (Jehovah Elohim) who acts. This clearly indicates a special relation of Deity, in His Jehovah character, to man, and all Scripture emphasizes this.
(3) Jehovah is distinctly the redemption name of Deity. When sin entered and redemption became necessary, it was Jehovah Elohim who sought the sinning ones Gen 3:9-13 and clothed them with “coats of skins” Gen 3:21 a beautiful type of righteousness provided by the Lord God through sacrifice Rom 3:21; Rom 3:22. The first distinct revelation of Himself by His name Jehovah was in connection with the redemption of the covenant people out of Egypt Exo 3:13-17. As Redeemer, emphasis is laid upon those attributes of Jehovah which the sin and salvation of man bring into exercise. These are:
(a) His holiness Lev 11:44; Lev 11:45; Lev 19:1; Lev 22:26; Hab 1:12; Hab 1:13 (b) His hatred and judgment of sin; Deu 32:35-42; Gen 6:5-7; Psa 11:4-6; Psa 66:18; Exo 34:6; Exo 34:7 (c) His love for and redemption of sinners, but always righteously; Gen 3:21; Gen 8:20; Gen 8:21; Exo 12:12; Exo 12:13; Lev 16:2; Lev 16:3; Isa 53:5; Isa 53:6; Isa 53:10 Salvation by Jehovah apart from sacrifice is unknown to Scripture.
(4) In his redemptive relation to man, Jehovah has seven compound names which reveal Him as meeting every need of man from his lost state to the end. These compound names are:
(a) Jehovah-jireh, “the Lord will provide” Gen 22:13; Gen 22:14 i.e., will provide a sacrifice; (b) Jehovah-rapha, “the Lord that healeth” Exo 15:26. That this refers to physical healing the context shows, but the deeper healing of soul malady is implied. (c) Jehovah-nissi, “the Lord our banner” Exo 17:8-15. The name is interpreted by the context. The enemy was Amalek, a type of the flesh, and the conflict that day stands for the conflict of Gal 5:17 the war of the Spirit against the flesh. Victory was wholly due to divine help. (d) Jehovah-Shalom, “the Lord our peace,” or “the Lord send peace” Jdg 6:24. Almost the whole ministry of Jehovah finds expression and illustration in that chapter. Jehovah hates and judges sin Gen 2:1-5. Jehovah loves and saves sinners Gen 2:7-18 but only through sacrifice Gen 2:19-21 see also; Rom 5:1; Eph 2:14; Col 1:20. (e) Jehovah-ra-ah, “the Lord my shepherd” (Psalms 23.). In Psalms 22 Jehovah makes peace by the blood of the cross; in Psalms 23. Jehovah is shepherding His own who are in the world. (See Scofield “Joh 10:7”) (f) Jehovah-tsidkenu, “the Lord our righteousness” Jer 23:6. This name of Jehovah occurs in a prophecy concerning the future restoration and conversion of Israel. Then Israel will hail him as Jehovah-tsidkenu–“the Lord our righteousness.” (g) Jehovah-shammah, “the Lord is present” Eze 48:35. This name signifies Jehovah’s abiding presence with His people; Exo 33:14; Exo 33:15; 1Ch 16:27; 1Ch 16:33; Psa 16:11; Psa 97:5; Mat 28:20; Heb 13:5
(5) Lord (Jehovah) is also the distinctive name of Deity as in covenant with Israel Exo 19:3; Exo 20:1; Exo 20:2; Jer 31:31-34.
(6) Lord God (Heb. Jehovah Elohim) is the first of the compound names of Deity. Lord God is used distinctly:
(1) of the relation of Deity to man (a) as Creator Gen 2:7-15 (b) as morally in authority over man Gen 2:16; Gen 2:17 (c) as creating and governing the earthly relationships of man; Gen 2:18-24; Gen 3:16-19; Gen 3:22-24 and (d) as redeeming man Gen 3:8-15; Gen 3:21
(2) of the relation of Deity to Israel Gen 24:7; Gen 28:13; Exo 3:15; Exo 3:18; Exo 4:5; Exo 5:1; Exo 7:6; Deu 1:11; Deu 1:21; Deu 4:1; Deu 6:3; Deu 12:1; Jos 7:13; Jos 7:19; Jos 7:20; Jos 10:40; Jos 10:42; Jdg 2:12; 1Sa 2:30; 1Ki 1:48; 2Ki 9:6; 2Ki 10:31; 1Ch 22:19; 2Ch 1:9; Ezr 1:3; Isa 21:17 See other names of Deity,
(See Scofield “Gen 1:1”) See Scofield “Gen 14:18” See Scofield “Gen 15:2” See Scofield “Gen 17:1” See Scofield “Gen 21:33” See Scofield “1Sa 1:3”
Lord God Deity (names of God) (See Scofield “Mal 3:18”)
the generations: Gen 1:4, Gen 5:1, Gen 10:1, Gen 11:10, Gen 25:12, Gen 25:19, Gen 36:1, Gen 36:9, Exo 6:16, Job 38:28, Psa 90:1, Psa 90:2
Lord: Exo 15:3, 1Ki 18:39, 2Ch 20:6, Psa 18:31, Psa 86:10, Isa 44:6, Rev 1:4, Rev 1:8, Rev 11:17, Rev 16:5
Reciprocal: Gen 2:1 – Thus Gen 6:9 – These Gen 37:2 – the generations Num 3:1 – generations 2Ki 19:15 – thou hast made Mat 1:1 – generation Mar 4:28 – the earth
The opening words of verse Gen 2:4 must be specially noted, since they indicate the second of the eleven sections into which the book is divided. As printed in our modern Bibles the chapters number 50, but ten times do we find this expression “These are the generations…” (with once a slight variation), showing that, as given by inspiration of God, the chapters number eleven.
We will point out these inspired divisions at once, so that from the outset we may have them clearly before us. They are as follows: –
Gen 1:1 – Gen 2:3, which we have already considered, we may designate as – The Beginning.
Gen 2:4 – Gen 4:26, Generations of heavens and earth.
Gen 5:1 – Gen 6:8, Generations of Adam.
Gen 6:9 – Gen 9:29, Generations of Noah.
Gen 10:1 – Gen 11:9, Generations of sons of Noah.
Gen 10:10 – Gen 11:26; Generations of Shem.
Gen 11:27 – Gen 25:11, Generations of Terah.
Gen 25:12 – Gen 25:18, Generations of Ishmael.
Gen 25:19 – Gen 35:29, Generations of Isaac.
Gen 36:1 – Gen 37:1, Generations of Esau.
Gen 37:2 – Gen 50:26, Generations of Jacob.
The word translated “generations” occurs but sparingly in the Old Testament; apart from Genesis mainly in Num 1:1-54, and in certain chapters in 1 Chronicles, and it seems to have the force of “births,” or “origins.” If this be so, “the generations of the heavens and the earth” would signify their origins; whereas the generations of Adam, Noah, etc., would signify those who by birth found their origin in these respective patriarchs.
It is possible that Moses, the inspired penman of Genesis, was led to use existing records left by the patriarchs, in so far as they suited the Divine purpose, and also that he was led to indicate it in this way. From Gen 5:1, onwards, we have a Divinely given history of things, that may well have been taken from humanly recorded tablets of most ancient date, just as again and again in the Books of Kings and Chronicles we have allusions to the other books of reference written by prophets and scribes.
Two other remarks we make. First, what we may call the rejected line is always mentioned first; then the accepted line: Adam before Noah: The sons of Noah before Shem: Ishmael before Isaac; Esau before Jacob. Thus from the outset do we see indicated what is so clear in the New Testament, and plainly stated in Heb 10:9, “He taketh away the first, that He may establish the second.”
Then, second, we note that chronology is always confined to the selected line. God only counts the years in regard to these while the others He leaves unregistered. This is in keeping with what we find in Mat 1:1-25, where in the fourteen generations between David and the captivity, kings who apostatized over Baal are omitted. God’s thoughts and ways in these matters are not what ours would naturally be.
In verse Gen 2:4 also we notice a change in the Divine Name: not now, as in Gen 1:1-31, “God,” (Elohim), but “LORD God,” (Jehovah Elohim); and this name characterizes the whole passage to the end of Gen 3:1-24. Based on this fact, the so-called “Higher Critics” many years ago began to build their theories as to Genesis being just a patchwork composition by nobody knows whom, but at any rate not written by Moses. The truth is, of course, that the Name is intentionally varied to suit the theme in hand. In Gen 1:1-31 it is God in His supremacy, creating by His word. In Gen 2:1-25 and Gen 3:1-24 it is God placing man, His intelligent and responsible creature, in relation with Himsel. – whether in his original innocence or afterwards in his fallen condition – hence Jehovah comes in, since this name sets Him forth as self-existing, unvarying, faithful to His covenant, as is shown in Exo 6:24. It is exactly the way in which He made Himself known to Moses, the writer of Genesis.
Verses Gen 2:5-7, of our chapter, give us several additional details of the creation, and of man in particular. Verse Gen 2:5 emphasizes that the vegetable creation came straight from the hand of God and was not produced by natural causes, such as rain, nor by man’s cultivating skill. Verse Gen 2:6 shows that it was maintained by a mist which rose from the earth itself, without water descending from above. Waters there were “above the firmament” (Gen 1:7), but as yet they had not descended as showers on the earth. Not till Gen 7:4, do we read of rain. Some think that the watering of the earth by mist and not rain persisted until the time of the flood. It may have been so.
Verse Gen 2:7 is very important, giving us man’s spiritual constitution by God’s original creative act. The material part of man – his body – is composed of the elements that are found in the dust of the earth, but there is also the immaterial part. He is a living soul, as were the animals whose creation is recorded in Gen 1:1-31. It is the way in which man became a living soul that altogether distinguishes him from the animal creation. Only man became a living entity by the Lord God breathing into his nostrils the breath of life. As the result of this Divine act man became possessed of spirit as well as soul.
This great act stands good not only for Adam, the first man, but also for all his race. Hence in the book of Job we find Elihu saying, “The Spirit of God hath made me and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life” (Job 33:4). We all can say the same today. The possession of spirit by the inbreathing of the Almighty is man’s distinguishing feature. This act also defined man’s relation with his Creator. God is a Spirit and so man, possessing spirit by God’s inbreathing, was fitted to represent Him, made in His image, after His likeness, as we saw in Gen 1:1-31.
Man being thus created, a Garden of delights was formed for his dwelling place. The name Eden has the meaning of “Pleasure,” and every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food was there, so for the sustainment of life and the giving of pleasure nothing was lacking. Two trees are specially mentioned. The tree of life was surely a witness to the fact that there was a life distinct from that which man already possessed, and that it was put within his reach. On the other hand the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was to remind him of his responsibility, and prove a test to it.
The location of Eden is indicated in verses Gen 2:10-11. Two of the rivers can easily be identified; the other two very uncertainly. It seems certain that it lay somewhere to the east of the Euphrates, in a district noted for gold and precious stones and fragrant resin – for that is what bdellium is supposed to be.
The Ethiopia of verse Gen 2:13 is really Cush, of whom we read in Gen 10:6. There appears to have been a district bearing his name between Mesopotamia and India, as well as the better known land we now call Abyssinia.
In this Garden man was put, not to be idle and while away his time, but to dress and keep it. Even when in a state of innocence it was not good for man to have nothing to do. There was healthful occupation without hard labour and drudgery.
In our minds we often couple innocence and irresponsibility together; as in the case, for instance of a very small child. In verses Gen 2:16-17, however, we find that Adam though created in a state of innocence was put in a place of responsibility. He had no knowledge of good and evil, so that one tree was forbidden to him, though he might eat freely of every other tree in the garden. He was put under law in the simplest way, for the law consisted of only one commandment and that commandment concerned with only one tree. He might have had many commands given to him of an intricate and confusing nature or alternatively, he might have been forbidden all the trees in the garden save one. As it was, the Divine command was cut down to the barest minimum, just sufficient to keep before him that as the creature he must be subject to the Creator and walk in obedience.
Moreover, he was warned as to the consequence of disobedience. If he acquired the knowledge of good and evil by disobedience, he would be unable to perform the good because enslaved by the evil. This would bring him under the power of death immediately. As we discover in the next chapter, he would not at once suffer the death of the body, which involves the dissolution of existing personality by separating the spiritual part from the material part of man. But he would at once suffer complete severance spiritually and morally from God, his Creator, which is death in its more intense form. In that sense he would die the very day in which he ate of the forbidden tree. To obey the one prohibition was his responsibility.
We are introduced to another great thought of God in verse Gen 2:18. Man was not created to be an altogether self-sufficient being. He needed not only companionship but an “helpmeet” or “counterpart.” We see the goodness of God as well as His wisdom in the way by which the counterpart came into being. The object being the good and profit of Adam, he was allowed to see for himself that no such counterpart existed in the animal creation by the whole range of beasts and fowls being brought before him.
Adam was evidently at the height of his intellectual powers before they had been in any way tarnished by sin. He was able to discern in each case the characteristic feature, so as to give the suitable name, for the names of course were descriptive and not just fancy words meaning nothing. Adam had both intellect and language, with command of speech. And just because he had, he found no counterpart in the animal creation.
In Eph 1:23 we have the church spoken of as not only the “body” but also the “fulness” of Christ; which word signifies “that which fills up” or the “complement.” What we have in Genesis is a foreshadowing of this. We must remember that in creating the first man God had the Second Man before Him, and therefore in a number of features Adam was “the figure of Him that was to come” (Rom 5:14). At the point we have now reached this figure begins to come clearly before us. The Son of Man is to-have a far wider and greater dominion over all creation than ever Adam had, but in that exalted place He is not to be alone, but to have His complement or counterpart.
Hence in verses Gen 2:22-23 we find woman made in a way that is full of typical significance. In the deep sleep we see that which foreshadowed the death of Christ. Woman was a part of man and designed as his counterpart. She was a rib of his body made into a separate being, which could be presented to him. In this was foreshadowed the fact that the church would be both the body and the bride of Christ. It is remarkable too that the word “made” in verse Gen 2:22 is really “builded” as the margin shows, thus agreeing with the word of our Lord, “I will build My church” (Mat 16:18). Eph 5:23-33 is our warrant for the above, and also shows us that God’s action here was designed to foreshadow the truth concerning Christ and the church.
In verses Gen 2:23-24 we get a new word used for man. Up to the end of verse Gen 2:22 the word is always “Adam,” and in verses 26-28, of Gen 1:1-31, this word covers both man and woman, for it says, “God created man… male and female created He them.” Now we have “Ish,” and woman is “Isha,” because she is taken out of him, and takes character from him. Here again we see a type fulfilled in Christ and the church. The church is of Christ and takes character from Him. If however 1Co 12:12, 1Co 12:13, be read, we find the human body used as an illustration of the body of Christ; but verse Gen 2:12 ends, not “so also is the body of Christ,” but “so also is Christ.” Here Christ, or more accurately, ” the Christ,” is used as a term which includes His body, just as “Adam” was used to include Eve. These things are worthy of note for they emphasize and illustrate the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures.
Verse Gen 2:24 puts on record the thought of God as to marriage from the outset, and to this the Lord Jesus appealed when answering the Pharisees, as recorded in Mat 19:3-9. Deviation from this Divine thought and order, or worse still the denial of it, has probably been the cause of more sin and misery in the world than any other single fount of iniquity. When maturity is reached, a man is to leave father and mother and to found a new family, adhering to one woman as his wife. Thus they become one flesh. As we have just seen, Adam and Eve were one flesh to start with, since she was taken out of him.
This Divine ordinance, if observed, is a great protection for woman; needed because she is at a disadvantage compared with man in more ways than one. In the heathen world it is unknown and in consequence woman becomes a mere chattel, bought and sold and misused by man. In some quarters she is regarded as though she were a distinct and inferior species. These errors, and the abuses originating from them, cannot live in the light of the truth we have here. Woman is not only of the same species as man but in her origin was of his very flesh and bone – taken out of man.
The last verse emphasizes how complete was the state of innocence in which they were created. Sin having come in, all is changed. Savages may still be found in a state of almost complete nudity but they are of the most degraded type. The tendency towards it, in lands where the light of the Gospel has been shining, presages a descent into apostasy.
Chapter 3 opens, “Now the serpent was more subtil…” He wormed his way into this fair scene of innocence. How much more easily will he deceive the silly creatures – men and women – who try to behave as though they were innocent when they possess fallen and lustful natures.
Subdivision 2. (Gen 2:4-25.)
Relationships of the Man.
1.
The second subdivision is not a new account of the divine work, written by another hand. Its purpose is quite different, namely, to show us the relationships of the man to the whole scene into which he is introduced, and to his Maker. This is why it is not simply “God” in this chapter, but “the Lord God.” “The Lord” is here, in the original, “Jehovah.” It is the title by which God entered into covenant with Israel afterward, and is expanded for us in the book of Revelation as “He who is and who was and who is to come,” -the best translation of which in one word would be, as in the French, “The Eternal.” But I retain for it the word “Lord,” as in the Septuagint and our common version, this being in some sense sanctioned by the New Testament use, and giving more the thought of relationship, which it is evidently intended to convey. Where it stands by itself, however, I have simply transferred the Hebrew word, “Jehovah.”
In the first section, we have necessarily man’s first relationship, the foundation of every other -that to God; and here, God’s breathing into him is characteristic of this. No beast has it; and although there is no direct statement, -the language is, as we say, phenomenal, -yet there is implied in this certainly some communication from God Himself, by which (and not by the bodily form,) is conveyed the idea of kinship. Yet the language is more phenomenal even than in the common version, which we have followed. It is literally, “God breathed into his nostrils the breathing of life,” where indeed the fact that it is in the nostrils shows what is meant. Compare the full expression in Gen 7:22 as we have given it. Neshamah is always the activity of the ruach, whether this stands for “breath” or “spirit.” The effect, and the effect as seen, is alone depicted. This is in reality favorable to the deeper thought. It is not mere “breath of life” which is imparted, but the whole living activity, as expressed in this, is the result of the divine impartation. And if man thus becomes a living soul, good reason it is why his soul should not die, as the beast does. (Mat 10:28.) In the fact of being a living soul, he does not differ from the beast, but he does in the way he becomes one.
The inbreathing is thus essential to relationship, and given for this reason in this place. But the junction of something thus in relationship to God with the dust-formed creature makes Adam in this way a proper foreshadowing of the “last Adam” (Rom 5:14), -Deity incarnate. He, however, in contrast with the first Adam, in resurrection, breathes upon His own. He uses this action, so significant in the creation of man, to symbolize the introduction of His people into a new creation, of which He is the Head: taking Himself the divine place as “quickening Spirit.” (Joh 20:22; 1Co 15:45.)
2.
We have next the lesson of dependence taught man, upon One whose goodness makes the very need of His creatures the occasion of ministering care. Every thing is provided that can gratify as well as satisfy. But the tree of life shows him that he has not life in himself, and the prohibited tree of knowledge teaches him practically to recognize this dependence upon Another.
The ministry of the whole triune Godhead to man is typically indicated here. For the tree of knowledge indicates paternal government, where indeed “rule” is service (Rom 12:8); the tree of life speaks of Christ, in whom our life is; while the gushing fullness of these bounteous rivers is a plain type of the renewing power of the Holy Ghost. All this we shall find again in the paradise of God, of which this is a true picture. Would we could more enter into it!
3.
The third section shows us Adam’s relationship to his wife; and for this, he is first taken to look at the beasts, and to see that no union can be here. Man is man by that spirit by which he differs from the beast. What a prophetic rebuke to the infidel science of the day!
The application of what we have here to Christ and the Church is shown us by the apostle. Adam, to find his wife, passes through the image of death, and she is “builded” out of him, to whom she is afterward united. So are we chosen in Christ, the fruit of His death, raised up with Christ, and by the Spirit united to Christ. Here, once more, however, the last Adam shows His essential difference from the first: He will present the Church to Himself. (Eph 5:27.)
{Critical Notes
Man as a Living Soul.
The error of holding man to be soul and body only is the parent of many modern heresies. It omits just what makes him man. But why, then, is it said here, “Man became a living soul”? -why not a spirit? The question is a fair one, and should be fairly answered.
Let us note first, then, that angels are spirits and that the angels had already fallen; also that the condemnation of the devil is for pride. (1Ti 3:6.) Now all through this account there seems the constant endeavor (which, to speak humanly, is God’s, we know,) to “hide pride from man.” (Job 33:17.) Thus he is called “Adam,” from adamah, the ground, as if to remind him of his origin -“Dust thou art.” Yet he was assuredly something more than “dust.” Here, in the same way, his being a living soul reminds him of his kinship with the beasts; yet it does not show that he is not more. Among spiritual beings, this is, indeed, his real distinction, -that he is a “living soul.”
The “soul” is in Scripture the seat of the passions, emotions, sensibility, as the spirit is of the mental and moral judgment. These latter, in any real sense, the beast has not. The spirit it is which is in man, which knows the things of a man. (1Co 11:1-34.) But he learns them, gathering the materials of judgment through the soul -the senses; and as the body begins to develop before even the soul, so does the soul before the spirit. Spirit in man depends, thus, really upon the soul; and it is striking that just when absent from the body his real distinction begins to manifest itself. The soul survives, indeed, the stroke of death; but man is now called, what he never was before, a “spirit.” (Luk 24:37; Luk 24:39; Act 23:8-9; Heb 12:23; 1Pe 3:19.)
The Penalty on Adam.
The penalty of eating of the tree of knowledge was, for Adam, death -physical death; but this necessarily the sign of the judgment of God, of separation between himself and God, of which the other is the image. For if death is the separation between soul and body, the separation of God from the soul is death also.
But “dying, thou shalt die,” which is literally the penalty here, does not convey the thought of two deaths; it is simply a very common Hebrew idiom, as, “eating, thou mayest eat,” in the verse preceding, and meant to express, as all translations probably give it, the certainty of it.
Nor does “in the day” involve more than that in the day that he sinned the penalty would be certain: it does not mean necessarily that it would be inflicted then. (Comp. Eze 33:12.)
The second death, let us remember, is always for a man’s own sins, and is in contrast with the first, which it brings to an end.}
Gen 2:4. The generations of the heavens That is, a true and full account of their origin or beginning, and of the order in which the sundry parts and creatures therein were formed.
Gen 2:4 b Gen 3:24. Js Story of Creation and Paradise Lost.This story does not belong to P, for it is free from its characteristics in style, vocabulary, and point of view. It is distinguished from Ps creation story by differences in form and in matter. The regular and precise arrangement, the oft-repeated formul, the prosaic style are here absent. We have, instead, a bright and vivid style, a story rather than a chronicle. The frank anthropomorphism would have been repugnant to the priestly writer, and a marked difference is to be observed between the two accounts. P starts from a watery chaos, this narrative from a dry waste. P represents the development of life as moving in a climax up to the creation of man and woman, while here man seems to be created first, then plants and animals, and woman last of all. The use of Yahweh, the anthropomorphism, and several characteristic expressions combine to show that this section must be assigned to the Yahwist group of narratives. The use of the double name Yahweh Elohim (rendered LORD God) raises the question whether we should assign the section to J. Possibly two documents have been combined, one of which used Yahweh from the first while the other used Elohim till the time of Enosh (Gen 4:26). But a sufficient explanation is that the writer used Yahweh alone, while an editor added Elohim to identify Yahweh with the Elohim of the priestly story. We may, accordingly, refer this section to J. Yet it bears the marks of a rather complicated literary history, and elements from different sources seem to be present in it.
The most important of the literary problems is that raised with reference to the two trees. According to Gen 2:9 the tree in the midst of the garden is the tree of life, in Gen 2:3 it is the forbidden tree, i.e. the tree of knowledge. The ambiguity gains further significance when we find a double reason assigned for the expulsion from the garden, (a) that the man should suffer the penalty of gaining his bread by the sweat of his brow, (b) that he should not eat of the tree of fife. Probably two stories have been combined; one spoke of the tree of knowledge, the other of the tree of life. Since the latter has several parallels in myths of the golden age, it probably belongs to a much older story than that of the tree of knowledge, which appears to be of Heb. origin. But the later story has apparently been preserved in full, the older only in fragments. We must, accordingly, seek to understand the original meaning of both.
In the volume of Essays and Studies Presented to William Ridgeway, Sir J. G. Frazer has made a suggestion of great interest as to the tree of life. In myths accounting for the origin of death the serpent often occurs. It is commonly believed that with the casting of its skin it renews its youth, and so never dies. This immortality was designed for men, but the serpent by learning the secret filched the boon from them. Frazer suggests that there were two trees, the tree of life and the tree of death. The Creator left man to choose, hoping that he would choose the tree of life. The serpent, knowing the secret, persuaded the woman to eat of the tree of death, that the other might be left to him. This was the motive of his conduct, which in the present form of the story is inexplicable, and accounts more fully for the hatred between man and the serpent. The story may have ended, This is how it is that man dies while the serpent lives for ever.
It will be seen that this story is, to use the technical term, tiological (p. 134), i.e. it explains the reason for certain facts, it answers the question Why? Why does man die while the serpent is immortal? Why do man and the serpent feel such antipathy for each other? The story of the tree of knowledge is however, much deeper. Whether the Heb. narrator took the story of the tree of life for his starting-point or whether the two stories were originally independent, and only such elements of the older narrative were taken over as could be combined with the later, may be left undetermined. But the later also is tiological. Only we must not suppose that its object is to account for the origin of sin. The author was not concerned with the problems which the chapter presented to Jewish theology and to Paul. He is answering the questions, Why is mans lot one of such exacting toil? Why does birth cost such agony to the mother? What is the origin of sex and the secret of the mutual attraction of the sexes? Whence the sense of shame, and the clothes which distinguish man from the beast? Why, when all other land animals go on legs, does the serpent glide along the ground and eat dust?
But what is the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and how does the eating of its fruit open the eyes? To the modern reader the most obvious answer is that eating the forbidden fruit brings with it a knowledge of moral distinctions and the sense of shame and guilt. This can hardly be the real meaning. The author surely did not believe that a knowledge of the distinction between right and wrong was improper for mankind; all the more that this is already presupposed in a prohibition which may be met with obedience or disobedience. The choice of the tree is not arbitrary, as if any prohibition would be equally fit for the purpose. The object is not to test obedience, but to guard against a trespass. Just as the tree of life has the property of communicating immortality, so the other tree confers knowledge. They are magical trees; God Himself, it is suggested, cannot prevent any who eat the fruit from enjoying the qualities they bestow (Gen 3:22). Moreover, it is hinted that the reason for the prohibition is protection of the heavenly powers. If man acquires immortality after gaining knowledge, he becomes a menace to them. Just as, if the builders of the tower are not restrained, they will not be thwarted in their heaven-storming plan (Gen 11:4-9), so man, having become like the heavenly ones in knowledge, must not be permitted endless life in which to use it. Now, clearly, it is not familiarity with the difference between right and wrong, but the knowledge that is power which is meant. Good and evil have no moral significance here. According to a common Heb. idiom, the phrase may mean the knowledge of things in general; but the sense is perhaps more specific, the knowledge of things so far as they are useful or harmful; an insight into the properties of things. Such a knowledge is reserved for Yahweh and the other Elohim; and just as in the story of the angel-marriages (Gen 6:1-4) and the tower of Babel (Gen 11:1-9) Yahweh resents any transgression of the limits He has set, so here. Yet it is not mere jealousy or fear that prompts His action. The writer is in full sympathy with the prohibition. Knowledge has been gained, but with it pain and shame, the loss of happiness and innocence. Civilisation has meant no increase of mans blessedness but the reverse. Had he been content to abide a child, he might have remained in Paradise, but he grasped at knowledge and was for ever banished from the garden of God.
The literary beauty of the narrative, the delicacy and truth of its psychology, have long been the object of merited admiration. And though it has been mishandled by theologians to yield a doctrine of original sin, yet it describes with wonderful insight the inner history of the individual. He insists on buying his own experience in spite of the Divine warning, only to find that he has purchased it at a ruinous cost, and that conscience awakens when the sin is irretrievable and remorse unavailing.
The representation of the original condition of things as a dry waste, and of fertility as normally dependent on rain, does not suit Babylonian conditions, nor yet the reference to the fig-tree. Hence, if the story originated in Babylonia, which is uncertain, it has been much modified to suit Palestinian conditions. The Hebrews may have received it directly from the Phnicians and Canaanites, but we may be sure that it has been greatly deepened by the genius of Israel.
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 [Gen 3:14], of the ground because of man [Gen 3:17], and of Cain [Gen 4:11]).
"Yet in this deteriorating life there is a token of grace (Gen 4:15) and a ray of hope (man began to call on Yahweh)." [Note: Idem, "Genesis," p. 24.]
1. The Garden of Eden 2:4-3:24
This story has seven scenes that a change in actors, situations or activities identifies. [Note: For a different narrative analysis, see Waltke, Genesis, pp. 80-81.] 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. [Note: Wenham, p. 50.]
A Scene 1 (narrative): God is the sole actor, and man is passive (Gen 2:4-17).
B Scene 2 (narrative): God is the main actor, man plays a minor role, the woman and the animals are passive (Gen 2:18-25).
C Scene 3 (dialogue): The snake and the woman converse (Gen 3:1-5).
D Scene 4 (narrative): The man and the woman are primary (Gen 3:6-8).
C’ Scene 5 (dialogue): God converses with the man and the woman (Gen 3:9-13).
B’ Scene 6 (narrative): God is the main actor, man plays a minor role, the woman and the serpent are passive (Gen 3:14-21).
A’ Scene 7 (narrative): God is the sole actor, and man is passive (Gen 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." [Note: Schaeffer, pp. 40-41.]
Note the following contrasts between the accounts of man’s creation.
Genesis 1:1-2:3
Genesis 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 (Gen 12:1) and the God who delivered Israel from Egypt (Exo 3:15), with Elohim, the God who created the cosmos. [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 20.] The name "Jehovah" comes from combining the vowels of the Hebrew adonay ("lord") with the consonants of the Hebrew Yahweh (i.e., YHWH).
"In Genesis 1 ’elohim (God) refers to God’s transcendence over the world, while in Genesis 2-3 yhwh (LORD) speaks of God’s immanence with his elect. When the narrator combines the two names, he makes a bold assertion that the Creation God is the Lord of Israel’s history. Just as God ordered creation, he orders history. All is under God’s sovereign control, guaranteeing that Israel’s history will end in triumph, not in tragedy." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 34.]
The creation of Man 2:4-17
The differences between Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:3 and Gen 2:4-25 have led many literary critics of the Bible to insist that two different writers composed these sections. But the similarities between these sections argue for a common writer. [Note: See William H. Shea, "Literary Structural Parallels between Genesis 1, 2," Origins 16:2(1989):49-68.]
Having related the creation of the universe as we know it, God next inspired Moses to explain for his readers what became of it. 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." [Note: W. Brueggemann, Genesis, p. 40.]
The Hebrew word toledot occurs first in Gen 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. [Note: Cf. Martin Woudstra, "The Toledot of the Book of Genesis and Their Redemptive-Historical Significance," Calvin Theological Journal 5:2 (1970):188-89.]
". . . 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 Gen 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." [Note: Ross, "Genesis," p. 24.]
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Perhaps the best view of the whole case would be gained by making a fair paraphrase, which is only putting it into a more modern style of language and conception: Such were the generations of the heavens and the earth in that early day when God made not only the great earth and heavens, but even the lowly shrub and plantmade them by His own divine wordmade them when they yet were not (as Raschi gives the sense of , without preceding causality) without the aid of rainbefore the rain and before any human cultivation. For it was after this early day ( in being grammatically both illative and denoting sequence) that the mists began to go up (, the unconnected future form here denoting series, habit, or continuance, see Job 1:5; Jdg 14:10; Psa 32:4), from which come the descending rains that now water the earth. And it was after all this that the Lord God made man, his body from the earth (from nature), his spirit from His own divine inspiration; and thus it was that man became a living soul.
5. The creation of man. It is rightly regarded as an entirely new creative Acts , 21 and, indeed, as the very highest. And yet it is a falsely literal view of the anthropomorphic and symbolical representation, when in this act of God we are led to regard the earthly nature as wholly passive. Rather does this act, in its truest realization, presuppose the highest excitation and effort of the earthwe may even say with Steffens, its animation. The representation has for its leading fundamental idea: Man the prime thing of the earthly creation; not that it can or ought to be carried out into its philosophical consequences, for then man must have been introduced before the earth-soil, and the formation of his body must have been before the creation of his soul. On this account we are not authorized to assign separately the formation of the body and of the soul to two acts following each other in a temporal seriesas was held in some respects by the Gnostic Saturninus.
6. The anthropological, physiological, and psychological ideas of the passage. Compare the writings before cited: Von Roos, Zeller, Beck, Delitzsch, Von Rudolf, and others. Before all things does the passage affirm that man became an indissoluble, that is, a creatively established, unitya living soul proceeding out of the contrast, or the duality, of the dust of the earth, on the one side, and the divine breath of life on the other (), and that these were the substances out of which he was formed. He is, in his one total appearing, a living soul; that is, the body too, in this human constitution, is only a special ground-form of the whole man, as the divine breath of life, on its side, is the ground-principle of the whole man. Spirit and body are joined together with the soul. These three are mutually inseparable, and they together make the individualized unity of man. To this extent may we deny that man consists alone of body and soul. He is always, and at any moment, body, soul, and spirit; though the outer form of the body may, by death, be loosed from its life, and the spirit, by sin, may sink into a latent state (see 1Co 15:44; Langes Dogmatics, p. 1243). As man, in respect to his inner life, is not divided into feeling, intelligence, and will, but is present in each of these ground-forms as the entire man, so also is he ever the entire man in respect to his outer or concrete life; as body he is related to his earthly appearing, and to the sphere of such appearing; as spirit, in the relation of his principial unity to his unitary ground, he is related to God and divine things; as soul, or essential form and life, he is related to the world of souls and the life of the whole universe. Man is a one with himself: individuality in his singleness, personality in his universalness, subjectivity in the mode and way of mediating between his singleness and his universal relation. And so far is the passage atomic, as it represents man as becoming a living soul (monade) through the highest and most intensive creative act of God.
8. From the circumstance of its not being said that the woman was inspired by the breath of God, Delitzsch is inclined to follow, with Tertullian, the so-called traducian theory, or the generic propagation of the human soul. This argument, however, de silentio, proves nothing; since Adam, in relation to Eve, also is the type of the creation of humanity. And so we adhere to this: The body of man proceeds from propagation (traducianism), the soul is created (creationism), the spirit is pre-existent as the idea of God.
Let the many isles be glad.
If we suppose that the Phnicians in their earliest voyages carried with them this idea of the Ocean-river, they must have had it from some more primitive source, and this is the more easily understood if we adopt the tradition mentioned by Strabo, lib. i. ch. ii. 35, that the Phnicians, in distinction from the Sidonians, came to the Mediterranean from the neighborhood of the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf.
The roving Greek imagination, as usual, carried the thing farther than the no less vivid but more sober Shemitic. They prolonged the course of the Ocean-river, not only round the Arabian, but also the Western or African thiopia (see Hom.: Odyss. i. 23; Iliad i. 423; Pind.: Pyth. iv. 26; Herod, iv. 42), and so clear round Africa itself as they conceived it to be. On the other hand, the eastern flood turned north, and encompassed the boreal regions, and so the idea became complete of a , or , that encircled the earth, according to the Orphic or Homeric description:
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary
Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)