Genesis · Chapter 2

V. 1, 2, 3. We have here, (1.) The settlement of the kingdom of nature, in God’s resting from the work of creation, Genesis 2:1,2. Where observe, 1. That the creatures made both in heaven and earth, are the hosts or armies of them, which speaks them numerous, but marshalled, disciplined, and under command. God useth them as his hosts for the defence of his people, and the destruction of his enemies. 2. That the heavens and the earth are finished pieces, and so are all the creatures in them. So perfect is God’s work that nothing can be added to it or taken from it, Ecclesiastes 3:14. 3. That after the end of the first six days, God ceased from all work of creation. He hath so ended his work, as that though in his providence he worketh hitherto, John 5:17. preserving and governing all the creatures, yet he doth not make any new species of creatures. 4. That the eternal God, tho’ infinitely happy in himself, yet took a satisfaction in the work of his own hands. He did not rest as one weary, but as one well-pleased with the instances of his own goodness. (2.) The commencement of the kingdom of grace, in the sanctification of the sabbath day, Genesis 2:3. He rested on that day, and took a complacency in his creatures, and then sanctified it, and appointed us on that day to rest and take a complacency in the Creator; and his rest is in the fourth commandment made a reason for ours after six days labour. Observe, 1. That the solemn observation of one day in seven as a day of holy rest, and holy work, is the indispensible duty of all those to whom God has revealed his holy sabbaths. 2. That sabbaths are as ancient as the world. 3. That the sabbath of the Lord is truly honourable, and we have reason to honour it; honour it for the sake of its antiquity, its great author, and the sanctification of the first sabbath by the holy God himself, and in obedience to him, by our first parents in innocency.

Verse 1. And all the host of them]. The word host signifies literally an army, composed of a number of companies of soldiers under their respective leaders; and seems here elegantly applied to the various celestial bodies in our system, placed by the Divine wisdom under the influence of the sun. From the original word abx tsaba, a host, some suppose the Sabeans had their name, because of their paying Divine honours to the heavenly bodies. From the Septuagint version of this place, pav o kosmov autwn, all their ornaments, we learn the true meaning of the word kosmov, commonly translated world, which signifies a decorated or adorned whole or system. And this refers to the beautiful order, harmony, and regularity which subsist among the various parts of creation. This translation must impress the reader with a very favourable opinion of these ancient Greek translators; had they not examined the works of God with a philosophic eye, they never could have given this turn to the original.

Verse 1. The host of them — That is, the creatures contained therein. The host of heaven, in Scripture language, sometimes signifies the stars, and sometimes the angels. But, as Moses gives us no intimation, in the preceding chapter, that the angels were created at this time, and as Job 38:6, 7, evidently implies that they had been created before, they do not appear to be here included.

Verse 1. By host is meant, not the angels, as some have thought, but the starry heavens. Psalm 33:6.

SEVENTH DAY — SABBATH, 1-3.

1. All the host of them — That is, all the things, animate and inanimate, which made up the several works of creation.

V. 1, 2, 3. We have here, (1.) The settlement of the kingdom of nature, in God’s resting from the work of creation, Genesis 2:1,2. Where observe, 1. That the creatures made both in heaven and earth, are the hosts or armies of them, which speaks them numerous, but marshalled, disciplined, and under command. God useth them as his hosts for the defence of his people, and the destruction of his enemies. 2. That the heavens and the earth are finished pieces, and so are all the creatures in them. So perfect is God’s work that nothing can be added to it or taken from it, Ecclesiastes 3:14. 3. That after the end of the first six days, God ceased from all work of creation. He hath so ended his work, as that though in his providence he worketh hitherto, John 5:17. preserving and governing all the creatures, yet he doth not make any new species of creatures. 4. That the eternal God, tho’ infinitely happy in himself, yet took a satisfaction in the work of his own hands. He did not rest as one weary, but as one well-pleased with the instances of his own goodness. (2.) The commencement of the kingdom of grace, in the sanctification of the sabbath day, Genesis 2:3. He rested on that day, and took a complacency in his creatures, and then sanctified it, and appointed us on that day to rest and take a complacency in the Creator; and his rest is in the fourth commandment made a reason for ours after six days labour. Observe, 1. That the solemn observation of one day in seven as a day of holy rest, and holy work, is the indispensible duty of all those to whom God has revealed his holy sabbaths. 2. That sabbaths are as ancient as the world. 3. That the sabbath of the Lord is truly honourable, and we have reason to honour it; honour it for the sake of its antiquity, its great author, and the sanctification of the first sabbath by the holy God himself, and in obedience to him, by our first parents in innocency.

Verse 2. On the SEVENTH day God ended, &c.] It is the general voice of Scripture that God finished the whole of the creation in six days, and rested the seventh! giving us an example that we might labour six days, and rest the seventh from all manual exercises. It is worthy of notice that the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Samaritan, read the sixth day instead of the seventh; and this should be considered the genuine reading, which appears from these versions to have been originally that of the Hebrew text. How the word sixth became changed into seventh may be easily conceived from this circumstance. It is very likely that in ancient times all the numerals were signified by letters, and not by words at full length. This is the case in the most ancient Greek and Latin MSS., and in almost all the rabbinical writings. When these numeral letters became changed for words at full length, two letters nearly similar might be mistaken for each other; w vau stands for six, z zain for seven; how easy to mistake these letters for each other when writing the words at full length, and so give birth to the reading in question.

Verse 2. God rested on the seventh day — Not as if he were weary, or needed rest, as we do after labour, which to suppose would be inconsistent with his infinite perfection, Isaiah 40:28: but for an example to us. Accordingly, in the fourth commandment, God’s resting on the seventh day is assigned as a reason why we should rest on that day.

Ver. 2. On the seventh day God ended his work. The Samaritan Pentateuch reads, the sixth day. The variation is accounted for by the variation in reckoning the hours at which the sabbath began.—On the sabbath, see Ezekiel 20:12 and 20.

2. On the seventh day God ended his work — “The completion or finishing (hlk) of the work of creation on the seventh day (not on the sixth, as Sept., Samuel, Syr., erroneously render it) can only be understood by regarding the clauses which are connected with lkyw by Vav consec. as containing the actual completion, that is, by supposing the completion to consist, negatively, in the cessation of the work of creation, and positively, in the blessing and sanctifying of the seventh day. The cessation itself formed a part of the completion of the work. For this meaning of tbv, see Genesis 8:22; Job 32:1. As a human artificer completes his work just when he has brought it to his ideal and ceases to work upon it, so, in an infinitely higher sense, God completed the creation of the world with all its inhabitants by ceasing to create any thing new, and entering into the rest of his all-sufficient eternal Being, from which he had come forth, as it were, at and in the creation of a world distinct from his own essence.” — Keil. God did not rest because he was weary, but because he had finished his work; and his rest was the divine refreshment of holy contemplation. Exodus 31:17. The fact that there is no mention of the morning and evening of the seventh day is no evidence that that day, as here intended, continues still.

V. 1, 2, 3. We have here, (1.) The settlement of the kingdom of nature, in God’s resting from the work of creation, Genesis 2:1,2. Where observe, 1. That the creatures made both in heaven and earth, are the hosts or armies of them, which speaks them numerous, but marshalled, disciplined, and under command. God useth them as his hosts for the defence of his people, and the destruction of his enemies. 2. That the heavens and the earth are finished pieces, and so are all the creatures in them. So perfect is God’s work that nothing can be added to it or taken from it, Ecclesiastes 3:14. 3. That after the end of the first six days, God ceased from all work of creation. He hath so ended his work, as that though in his providence he worketh hitherto, John 5:17. preserving and governing all the creatures, yet he doth not make any new species of creatures. 4. That the eternal God, tho’ infinitely happy in himself, yet took a satisfaction in the work of his own hands. He did not rest as one weary, but as one well-pleased with the instances of his own goodness. (2.) The commencement of the kingdom of grace, in the sanctification of the sabbath day, Genesis 2:3. He rested on that day, and took a complacency in his creatures, and then sanctified it, and appointed us on that day to rest and take a complacency in the Creator; and his rest is in the fourth commandment made a reason for ours after six days labour. Observe, 1. That the solemn observation of one day in seven as a day of holy rest, and holy work, is the indispensible duty of all those to whom God has revealed his holy sabbaths. 2. That sabbaths are as ancient as the world. 3. That the sabbath of the Lord is truly honourable, and we have reason to honour it; honour it for the sake of its antiquity, its great author, and the sanctification of the first sabbath by the holy God himself, and in obedience to him, by our first parents in innocency.

Verse 3. And God blessed the seventh day] The original word Ërb barach, which is generally rendered to bless, has a very extensive meaning. It is frequently used in Scripture in the sense of speaking good of or to a person; and hence literally and properly rendered by the Septuagint euloghsen, from eu, good or well, and legw, I speak. So God has spoken well of the Sabbath, and good to them who conscientiously observe it. Blessing is applied both to God and man: when God is said to bless, we generally understand by the expression that he communicates some good; but when man is said to bless God, we surely cannot imagine that he bestows any gifts or confers any benefit on his Maker. When God is said to bless, either in the Old or New Testament, it signifies his speaking good TO man; and this comprises the whole of his exceeding great and precious promises. And when man is said to bless God, it ever implies that he speaks good OF him, for the giving and fulfilment of his promises. This observation will be of general use in considering the various places where the word occurs in the sacred writings. Reader, God blesses thee when by his promises he speaks good TO thee; and thou dost bless him when, from a consciousness of his kindness to thy body and soul, thou art thankful to him, and speakest good OF his name.

Because that in it he had rested] tbv shabath, he rested; hence Sabbath, the name of the seventh day, signifying a day of rest-rest to the body from labour and toil, and rest to the soul from all worldly care and anxieties. He who labours with his mind by worldly schemes and plans on the Sabbath day is as culpable as he who labours with his hands in his accustomed calling. It is by the authority of God that the Sabbath is set apart for rest and religious purposes, as the six days of the week are appointed for labour. How wise is this provision! It is essentially necessary, not only to the body of man, but to all the animals employed in his service: take this away and the labour is too great, both man and beast would fail under it. Without this consecrated day religion itself would fail, and the human mind, becoming sensualized, would soon forget its origin and end. Even as a political regulation, it is one of the wisest and most beneficent in its effects of any ever instituted. Those who habitually disregard its moral obligation are, to a man, not only good for nothing, but are wretched in themselves, a curse to society, and often end their lives miserably. See Clarke’s note on “Exodus 20:8”; “Exodus 23:12”; “Exodus 24:16”; and See Clarke’s note on “Exodus 31:13”; to which the reader is particularly desired to refer.

As God formed both the mind and body of man on principles of activity, so he assigned him proper employment; and it is his decree that the mind shall improve by exercise, and the body find increase of vigour and health in honest labour. He who idles away his time in the six days is equally culpable in the sight of God as he who works on the seventh. The idle person is ordinarily clothed with rags, and the Sabbath-breakers frequently come to an ignominions death. Reader, beware.

Verse 3. God blessed the seventh day — He conferred on it peculiar honour, and annexed to it special privileges above those granted to any other day; and sanctified it — That is, separated it from common use, and dedicated it to his own sacred service, that it should be accounted holy, and spent in his worship, and in other religious and holy duties. It appears evidently by this, that the observation of the sabbath was not first enjoined when the law was given, but that it was an ordinance of God from the creation of the world, and, of course, is obligatory on all the posterity of Adam, and the indispensable duty of every one to whom this divine appointment is made known.

3. Created and made — Hebrews, created to make. That is, created for the purpose of moulding into such forms and putting to such uses as are here described.

The Generations of the Heavens and the Land, Genesis 2:4-4:26. In chapters 1, and Genesis 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, twrlwt. 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, (Luke 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 hwhy, 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.

V. 4, 5, 6, 7. In these verses, 1. Here is a name given to the Creator, which we have not yet met with, Jehovah. The LORD in capital letters, is constantly used in our English translation, for Jehovah. This is that great and incommunicable name of God, which speaks his having his being of himself, and his giving being to all things. It properly means, He that was, and that is, and that is to come. 2. Further notice taken of the production of plants and herbs, because they were made to be food for man. 3. A more particular account of the creation of man, Genesis 2:7. Man is a little world, consisting of heaven and earth, soul and body. Here we have all account of the original of both, and the putting of both together: The Lord God, the great fountain of being and power, formed man. Of the other creatures it is said, they were created and made; but of man, that he was formed, which notes a gradual process in the work with great accuracy and exactness. To express the creation of this new thing, he takes a new word: a word (some think) borrowed from the potter’s forming his vessel upon the wheel. The body of man is curiously wrought. And the soul takes its rise from the breath of heaven. It came immediately from God; he gave it to be put into the body, Ecclesiastes 12:7 as afterwards he gave the tables of stone of his own writing to be put into the ark. ‘Tis by it that man is a living soul, that is, a living man. The body would be a worthless, useless carcase, if the soul did not animate it.

Verse 4. In the day that the Lord God made, &c.] The word hwhy Yehovah is for the first time mentioned here. What it signifies see on Exodus 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, Genesis 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! John 6:33, 48, 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.

Verse 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.

4. These are the generations — This verse is the heading to Genesis 2:4-4:26, 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 Genesis 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2; Numbers 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, (Genesis 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 twdlwt, generations, which is used only in the plural, and never occurs except in the construct state, or with suffixes, is a Hiphil noun, (from dylwh, Hiphil of dly) 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 Genesis 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, µarbhb, 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 arb and hv[. This making twc[ of the land and the heavens by Jehovah-Elohim is a different conception from the creation (arb) of the heavens and the land by Elohim in Genesis 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 ver. 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 arb 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.

V. 4, 5, 6, 7. In these verses, 1. Here is a name given to the Creator, which we have not yet met with, Jehovah. The LORD in capital letters, is constantly used in our English translation, for Jehovah. This is that great and incommunicable name of God, which speaks his having his being of himself, and his giving being to all things. It properly means, He that was, and that is, and that is to come. 2. Further notice taken of the production of plants and herbs, because they were made to be food for man. 3. A more particular account of the creation of man, Genesis 2:7. Man is a little world, consisting of heaven and earth, soul and body. Here we have all account of the original of both, and the putting of both together: The Lord God, the great fountain of being and power, formed man. Of the other creatures it is said, they were created and made; but of man, that he was formed, which notes a gradual process in the work with great accuracy and exactness. To express the creation of this new thing, he takes a new word: a word (some think) borrowed from the potter’s forming his vessel upon the wheel. The body of man is curiously wrought. And the soul takes its rise from the breath of heaven. It came immediately from God; he gave it to be put into the body, Ecclesiastes 12:7 as afterwards he gave the tables of stone of his own writing to be put into the ark. ‘Tis by it that man is a living soul, that is, a living man. The body would be a worthless, useless carcase, if the soul did not animate it.

Verse 5. Every plant of the field before it was in the earth] It appears that God created every thing, not only perfect as it respects its nature, but also in a state of maturity, so that every vegetable production appeared at once in full growth; and this was necessary that man, when he came into being, might find every thing ready for his use.

Verse 5. Every plant before it was in the earth — That is, when there was neither any plant, nor so much as any seed from which any could spring: and when, as is here observed, the two great means of the growth of vegetables were both wanting, rain from heaven and the labour of man. So that they were evidently produced by the word of God’s power alone. The English reader will observe in these two verses, the word LORD occurring for the first time. And he must remember that, whenever it occurs in our translation in capital letters, it stands for Jehovah. This is that name of God which implies self-existence, independence, and eternity, and signifies one that has being in and of himself, and is the source of being to all that exists. It is well explained by himself, Revelation 1:8, I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, which is and was, and is to come; the Almighty!

5. And every plant… before it was in the earth — The common version is utterly wrong in connecting this verse with what precedes, and so punctuating it as to make plant and herb grammatically the objects of made in ver. 4, the same as earth and heavens of that verse. Literally this verse reads: And every shrub of the field not yet was (hyhy, future form, involving the idea of becoming, arising, growing, in the land, and every herb of the field not yet was sprouting, for Jehovah-God had not caused it to rain upon the land; and no man to work the ground. This exhibits the Hebrew idiom, but a more proper translation would be: And no shrub of the field was yet arising in the land, and no herb of the field was yet sprouting. The future form hyhy, will be, taken in connexion with the future jmxy, will sprout, shows that a process of growth is contemplated; not the simple fact of existence. Hence the meaning is, (not that there was yet no plant or herb existing in the land, but,) none of the plants or herbs of the fields of Eden had as yet entered upon the processes of growth. A reason for this is given in the statement that rain had not yet fallen. The dry ground had been made to appear, (Genesis 1:9,) and grass and herb had been produced by the Almighty fiat, (Genesis 1:11, 12,) but the ground was not yet watered with rain, and the processes of vegetation were not yet in progress. Not a man to till the ground — Here note that the conceptual standpoint is previous to the formation of man; and the whole narrative naturally reverts to what we may suppose to have been the condition of things on the morning of the sixth day. Nevertheless the exact order of events in this chapter is not definitely stated, as in chapter 1.

V. 4, 5, 6, 7. In these verses, 1. Here is a name given to the Creator, which we have not yet met with, Jehovah. The LORD in capital letters, is constantly used in our English translation, for Jehovah. This is that great and incommunicable name of God, which speaks his having his being of himself, and his giving being to all things. It properly means, He that was, and that is, and that is to come. 2. Further notice taken of the production of plants and herbs, because they were made to be food for man. 3. A more particular account of the creation of man, Genesis 2:7. Man is a little world, consisting of heaven and earth, soul and body. Here we have all account of the original of both, and the putting of both together: The Lord God, the great fountain of being and power, formed man. Of the other creatures it is said, they were created and made; but of man, that he was formed, which notes a gradual process in the work with great accuracy and exactness. To express the creation of this new thing, he takes a new word: a word (some think) borrowed from the potter’s forming his vessel upon the wheel. The body of man is curiously wrought. And the soul takes its rise from the breath of heaven. It came immediately from God; he gave it to be put into the body, Ecclesiastes 12:7 as afterwards he gave the tables of stone of his own writing to be put into the ark. ‘Tis by it that man is a living soul, that is, a living man. The body would be a worthless, useless carcase, if the soul did not animate it.

Verse 6. There went up a mist] This passage appears to have greatly embarrassed many commentators. The plain meaning seems to be this, that the aqueous vapours, ascending from the earth, and becoming condensed in the colder regions of the atmosphere, fell back upon the earth in the form of dews, and by this means an equal portion of moisture was distributed to the roots of plants, &c. As Moses had said, Genesis 2:5, that the Lord had not caused it to rain upon the earth, he probably designed to teach us, in Genesis 2:6, how rain is produced, viz., by the condensation of the aqueous vapours, which are generally through the heat of the sun and other causes raised to a considerable height in the atmosphere, where, meeting with cold air, the watery particles which were before so small and light that they could float in the air, becoming condensed, i.e., many drops being driven into one, become too heavy to be any longer suspended, and then, through their own gravity, fall down in the form which we term rain.

Verse 6. There went up — At certain times, it seems, as God appointed; a mist or vapour from the earth — Issuing from the abyss, or great deep of water in its bowels; (see Genesis 7:14;) and watered the whole face of the ground — Not with rain, but with dew. By this the earth was softened and fitted to nourish the plants of all kinds already created, and the seeds and roots of these that they might produce new plants.

Ver. 6. A mist—watered the whole face of the ground, the rainy season of the climate not being then come. Deuteronomy 11:14.

6. A mist — da, a mist, a vapour. This first watering of the whole face of the ground was accomplished by an ascending vapour. Here is no mention of rain falling; but rather of mist going up. Perhaps, however, the one thought is designed to imply the other. The sacred writer thus also intimates how the vast reservoir of “waters above the firmament” (Genesis 1:7) were thenceforth to be supplied.

V. 4, 5, 6, 7. In these verses, 1. Here is a name given to the Creator, which we have not yet met with, Jehovah. The LORD in capital letters, is constantly used in our English translation, for Jehovah. This is that great and incommunicable name of God, which speaks his having his being of himself, and his giving being to all things. It properly means, He that was, and that is, and that is to come. 2. Further notice taken of the production of plants and herbs, because they were made to be food for man. 3. A more particular account of the creation of man, Genesis 2:7. Man is a little world, consisting of heaven and earth, soul and body. Here we have all account of the original of both, and the putting of both together: The Lord God, the great fountain of being and power, formed man. Of the other creatures it is said, they were created and made; but of man, that he was formed, which notes a gradual process in the work with great accuracy and exactness. To express the creation of this new thing, he takes a new word: a word (some think) borrowed from the potter’s forming his vessel upon the wheel. The body of man is curiously wrought. And the soul takes its rise from the breath of heaven. It came immediately from God; he gave it to be put into the body, Ecclesiastes 12:7 as afterwards he gave the tables of stone of his own writing to be put into the ark. ‘Tis by it that man is a living soul, that is, a living man. The body would be a worthless, useless carcase, if the soul did not animate it.

Verse 7. God formed man of the dust] In the most distinct manner God shows us that man is a compound being, having a body and soul distinctly, and separately created; the body out of the dust of the earth, the soul immediately breathed from God himself. Does not this strongly mark that the soul and body are not the same thing? The body derives its origin from the earth, or as rp[ aphar implies, the dust; hence because it is earthly it is decomposable and perishable. Of the soul it is said, God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; חיים נשמת nishmath chaiyim, the breath of LIVES, i.e., animal and intellectual. While this breath of God expanded the lungs and set them in play, his inspiration gave both spirit and understanding.

Verse 7. The Lord God formed man — Man being the chief of God’s works in this lower world, and being intended to be the lord of all other creatures, we have here a more full account of his creation. The word rxyy, jitzer, here rendered he formed, is not used concerning any other creature, and implies a gradual process in the work, with great accuracy and exactness. It is properly used of potters forming vessels on the wheel; and Rabbi D. Kimchi says, that, when used concerning the creation of man, it signifies the formation of his members. Of the dust of the ground — The Hebrew is, he formed man dust from the ground. We should remember that, however curiously our bodies, with their various members and senses, are wrought, we are but dust taken from the ground. He breathed into his nostrils — And thereby into his head and whole man; the breath of life — Hebrew, the soul of lives, that is, both natural and spiritual, both temporal and eternal life. It is sufficiently implied here that the soul of man is of a quite different nature and higher origin than the souls of beasts, which, together with their bodies, are said to be brought forth by the earth and waters, Genesis 1:24.

Ver. 7. And man became a living soul. The Hebrew is µyyj chajaim, souls, lives, &c., designating the ever-living spirit which is in man. It is applied to all the living beings of the creation. Genesis 1:20. hmvn neshomah is another name for the soul, designating its intellectual powers, which elevate it above the brute creation. Deuteronomy 20:16. Job 27:3. The word is derived from shemaim, heaven, because the soul came from God, and is heavenly and divine in its nature: for this reason, the name is never given to the brutes, but is restricted solely to man. vpn nephesh is the third and common name given to the soul in the Hebrew Scriptures, and is applied to the brute creation, as possessing a kind of vegetative life to grow and increase. Genesis 1:24. jwr ruach, he breathed, is a fourth name given to the soul, because like wind it moves in all the actions of life, and is endowed with all the sensations, the instinct, and sagacity of the animal world. But the fifth and most excellent name given to the soul is Jechida; that is, ONE, simple in essence, and uncomposed in structure: on this account, like neshomah, it is never given to the brute creation, but is wholly appropriate to man.

7. Formed man — Here occurs for the first time the word rxy, to form. The production of man is here viewed not so much as a creation, but rather as a formation. Comp. note on Genesis 1:1. It is viewed from the standpoint of the generation of the heavens and the land, and conceived as a process: dust… breath of life… living soul. Having passed from the narrative of creation to a narrative of generations, the sacred writer would have us think of man as not merely created by miracle, but also as brought forth into form and activity by a gradational process of creation. First, God “formed man of dust from the ground.” rp[, dust, is here grammatically the “accusative of the material,” and denotes the ground as the source of the primeval generation of man’s body. Hence mortal man is from the earth, (Psalm 10:18,) and we speak of “mother earth.” Breathed into his nostrils the breath of life — So man is not only earthborn, but heavenborn. As to his body, he is from the dust; but as to his soul he is, as the Greek poet and Paul affirm, the offspring of God. Acts 17:28, 29. God breathed out of himself into the body of the first man the breath of life, µyyj tmvn, breath of lives. Some have held that the plural, lives, in this Hebrew expression, was designed to denote the twofold life of man — animal and spiritual; or perhaps the various powers and operations of the human soul. But the frequent use of the same plural form in other connexions (as tree of life, verse 9; ways of life, Proverbs 2:19) is against such an interpretation. In Genesis 7:22, we have the expression breath of the spirit of life applied to the whole living animal creation. And (the) man became a living soul — This is the third stage, and the outcome of the creative process. Man thus became a self-conscious, living creature. The expression vpn hyj, soul of life, or living soul, is used also in Genesis 1:20, 21, 24, 30, of fishes, birds, and other animals. But the divine process by which man comes to be such a living creature is what we are to note. His soul-endowed nature is the result of an extraordinary divine inbreathing; an “inspiration from the Almighty.” Job 32:8; 33:4. Hence we incline, with Delitzsch, to regard the breath of life in this verse (and which occurs nowhere else in this section) as denoting the spirit as distinguished from the soul of man. Accordingly, while discarding the low mechanical anthropomorphic conception of God as a workman, fashioning a clod of earth with his hands, and then standing near it to breathe into it a breath from without, we nevertheless discern in this narrative a divine process in the creation of man. “It begins,” says Delitzsch, “with the constitution of the body, as the regeneration (palin-genesia) of man shall one day end with the reconstitution of the body. God first formed the human body, introducing the formative powers of entire nature into the moist earth taken from the soil of Eden, and placing them in co-operation; whereon he then breathed into this form the creative spirit, which, because it originated after the manner of breathing, may just as well be called his spirit as man’s spirit, because it is his breath made into the spirit of man. This spirit, entering into the form of the body, did not remain hidden in itself, but revealed itself, by virtue of its likeness to God, as soul, which corresponds to the doxa (glory) of the Godhead, and by means of the soul subjected to itself the corporeity, by combining within the unity of its own intrinsic vitality the energies of the bodily material, as they reciprocally act on one another in accordance with the life of nature.… For the soul, as Tertullian says, is the body of the spirit, and the flesh is the body of the soul.” — Biblical Psychology, p. 102.

V. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Man consisting of body and soul, a body made out of the earth, and a rational immortal soul, we have in these verses the provision that was made for the happiness of both. That part of man, which is allied to the world of sense, was made happy, for he was put in the paradise of God; that part which is allied to the world of spirits was well provided for, for he was taken into covenant with God. Here we have,

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

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

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

Verse 8. A garden eastward in Eden] Though the word ˆd[ Eden signifies pleasure or delight, it is certainly the name of a place. See Genesis 4:16 2 Kings 19:12 Isaiah 37:12 Ezekiel 27:23 Amos 1:5. And such places probably received their name from their fertility, pleasant situation, &c. In this light the Septuagint have viewed it, as they render the passage thus: efuteusen o qeov paradeison en eden, God planted a paradise in Eden. Hence the word paradise has been introduced into the New Testament, and is generally used to signify a place of exquisite pleasure and delight. From this the ancient heathens borrowed their ideas of the gardens of the Hesperides, where the trees bore golden fruit; the gardens of Adonis, a word which is evidently derived from the Hebrew ˆd[ Eden; and hence the origin of sacred gardens or enclosures dedicated to purposes of devotion, some comparatively innocent, others impure. The word paradise is not Greek; in Arabic and Persian it signifies a garden, a vineyard, and also the place of the blessed. The Mohammedans say that God created the [Arabic] Jennet al Ferdoos, the garden of paradise, from light, and the prophets and wise men ascend thither. Wilmet places it after the root [Arabic] farada, to separate, especially a person or place, for the purposes of devotion, but supposes it to be originally a Persian word, vox originis Persicæ quam in sua lingua conservarunt Armeni. As it is a word of doubtful origin, its etymology is uncertain.

Verse 8. The Lord God planted — Or, had planted, namely, on the third day, when he created the fruit-tree yielding fruit; a garden — A place peculiarly pleasant, a paradise, separated, it seems, from the rest of the earth, and enclosed, but in what way, we are not informed; eastward — From the place where Moses wrote, and from the place where the Israelites afterward dwelt. In Eden — Although the word eden signifies delight and pleasure; and undoubtedly the situation of the garden was extremely delightful, yet it is here the name of a place, not that mentioned, Amos 1:5, which was in Syria, but another Eden in Mesopotamia, spoken of Genesis 4:16, and 2 Kings 19:12, in the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates. There he put the man — Not in a sumptuous palace or house of any kind, but in the open air. For as clothes came in with sin, so did houses. Our first parents in paradise needed them not. “The heaven was the roof of Adam’s house,” says Henry, “and never was any roof so curiously ceiled and painted. The earth was his floor, and never was any floor so richly inlaid: the shadow of the trees was his retirement, and never were any rooms so finely hung. Solomon’s, in all their glory, were not arrayed like them.”

Ver. 8. Eden; that is, paradise, pleasure, delight.

8. Planted a garden eastward in Eden — The word Eden is here first introduced, and without any explanation. It seems most natural to understand it as the proper name of the land (xra) of the preceding narrative. The word signifies pleasure, delight, and thus corresponds with the Greek hdonh. The Septuagint and Vulgate translate ˆg, garden, by the word paradise, (a park,) and the word came at length to be used as a proper name for the garden of Eden, and also for the abode of disembodied spirits. Compare Luke 23:43; 2 Corinthians 12:4. The Vulgate never renders Eden as a proper name; and the Septuagint only here, in verse 10, and in Genesis 4:16. Accordingly some translate: God planted a garden in a delightful region. But the word eastward (µdqm, from the east, or, on the east, that is, in the eastern part) serves to put on Eden the character of a proper name. And a most suitable name it was for the land where man first appeared, created in the image of God. That land, from the dust of which Adam was formed, in which every tree and shrub and herb was very good, being supernaturally produced by the power of God, might well be called Eden. The garden was planted in the eastern section of this Eden-land. There he put the man whom he had formed — These words, taken in connexion with verse 15, are supposed to imply that Adam was created outside of paradise, and afterward transported thither. But the word µwc, here used, and jwn, in verse 15, both convey the idea of establishment in some place without any necessary allusion to a previous state. We might say of Eve, as well as of Adam, that God took her and placed her in paradise, without necessarily implying that she was created outside of the garden. The order of the narrative would indicate that man was formed before the garden was prepared for him. But the order of the narrative by no means implies, or requires us to assume, a corresponding chronological sequence of the things narrated.

It would require volumes to chronicle all the opinions and discussions relative to the location of the garden of Eden, and the four rivers mentioned verses 11-14. Three theories have been particularly urged — one which locates the garden near the junction of the Tigris and Euphrates, or somewhere between that junction and the Persian Gulf; another which locates it in the highlands of Armenia, near the sources of these rivers; and a third which places it in the far East, in the mountainous highlands of Central Asia, near the sources of the Indus, the Helmend, the Oxus, and the Jaxartes rivers. All these theories become worthless the moment we allow that the deluge may have borne the family of Noah far away from the primeval home of man. The notion that the rivers and countries subsequently known as Hiddekel, Euphrates, Havilah, Cush, etc., are identical with the lands and rivers of Eden is also destitute of any sure foundation. For we must remember the universal habit of migratory tribes and new colonies to give old and familiar names to the new rivers, mountains, and countries which they discover and occupy. Nothing could have been more natural than for the sons of Noah to give to new objects names from the old fatherland. Prof. W.F. Warren, in his Paradise Found, the Cradle of the Human Race at the North Pole, Boston, 1885, adduces a variety of arguments to prove that the primitive Eden was at the Arctic pole. Nothing in the legitimate interpretation of this Scripture is inconsistent with such an hypothesis; but we make no attempt to determine the site of paradise, inasmuch as we find nothing in this narrative that appears sufficient to solve that problem. It is, however, very probable that the original Eden of the human race was submerged and obliterated by the deluge.

V. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Man consisting of body and soul, a body made out of the earth, and a rational immortal soul, we have in these verses the provision that was made for the happiness of both. That part of man, which is allied to the world of sense, was made happy, for he was put in the paradise of God; that part which is allied to the world of spirits was well provided for, for he was taken into covenant with God. Here we have,

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

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

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

Verse 9. Every tree that is pleasant to the sight, &c.] If we take up these expressions literally, they may bear the following interpretation: the tree pleasant to the sight may mean every beautiful tree or plant which for shape, colour, or fragrance, delights the senses, such as flowering shrubs, &c.

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

The tree of life] חיים chaiyim; of lives, or life-giving tree, every medicinal tree, herb, and plant, whose healing virtues are of great consequence to man in his present state, when through sin diseases of various kinds have seized on the human frame, and have commenced that process of dissolution which is to reduce the body to its primitive dust. Yet by the use of these trees of life-those different vegetable medicines, the health of the body may be preserved for a time, and death kept at a distance. Though the exposition given here may be a general meaning for these general terms, yet it is likely that this tree of life which was placed in the midst of the garden was intended as an emblem of that life which man should ever live, provided he continued in obedience to his Maker. And probably the use of this tree was intended as the means of preserving the body of man in a state of continual vital energy, and an antidote against death. This seems strongly indicated from Genesis 3:22. And the tree of knowledge of good and evil.] Considering this also in a merely literal point of view, it may mean any tree or plant which possessed the property of increasing the knowledge of what was in nature, as the esculent vegetables had of increasing bodily vigour; and that there are some ailments which from their physical influence have a tendency to strengthen the understanding and invigorate the rational faculty more than others, has been supposed by the wisest and best of men; yet here much more seems intended, but what is very difficult to be ascertained. Some very eminent men have contended that the passage should be understood allegorically! and that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil means simply that prudence, which is a mixture of knowledge, care, caution, and judgment, which was prescribed to regulate the whole of man’s conduct. And it is certain that to know good and evil, in different parts of Scripture, means such knowledge and discretion as leads a man to understand what is fit and unfit, what is not proper to be done and what should be performed. But how could the acquisition of such a faculty be a sin? Or can we suppose that such a faculty could be wanting when man was in a state of perfection? To this it may be answered: The prohibition was intended to exercise this faculty in man that it should constantly teach him this moral lesson, that there were some things fit and others unfit to be done, and that in reference to this point the tree itself should be both a constant teacher and monitor. The eating of its fruit would not have increased this moral faculty, but the prohibition was intended to exercise the faculty he already possessed. There is certainly nothing unreasonable in this explanation, and viewed in this light the passage loses much of its obscurity. Vitringa, in his dissertation Deuteronomy arbore prudentiæ in Paradiso, ejusque mysterio, strongly contends for this interpretation. See Clarke on “Genesis 3:6”.

Verse 9. Every tree pleasant to the sight — That was calculated to render this garden the most beautiful place on earth; and good for food — That is, agreeable to the taste and useful to the body. So that both man’s mind and body were gratified and enriched. The tree of life also — So called, it seems, not only because it was intended to be a sign to Adam, assuring him of the continuance of life and happiness, on condition of his persevering in obedience; but also because God had given to the fruit of it a singular virtue for the support of nature, the prolongation of life, and the prevention of all diseases, infirmities, and decays through age, as appears, Genesis 3:22. The tree of knowledge, &c. — So called, not because its fruit had any virtue to beget useful knowledge, but because by it God would try Adam’s obedience, and by eating of it man would know the good which he had lost, and the evil into which he had fallen by his disobedience.

Ver. 9. The tree of life also he put in the midst of the garden. The rabbins, and apparently in succession, affirm, that this tree of life was the vine! But they fail to say whether their assertions are founded on tradition, on revelation, or on their own imagination.

9. Out of the ground… every tree — These growths of the garden may be regarded as special creations; a part of the special work of fitting up the garden for man: or they may be understood as a general statement made without reference to time. The context makes the former supposition the more probable one. The tree of life — A tree of special value and significance, the eating of whose fruit perpetuated life forever. Genesis 3:22. Prof. Warren cites the singular agreement of many ancient religions in associating their paradise-tree with the axis of the world, and observes: “If the garden of Eden was precisely at the North Pole, it is plain that a goodly tree standing in the centre of that garden would have had a visible and obvious cosmical significance, which could by no possibility belong to any other. — Paradise Found, p. 263. In the midst of the garden — As if it were to be the most conspicuous object there, and a constant prophecy to man that he was made for immortality. Comp. Revelation 2:7; 22:2. And the tree of knowledge of good and evil — The notion that the tree of life and the tree of knowledge were identical is not the most natural meaning of this language. This tree, says Jacobus, “was so-called not merely as a test for proving man, and showing whether he would choose the good or the evil; nor merely because by eating it he would come to know both good and evil, and the evil so that he would know the good in the new light of contrast with the evil. Both these are involved. But it was set also as a symbol of the divine knowledge to which man should not aspire, but to which he should submit his own judgment and knowledge. The positive prohibition was to be a standing discipline of the human reason, and a standing symbol of the limitation of religious thought.” These two trees being named in immediate connexion with the other trees of the garden, are to be understood literally of two particular trees, and not allegorically, as if they were merely symbols. See more on verse 17, and 3:7.

V. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Man consisting of body and soul, a body made out of the earth, and a rational immortal soul, we have in these verses the provision that was made for the happiness of both. That part of man, which is allied to the world of sense, was made happy, for he was put in the paradise of God; that part which is allied to the world of spirits was well provided for, for he was taken into covenant with God. Here we have,

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

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

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

Verse 10. A river went out of Eden, &c.] It would astonish an ordinary reader, who should be obliged to consult different commentators and critics on the situation of the terrestrial Paradise, to see the vast variety of opinions by which they are divided. Some place it in the third heaven, others in the fourth; some within the orbit of the moon, others in the moon itself; some in the middle regions of the air, or beyond the earth’s attraction; some on the earth, others under the earth, and others within the earth; some have fixed it at the north pole, others at the south; some in Tartary, some in China; some on the borders of the Ganges, some in the island of Ceylon; some in Armenia, others in Africa, under the equator; some in Mesopotamia, others in Syria, Persia, Arabia, Babylon, Assyria, and in Palestine; some have condescended to place it in Europe, and others have contended it either exists not, or is invisible, or is merely of a spiritual nature, and that the whole account is to be spiritually understood! That there was such a place once there is no reason to doubt; the description given by Moses is too particular and circumstantial to be capable of being understood in any spiritual or allegorical way. As well might we contend that the persons of Adam and Eve were allegorical, as that the place of their residence was such.

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

Verses 10-14. A river went out of Eden — This river, branching itself into four streams, contributed much both to the pleasantness and fertility of the garden. Hiddekel and Euphrates are rivers of Babylon: but we need not wonder that the rise and situation of all these rivers cannot now be perfectly ascertained, considering the great changes produced in the state of the earth, as well by earthquakes as by the general deluge. Havilah had gold, and spices, and precious stones: but Eden had that which was infinitely better, the tree of life, and communion with God. And to these blessings we may have access, although shut out of the literal Eden. Reader, dost thou desire them?

10. A river went out of Eden — This river, like the trees just named, constituted a part of the perfection of the earthly paradise. Comp. Revelation 22:1, 2. From thence — From the garden. The verse clearly implies that the river had its source in the garden, and from that place, as a centre, divided itself off, was parted so as to become the fountain heads of four different streams. Hence by river we may understand river system, set of rivers, all identified as to their origin, but whether flowing from four neighboring fountains or from one may be left undecided. Some suppose the river flowed as one stream through the garden, and after leaving it became divided into four heads or beginnings of rivers.

V. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Man consisting of body and soul, a body made out of the earth, and a rational immortal soul, we have in these verses the provision that was made for the happiness of both. That part of man, which is allied to the world of sense, was made happy, for he was put in the paradise of God; that part which is allied to the world of spirits was well provided for, for he was taken into covenant with God. Here we have,

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

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

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

Verses 10-14. A river went out of Eden — This river, branching itself into four streams, contributed much both to the pleasantness and fertility of the garden. Hiddekel and Euphrates are rivers of Babylon: but we need not wonder that the rise and situation of all these rivers cannot now be perfectly ascertained, considering the great changes produced in the state of the earth, as well by earthquakes as by the general deluge. Havilah had gold, and spices, and precious stones: but Eden had that which was infinitely better, the tree of life, and communion with God. And to these blessings we may have access, although shut out of the literal Eden. Reader, dost thou desire them?

Ver. 11. The name of the first river is Pison. Josephus, who is followed by St. Jerome, calls this the Gangès, the greatest river of Asia. “He filleth all things with wisdom, as Phison and the Tigris, in the time of new fruits.” Ecclus. 24:25. This river forms the boundary of the ancient land of Havilah, son of Cush. Genesis 10:7. Its most valued productions in the time of Moses were gold and precious stones. Geology confirms this account, that in various parts of Asia there are extensive veins of yellow earth, abounding with grains of gold. The bdellium is the lachrymæ pellucidæ, or waterdrop of Pliny, and of Haüy, a celebrated naturalist of France. The onyx-stone is a gem of the chalcedony class, of a dark colour, with beautiful variegations.

11. Pison… Havilah — After the views above given as to the site of paradise and the land of Eden, it would be idle to enumerate the diverse speculations and conjectures touching the rivers and lands designated in this and the following verses. The name Pison occurs nowhere else; but Havilah appears in Genesis 10:7, as the name of a son of Ham, and in verse 29 as that of a son of Shem. Nothing would have been more natural than for the sons of Noah to transfer antediluvian names to their children. In Genesis 25:18, and 1 Samuel 15:7, the name appears as that of a country south-east of Palestine — probably because settled by the descendants of a patriarch of this name. Where there is gold — The land of Eden was rich in precious metals and other costly substances.

V. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Man consisting of body and soul, a body made out of the earth, and a rational immortal soul, we have in these verses the provision that was made for the happiness of both. That part of man, which is allied to the world of sense, was made happy, for he was put in the paradise of God; that part which is allied to the world of spirits was well provided for, for he was taken into covenant with God. Here we have,

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

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

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

Verse 12. There is bdellium (jldb bedolach) and the onyx stone, השהם אבנ eben hashshoham.] Bochart thinks that the bedolach or bdellium means the pearl-oyster; and shoham is generally understood to mean the onyx, or species of agate, a precious stone which has its name from onux a man’s nail, to the colour of which it nearly approaches. It is impossible to say what is the precise meaning of the original words; and at this distance of time and place it is of little consequence.

Verses 10-14. A river went out of Eden — This river, branching itself into four streams, contributed much both to the pleasantness and fertility of the garden. Hiddekel and Euphrates are rivers of Babylon: but we need not wonder that the rise and situation of all these rivers cannot now be perfectly ascertained, considering the great changes produced in the state of the earth, as well by earthquakes as by the general deluge. Havilah had gold, and spices, and precious stones: but Eden had that which was infinitely better, the tree of life, and communion with God. And to these blessings we may have access, although shut out of the literal Eden. Reader, dost thou desire them?

12. Bdellium — The word jldbh occurs only here and in Numbers 11:7. The Septuagint renders it by anqrax in this passage, and by krustallov in Numbers. Gesenius, following Bochart and the rabbins, takes the word collectively in the sense of pearls. The English version, bdellium, follows Josephus, the Vulgate, and the Greek versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, and is as probably correct as any. Bdellium is a transparent, waxlike resin, now found on the trunks of trees in India. Onyx stone — Some render beryl; others, sardonyx. Some precious stone is meant, but it is impossible to determine its identity.

V. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Man consisting of body and soul, a body made out of the earth, and a rational immortal soul, we have in these verses the provision that was made for the happiness of both. That part of man, which is allied to the world of sense, was made happy, for he was put in the paradise of God; that part which is allied to the world of spirits was well provided for, for he was taken into covenant with God. Here we have,

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

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

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

Verses 10-14. A river went out of Eden — This river, branching itself into four streams, contributed much both to the pleasantness and fertility of the garden. Hiddekel and Euphrates are rivers of Babylon: but we need not wonder that the rise and situation of all these rivers cannot now be perfectly ascertained, considering the great changes produced in the state of the earth, as well by earthquakes as by the general deluge. Havilah had gold, and spices, and precious stones: but Eden had that which was infinitely better, the tree of life, and communion with God. And to these blessings we may have access, although shut out of the literal Eden. Reader, dost thou desire them?

Ver. 13. The second river is Gihon, the Nile, whose sources are in Ethiopia, and whose western branch drains the centre of Africa.

13. Gihon — This name occurs again only as denoting a fountain near Jerusalem. 1 Kings 1:33, 38, 45; 2 Chronicles 32:30. Compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia — The attempt to explain this as referring to any of the lands subsequently known as Ethiopia, or Cush, are, perhaps, the best possible refutation of the notion that the rivers of Eden are identical with any rivers now known. Cush was evidently the name of a region or country in the land of Eden, and it was very natural for Ham, the son of Noah, after the flood to name one of his sons in memory of this ancient country. Genesis 10:6. The same considerations apply to the names Hiddekel, Assyria, (or Asshur; compare Genesis 10:11, 22,) and Euphrates, or Phrath, in the following verse. There is no sufficient reason for the belief that the original rivers and countries of Eden remained traceable after the flood.

V. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Man consisting of body and soul, a body made out of the earth, and a rational immortal soul, we have in these verses the provision that was made for the happiness of both. That part of man, which is allied to the world of sense, was made happy, for he was put in the paradise of God; that part which is allied to the world of spirits was well provided for, for he was taken into covenant with God. Here we have,

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

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

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

Verses 10-14. A river went out of Eden — This river, branching itself into four streams, contributed much both to the pleasantness and fertility of the garden. Hiddekel and Euphrates are rivers of Babylon: but we need not wonder that the rise and situation of all these rivers cannot now be perfectly ascertained, considering the great changes produced in the state of the earth, as well by earthquakes as by the general deluge. Havilah had gold, and spices, and precious stones: but Eden had that which was infinitely better, the tree of life, and communion with God. And to these blessings we may have access, although shut out of the literal Eden. Reader, dost thou desire them?

Ver. 14. The third river Hiddekel, the ancient name of the Tigris, which joins the Euphrates above the ruins of the ancient city of Bassora. It is called the Irack in the Arabic, no doubt from the city of Erech. Genesis 10:10.

The fourth river is the Euphrates, called the Parach in Hebrew, to designate the fertility of its vales. What can we infer from the wide extent of these four rivers, but that Moses regarded the whole earth as a paradise, and Eden as the favoured spot, the first abode of man?

V. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Man consisting of body and soul, a body made out of the earth, and a rational immortal soul, we have in these verses the provision that was made for the happiness of both. That part of man, which is allied to the world of sense, was made happy, for he was put in the paradise of God; that part which is allied to the world of spirits was well provided for, for he was taken into covenant with God. Here we have,

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

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

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

Verse 15. Put him into the garden-to dress it, and to keep it.] Horticulture, or gardening, is the first kind of employment on record, and that in which man was engaged while in a state of perfection and innocence. Though the garden may be supposed to produce all things spontaneously, as the whole vegetable surface of the earth certainly did at the creation, yet dressing and tilling were afterwards necessary to maintain the different kinds of plants and vegetables in their perfection, and to repress luxuriance. Even in a state of innocence we cannot conceive it possible that man could have been happy if inactive. God gave him work to do, and his employment contributed to his happiness; for the structure of his body, as well as of his mind, plainly proves that he was never intended for a merely contemplative life.

15. Took the man — See note on verse 8. To dress it and to keep it — The world was made for man, and it became his noble intellect and skillful hand to give direction to its growths. Man was made for work, and labour was honourable in the primitive Eden. God himself is revealed as working, and furnishing a divine example. Hence the commandment: “Six days shalt thou labour,… for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth.” Exodus 20:9, 11. To dress, that is, to work and cultivate the garden, was one means of keeping it, for its vegetation might grow wild, and suffer also from the beasts of the field. The man was placed in paradise to keep it, (rmv, guard, preserve,) not to lose it. Perhaps the word may indicate that an evil enemy was lurking near.

V. 16, 17. Thou shall die-That is, thou shalt lose all the happiness thou hast either in possession or prospect; and thou shalt become liable to death, and all the miseries that preface and attend it. This was threatened as the immediate consequence of sin.

In the day thou eatest, thou shalt die-Not only thou shalt become mortal, but spiritual death and the forerunners of temporal death shall immediately seize thee.

Ver. 16. Of every tree, &c. Dr. Anselm Bayly, in his Hebrew Grammar, prefers reading, “Of the fruits of all the trees of the garden, thou mayest eat, except of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”

16. The Lord God commanded the man — The Hebrew form of

expression, µdah l[ wxyw, and put a commandment upon the man, suggests the thought of an authoritative law coming down upon him from above. The word man is to be understood here as in Genesis 5. 2, of the man and his wife, and not as excluding the woman from the obligation of the law. The woman herself acknowledges this in Genesis 3:2, 3. The commandment might, indeed, have been given first to the man, and afterward repeated to the man and his wife together, thus intensifying in them both a sense of its importance. An exact chronological order of particular events is evidently not exhibited in this chapter. Here is the first revelation of moral law. The divine commandment appeals to man’s intellectual and moral nature, recognising him as a thinking religious being. The commandment is simple, specific, positive, and so adapted to test the free and responsible nature of the being to whom it was addressed. Observe that the first great commandment, which served to test man’s moral life, was of a negative form — a prohibition. See next verse. Freely eat — The intensified form of expression (Hebrews, eating thou mayest eat) confers the most unrestricted enjoyment of all the fruitage of the garden. Many understand from this reference to the fruit of trees, as also from Genesis 1:29, that man at first subsisted on the fruit of trees alone. This, taken in connexion with the absence of any allusion to the use of animal food in these first records of the race, may be a legitimate inference, but is nowhere clearly asserted.

V. 16, 17. Thou shall die-That is, thou shalt lose all the happiness thou hast either in possession or prospect; and thou shalt become liable to death, and all the miseries that preface and attend it. This was threatened as the immediate consequence of sin.

In the day thou eatest, thou shalt die-Not only thou shalt become mortal, but spiritual death and the forerunners of temporal death shall immediately seize thee.

Verse 17. Of the tree of the knowledge-thou shalt not eat] This is the first positive precept God gave to man; and it was given as a test of obedience, and a proof of his being in a dependent, probationary state. It was necessary that, while constituted lord of this lower world, he should know that he was only God’s vicegerent, and must be accountable to him for the use of his mental and corporeal powers, and for the use he made of the different creatures put under his care. The man from whose mind the strong impression of this dependence and responsibility is erased, necessarily loses sight of his origin and end, and is capable of any species of wickedness. As God is sovereign, he has a right to give to his creatures what commands he thinks proper. An intelligent creature, without a law to regulate his conduct, is an absurdity; this would destroy at once the idea of his dependency and accountableness. Man must ever feel God as his sovereign, and act under his authority, which he cannot do unless he have a rule of conduct. This rule God gives: and it is no matter of what kind it is, as long as obedience to it is not beyond the powers of the creature who is to obey. God says: There is a certain fruit-bearing tree; thou shalt not eat of its fruit; but of all the other fruits, and they are all that are necessary, for thee, thou mayest freely, liberally eat. Had he not an absolute right to say so? And was not man bound to obey?

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

Verse 17. Of the tree of knowledge thou shalt not eat — Hitherto God has been manifested as man’s powerful Creator and bountiful Benefactor: now he appears as his Ruler and Lawgiver, and, as such, enters into covenant with him. He gives him but one positive precept, to try his obedience, which, as his Sovereign Lord, he had a right to do, annexing death to the breach, and, of consequence, life and immortality to the observance of it. It is evident, however, that this was not all God required of man, but that a law was written on his heart, requiring him to love God to the utmost extent of his capacity, and to imitate him in all holiness and righteousness. Thou shalt surely die — The death here threatened is evidently to be considered as opposed to the life (or lives rather, verse 7) which God had bestowed on him. This was not only the natural life of his body, in its union with his soul, but the spiritual life of his soul, in its union with God, and the eternal life of both. The threatening then implies: Thou shalt not only lose all the happiness thou hast, either in possession or prospect, and become liable to the death of thy body, and all the miseries which precede and accompany it; but thou shalt lose thy spiritual life, and become dead to God and things divine, and shalt even forfeit thy title to immortality, and be liable to death eternal. And all this in the day thou eatest thereof.

17. Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil — It is idle to speculate on the physical nature of this mysterious tree; and the supposition that its fruit contained a natural poison, which must sooner or later have resulted in the death of the eater, is without warrant in the Scripture. Nordo we see sound reason in classing this account of the tree of knowledge with the myths and traditions of prophetic trees, or in seeking to identify it (or the tree of life) with the sacred plant or branch which appears so noticeably on Chaldean, Assyrian, and Persian monuments. All that clearly appears in this narrative is, that the fruit of a particular tree (or, perhaps, class of trees) was designated as not to be eaten, and the name seems to have been given in anticipation of what would result from eating the forbidden fruit. Its name, therefore, indicated the moral purpose which it served rather than any natural or physical character of the tree itself. The design of the prohibition of this particular fruit was to test man’s moral nature, to develop his love for his Maker by deliberate choice of the good and deliberate rejection of the evil. Thus would he come to distinguish clearly between good and evil by acquiring a godlike permanence in the good, and like steadfast opposition to all evil. By disobedience he came to know good and evil in the Satanic way, becoming experimentally identified with the evil, and thus opposed to God.

The disposition which some have shown to ridicule the literal interpretation of this narrative, and to assume that it was unworthy of God and incompatible with the dignity of man’s original state to make his and his posterity’s happiness depend upon the non-eating of a certain tree, springs from notions of God and of man which are unscriptural. The simplicity, clearness, and positive character of the prohibition are conspicuous marks of its fitness as a moral test. The newly created Adam, with great possibilities, was yet undeveloped and undisciplined. His mental and religious nature, like that of a child, would be best trained by a positive commandment, which rested in the authority of the Creator rather than in the reason of the creature whose love and loyalty were to be tested. Moreover, as food was a natural want of man, the most convenient and suitable form of the first law given for his moral guidance was one in which a broad permission and a single prohibition related to the matter of eating. In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die — Solemn and startling words to be uttered in the bowers of paradise! What all this terrible penalty involved was doubtless a mystery to the man, and no subsequent revelation has fully cleared the awful mystery. The comments of Muller (Christian Doctrine of Sin, vol. ii, page 291, Edinburgh, 1868) furnish an excellent statement of the doctrine of the ancient Scripture: “If we compare the penalty of death threatened Genesis 2:17, with the fulfilment of the sentence after the first transgression, (Genesis 3:16-22,) two things are manifest. On the one hand we find that the death which was to follow the commission of sin included not only physical death, but the various ills that flesh is heir to — the manifold pains and miseries of our earthly lot; and these are represented as resulting from sin, which ends in death. Thus the well known difficulty involved in the word µwyb, in the day, is at once obviated. In the very day of disobedience a life begins which is at the same time a death. It thus appears, too, that when the serpent in his subtlety said to Eve, ‘Ye shall not surely die,’ this was not a bare lie, but a half truth, and therefore a double deception. But, on the other hand, we find by comparing the two passages that physical death is the real kernel and gist of the punishment. For the sentence pronounced concludes with the prophecy of death, making this the most important element, by emphatic repetition; (Genesis 3:19;) and the account of the execution of the sentence lays stress chiefly upon the fact of man’s exclusion from the means of imperishable life.” See Genesis 3:22, 24.

V. 18, 19, 20. It is not good that man-This man, should be alone-Though there was an upper world of angels, and a lower world of brutes, yet there being none of the same rank of beings with himself, he might be truly said to be alone.

And every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air God brought to Adam-Either by the ministry of angels, or by a special instinct that he might name them, and so might give a proof of his knowledge, the names he gave them being expressive of their inmost natures.

Verse 18. It is not good that the man should be alone] wdbl lebaddo; only himself. I will make him a help meet for him; rz[ wdgnk ezer kenegdo, a help, a counterpart of himself, one formed from him, and a perfect resemblance of his person. If the word be rendered scrupulously literally, it signifies one like, or as himself, standing opposite to or before him. And this implies that the woman was to be a perfect resemblance of the man, possessing neither inferiority nor superiority, but being in all things like and equal to himself. As man was made a social creature, it was not proper that he should be alone; for to be alone, i.e. without a matrimonial companion, was not good. Hence we find that celibacy in general is a thing that is not good, whether it be on the side of the man or of the woman. Men may, in opposition to the declaration of God, call this a state of excellence and a state of perfection; but let them remember that the word of God says the reverse.

Verse 18. God said — Had said on the sixth day, when the woman was made. It is not good that man should be alone — Though there was an upper world of angels and lower world of brutes, yet, there being none of the same rank of beings with himself, he might be truly said to be alone. It is not good: it was neither for man’s comfort, who was formed for society, and not for solitude nor for the accomplishment of God’s purpose in the increase of mankind. A help meet for him — wdgnk, chenegdo, a most significant phrase; one as before him, or correspondent to him, his counterpart, suitable to his nature and his need, one like himself in shape, constitution, and disposition, a second self: one to be at hand, or near to him, to converse familiarly with him, to be always ready to succour and comfort him, and whose care and business it should be to please and help him.

18. Not good that the man should be alone — He was designed to be a social being, capable of holding intercourse with other beings like himself, as well as with God and angels. Help meet — Hebrews, I will make for him a helper as over against him, wdgnk, corresponding to him — that is, a suitable companion; one who can assist him in his labours, share his counsels, and reciprocate his feelings.

V. 18, 19, 20. It is not good that man-This man, should be alone-Though there was an upper world of angels, and a lower world of brutes, yet there being none of the same rank of beings with himself, he might be truly said to be alone.

And every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air God brought to Adam-Either by the ministry of angels, or by a special instinct that he might name them, and so might give a proof of his knowledge, the names he gave them being expressive of their inmost natures.

Verse 19. Out of the ground, &c.] Concerning the formation of the different kinds of animals, see the preceding chapter.

Verse 19. God brought all the beasts to Adam — Either by the ministry of angels, or by a special instinct, that he might name them, and so might give a proof of his knowledge, the names he gave them being perfectly descriptive of their inmost nature.

19. Every beast of the field — That is, representative animals of the garden; not, as some would understand, (and thence erect a skeptical objection to the history,) all the genera, species, and individuals of the animal creation of all climates throughout the world. The apparent design of the writer in introducing here this statement of the animals of Paradise was to show that among all these lower orders of animal life there was no proper companion for the man. He gave these several creatures names according to their natures; but for Adam was not found a helper corresponding to him (verse 20) among them all. It required no very long time for God to cause the animals of Paradise to pass before Adam and receive their names from him. This was a very proper prelude to the formation of the woman, for it served to awaken in the man a consciousness of his need of a companion.

V. 18, 19, 20. It is not good that man-This man, should be alone-Though there was an upper world of angels, and a lower world of brutes, yet there being none of the same rank of beings with himself, he might be truly said to be alone.

And every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air God brought to Adam-Either by the ministry of angels, or by a special instinct that he might name them, and so might give a proof of his knowledge, the names he gave them being expressive of their inmost natures.

Verse 20. And Adam gave names to all cattle] Two things God appears to have had in view by causing man to name all the cattle, &c. 1. To show him with what comprehensive powers of mind his Maker had endued him; and 2. To show him that no creature yet formed could make him a suitable companion. And that this twofold purpose was answered we shall shortly see; for,

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

2. Adam was convinced that none of these creatures could be a suitable companion for him, and that therefore he must continue in the state that was not good, or be a farther debtor to the bounty of his Maker; for among all the animals which he had named there was not found a help meet for him. Hence we read, {.... v.21}

20. Adam gave names to all cattle — Adam was the first great scientist. For what is all natural science but a discovery of the objects of nature, observing, discriminating, and giving them names? Adam, by a lofty intuition, and a judgment and inspiration unrivaled by any of his sons, first gave facile expression in names to the qualities of the creatures he observed. “Still we are not to suppose that Adam’s insight into the character of the animals was a perfect comprehension of the secrets of nature; it is rather to be regarded as the pure, simple, lively view of an innocent child full of undeveloped depth of mind.” — Gerlach. And yet we may suppose that he uttered the names by means of a divine impulse acting vigorously on his human powers, and giving them a normal development. “The man sees the animals, and thinks of what they are and how they look; and these thoughts, in themselves already inward words, take the form involuntarily of audible names, which he utters to the beasts.” — Delitzsch. And to this we may add the words of Keil: “The thoughts of Adam with regard to the animals, we are not to regard as the mere results of reflection; but as a deep and direct mental insight into the nature of the animals.”

V. 21, 22. This was done upon the sixth day, as was also the placing of Adam in paradise, though it be here mentioned after an account of the seventh day’s rest: but what was said in general, Genesis 1:27, that God made man male and female is more distinctly related here, God caused the sleep to fall on Adam, and made it a deep sleep, that so the opening of his side might be no grievance to him: while he knows no sin, God will take care he shall feel no pain.

Verse 21. The Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, &c.] This was neither swoon nor ecstasy, but what our translation very properly terms a deep sleep.

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

Verses 21, 22. God caused a deep sleep, &c. — That the opening of his side and the taking away of his rib might be no grievance to him. While he knows no sin, God will take care that he shall feel no pain. The woman was taken out of the man’s side, and not out of a higher or lower part of his body, to show that she is neither to govern nor usurp authority over him, 1 Timothy 2:12.; nor yet to be his slave or servant: but, as his companion, to be treated with kindness; respect, and affection. How significant are all God’s works and actions!

21. Caused a deep sleep to fall — jmdrt, deep sleep, not an ordinary slumber, but a profound sleep in which all self-consciousness was suspended. One of his ribs — Hence the force of the old proverb: The part of which woman was made was not taken from his head, as if she were to be a lord over him, nor from his feet, as if he might tread upon her; but from his side, to show that she was to be his companion and equal.

V. 21, 22. This was done upon the sixth day, as was also the placing of Adam in paradise, though it be here mentioned after an account of the seventh day’s rest: but what was said in general, Genesis 1:27, that God made man male and female is more distinctly related here, God caused the sleep to fall on Adam, and made it a deep sleep, that so the opening of his side might be no grievance to him: while he knows no sin, God will take care he shall feel no pain.

Verses 21, 22. God caused a deep sleep, &c. — That the opening of his side and the taking away of his rib might be no grievance to him. While he knows no sin, God will take care that he shall feel no pain. The woman was taken out of the man’s side, and not out of a higher or lower part of his body, to show that she is neither to govern nor usurp authority over him, 1 Timothy 2:12.; nor yet to be his slave or servant: but, as his companion, to be treated with kindness; respect, and affection. How significant are all God’s works and actions!

22. Made he a woman — Hebrews, Built… the rib which he had taken from the man into a woman. This is a simple statement of fact, and skeptical speculation and jest respecting it are idle and absurd. “The woman was created, not of the dust of the earth, but from a rib of Adam, because she was formed for an inseparable unity and fellowship of life with the man, and the mode of her creation was to lay the actual foundation for the moral ordinance of marriage.” — Keil. Brought her — Not that she was formed at a great distance from him, but as soon as he awoke from his deep sleep, she was brought to his notice, that is, stood before him.

V. 23. And Adam said, this is now bone of my bones-Probably it was revealed to Adam in a vision, when he was asleep, that this lovely creature, now presented to him, was a piece of himself and was to be his companion, and the wife of his covenant-In token of his acceptance of her, he gave her a name, not peculiar to her, but common to her sex; she shall be called woman, Isha, a She-man, differing from man in sex only, not in nature; made of man, and joined to man.

Verse 23. Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, &c.] There is a very delicate and expressive meaning in the original which does not appear in our version. When the different genera of creatures were brought to Adam, that he might assign them their proper names, it is probable that they passed in pairs before him, and as they passed received their names. To this circumstance the words in this place seem to refer. Instead of this now is הפאם זאת zoth happaam, we should render more literally this turn, this creature, which now passes or appears before me, is flesh of my flesh, &c. The creatures that had passed already before him were not suitable to him, and therefore it was said, For Adam there was not a help meet found, Genesis 2:20; but when the woman came, formed out of himself, he felt all that attraction which consanguinity could produce, and at the same time saw that she was in her person and in her mind every way suitable to be his companion. See Parkhurst, sub voce.

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

Verse 23. This is now bone of my bone — Probably it was revealed to Adam in a vision, when he was asleep that this lovely creature, now presented to him, was a piece of himself, and was to be his companion, and the wife of his covenant. In token of his acceptance of her, he gave her a name, not peculiar to her, but common to her sex: she shall be called woman, isha, a she-man, differing from man in sex only, not in nature; made of man, and joined to man.

Ver. 23. Woman, the abbreviate of wombman: so is the etymon of Verstegan, a learned German, who flourished in London more than two centuries ago. The Hebrew Ishah, designates woman-wife, or female. She was made of Adam’s substance, that he might cherish her as his own flesh. What delightful sentiments must have inspired his breast to see the mother of all living sleeping by his side. Milton puts these words into his mouth;— Oh fairest of Creation, last and best

Of all God’s works; creature in whom excelled

Whatever can to sight or thought be formed;

Holy, divine, good, amiable, or sweet.

Awake,

My fairest, my espoused, my latest friend,

Heaven’s last best gift, my ever new delight,

Awake.

23. This is now bone — Hebrews, This — the time — bone of my bones, etc. µ[ph, the time, is here equivalent to the adverb now. Comp. Genesis 30:20. The words are an exclamation, and indicate the joyful surprise with which he recognises this time, after having looked hitherto repeatedly among the lower animals in vain, a suitable companion for himself. Shall be called Woman — He gives her at once her proper name, and he does it by means of the same deep insight into her nature as that by which he named the living creatures of Paradise. Thus now has the sacred writer completed a fuller description of the creation of man, male and female, than it was his design to give in the previous section, Genesis 1:27. That was creation, this formation. See above on verse 7. On the proper name of the woman, see Genesis 3:20.

V. 24. The sabbath and marriage were two ordinances instituted in innocency, the former for the preservation of the church, the latter for the preservation of mankind. It appears by Matthew 19:4,5, that it was God himself who said here, a man must leave all his relations to cleave to his wife; but whether he spake it by Moses or by Adam who spake, Genesis 2:23 is uncertain: It should seem they are the words of Adam in God’s name, laying down this law to all his posterity. The virtue of a divine ordinance, and the bonds of it, are stronger even than those of nature. See how necessary it is that children should take their parents consent with them in their marriage; and how unjust they are to their parents, as well as undutiful, if they marry without it; for they rob them of their right to them, and interest in them, and alienate it to another fraudulently and unnaturally.

Verse 24. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother] There shall be, by the order of God, a more intimate connection formed between the man and woman, than can subsist even between parents and children.

And they shall be one flesh.] These words may be understood in a twofold sense. 1. These two shall be one flesh, shall be considered as one body, having no separate or independent rights, privileges, cares, concerns, &c., each being equally interested in all things that concern the marriage state. 2. These two shall be for the production of one flesh; from their union a posterity shall spring, as exactly resembling themselves as they do each other. Our Lord quotes these words, Matthew 19:5, with some variation from this text: They TWAIN shall be one flesh. So in Mark 10:8. St. Paul quotes in the same way, 1 Corinthians 6:16, and in Ephesians 5:31. The Vulgate Latin, the Septuagint, the Syriac, the Arabic, and the Samaritan, all read the word TWO. That this is the genuine reading I have no doubt. The word שניהם sheneyhem, they two or both of them, was, I suppose, omitted at first from the Hebrew text, by mistake, because it occurs three words after in the following verse, or more probably it originally occurred in Genesis 2:24, and not in Genesis 2:25; and a copyist having found that he had written it twice, in correcting his copy, struck out the word in Genesis 2:24 instead of Genesis 2:25. But of what consequence is it? In the controversy concerning polygamy, it has been made of very great consequence. Without the word, some have contended a man may have as many wives as he chooses, as the terms are indefinite, THEY shall be, &c., but with the word, marriage is restricted. A man can have in legal wedlock but ONE wife at the same time. We have here the first institution of marriage, and we see in it several particulars worthy of our most serious regard. 1. God pronounces the state of celibacy to be a bad state, or, if the reader please, not a good one; and the Lord God said, It is not good for man to be alone. This is GOD’S judgment. Councils, and fathers, and doctors, and synods, have given a different judgment; but on such a subject they are worthy of no attention. The word of God abideth for ever. 2. God made the woman for the man, and thus he has shown us that every son of Adam should be united to a daughter of Eve to the end of the world. See Clarke on “1 Corinthians 7:3”. God made the woman out of the man, to intimate that the closest union, and the most affectionate attachment, should subsist in the matrimonial connection, so that the man should ever consider and treat the woman as a part of himself: and as no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and supports it, so should a man deal with his wife; and on the other hand the woman should consider that the man was not made for her, but that she was made for the man, and derived, under God, her being from him; therefore the wife should see that she reverence her husband, Ephesians 5:33. Genesis 2:23, 24 contain the very words of the marriage ceremony: This is flesh of my flesh, and bone of my bone, therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. How happy must such a state be where God’s institution is properly regarded, where the parties are married, as the apostle expresses it, in the Lord; where each, by acts of the tenderest kindness, lives only to prevent the wishes and contribute in every possible way to the comfort and happiness of the other! Marriage might still be what it was in its original institution, pure and suitable; and in its first exercise, affectionate and happy; but how few such marriages are there to be found! Passion, turbulent and irregular, not religion; custom, founded by these irregularities, not reason; worldly prospects, originating and ending in selfishness and earthly affections, not in spiritual ends, are the grand producing causes of the great majority of matrimonial alliances. How then can such turbid and bitter fountains send forth pure and sweet waters? See the ancient allegory of Cupid and Psyche, by which marriage is so happily illustrated, explained in the notes on Matthew 19:4-6.

Verse 24. The sabbath and marriage were two ordinances instituted in innocence, the former for the preservation of the church, the latter for the preservation of mankind. It appears by Matthew 19:4, 5, that it was God himself who said here, a man must leave all his relations to cleave to his wife; but whether he spake this by Moses or by Adam, is uncertain. The virtue of a divine ordinance, and the bonds of it, are stronger even than those of nature. See how necessary it is that children should take their parents’ consent with them in their marriage; and how unjust those are to their parents, as well as undutiful, who marry without it; for they rob them of their right to them and interest in them, and alienate it to another fraudulently and unnaturally.

Ver. 24. Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife. The woman being flesh and bone of the man before her formation, remains so after marriage. She is his friend, his consort, his wife till death. The marriage covenant had its origin in paradise. Nothing but adultery can fully vitiate it, and nothing but death can dissolve it. Romans 7:1, 2. A man does not divorce his limbs, except when menaced with mortality, and he treats his sight and his hearing with delicacy when they become dull. So he should treat his wife in times of affliction, for she is still the wife of his bosom; and “the Lord hates putting away.”

24. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh — Some interpreters (Delitzsch, Lange) regard these as the words of Adam, spoken as by a prophetic impulse from God; while others (Keil, Gerlach, Turner) regard them as the words of the inspired historian. The latter is the more probable view. In Matthew 19:3-6, Jesus showed from this passage that the marriage tie is most holy and inviolable. Says Otto von Gerlach: “There will be times and circumstances when a man is permitted, nay, is commanded, to leave his father and his mother, but his wife he is never permitted to leave — they both shall be one. This is not said of the woman, because she already, by her marriage, has left father and mother, and become subject to her husband. Here it is not spoken of leaving father and mother for the sake of marrying, but of a leaving after marriage.”

V. 25. They were both naked, they needed no cloaths for defence against cold or heat, for neither could be injurious to them: they needed none for ornament. Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Nay, they needed none for decency, they were naked, and had no reason to be ashamed. They knew not what shame was, so the Chaldee reads it. Blushing is now the colour of virtue, but it was not the colour of innocency.

Verse 25. They were both naked, &c.] The weather was perfectly temperate, and therefore they had no need of clothing, the circumambient air being of the same temperature with their bodies. And as sin had not yet entered into the world, and no part of the human body had been put to any improper use, therefore there was no shame, for shame can only arise from a consciousness of sinful or irregular conduct.

EVEN in a state of innocence, when all was perfection and excellence, when God was clearly discovered in all his works, every place being his temple, every moment a time of worship, and every object an incitement to religious reverence and adoration-even then, God chose to consecrate a seventh part of time to his more especial worship, and to hallow it unto his own service by a perpetual decree. Who then shall dare to reverse this order of God? Had the religious observance of the Sabbath been never proclaimed till the proclamation of the law on Mount Sinai, then it might have been conjectured that this, like several other ordinances, was a shadow which must pass away with that dispensation; neither extending to future ages, nor binding on any other people. But this was not so. God gave the Sabbath, his first ordinance, to man, (see the first precept, Genesis 2:17,) while all the nations of the world were seminally included in him, and while he stood the father and representative of the whole human race; therefore the Sabbath is not for one nation, for one time, or for one place. It is the fair type of heaven’s eternal day-of the state of endless blessedness and glory, where human souls, having fully regained the Divine image, and become united to the Centre and Source of all perfection and excellence, shall rest in God, unutterably happy through the immeasurable progress of duration! Of this consummation every returning Sabbath should at once be a type, a remembrancer, and a foretaste, to every pious mind; and these it must be to all who are taught of God. Of this rest, the garden of Eden, that paradise of God formed for man, appears also to have been a type and pledge; and the institution of marriage, the cause, bond, and cement of the social state, was probably designed to prefigure that harmony, order, and blessedness which must reign in the kingdom of God, of which the condition of our first parents in the garden of paradise is justly supposed to have been an expressive emblem. What a pity that this heavenly institution should have ever been perverted! that, instead of becoming a sovereign help to all, it is now, through its prostitution to animal and secular purposes, become the destroyer of millions! Reader, every connection thou formest in life will have a strong and sovereign influence on thy future destiny. Beware! an unholy cause, which from its peculiar nature must be ceaselessly active in every muscle, nerve, and passion, cannot fail to produce incessant effects of sin, misery, death, and perdition. Remember that thy earthly connections, no matter of what kind, are not formed merely for time, whatsoever thou mayest intend, but also for eternity. With what caution there fore shouldst thou take every step in the path of life! On this ground, the observations made in the preceding notes are seriously recommended to thy consideration.

GENESIS

Verse 25. They were both naked — They needed no clothes for defence against cold or heat, for neither could be injurious to them: they needed none for ornament. Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Nay, they needed none for decency: they were naked, and had no reason to be ashamed. They knew not what shame was, so the Chaldee reads it. Blushing is now the colour of virtue, but it was not the colour of innocence.

25. Not ashamed — For where there is no sin, but a heavenly consciousness of perfect innocence, there can be no sense of shame. EXCURSUS ON PRIMEVAL MAN.

The foregoing narrative of the beginning of human history is singularly simple and free from numerous characteristics of the myths and legends of other nations, as well as from their pantheistic and polytheistic conceptions. “According to the ideas commonly prevailing among the peoples of antiquity,” says Lenormant, “man is regarded as autochthonous, or issued from the earth which bears him. Rarely, in the accounts which treat of his first appearance, do we discover a trace of the notion which supposes him to be created by the omnipotent operation of a deity, who is personal and distinct from primordial matter. The fundamental concepts of pantheism and emanatism, upon which were based the learned and proud religions of the ancient world, made it possible to leave in a state of vague uncertainty the origin and production of men. They were looked upon, in common with all things, as having sprung from the very substance of the divinity, which was confounded with the world; this coming forth had been a spontaneous action, through the development of the chain of emanations, and not the result of a free and determinate act of creative will, and there was very little anxiety shown to define, otherwise than under a symbolical and mythological form, the manner of that emanation which took place by a veritable act of spontaneous generation.” — Beginnings of History, p. 47. Which, now, is the more reasonable and probable hypothesis, that this biblical account of man’s origin is the true and genuine tradition of the most ancient times — of which the legends of other nations are the degenerate outgrowths, mixed with various pantheistic and polytheistic notions — or, that the ethnic myths are the source of this unique theistic record, which was compiled by some ancient sage who aimed to purge the floating traditions of their heathenish features, and to express them in consistency with the doctrine of a personal God? In other words, is this narrative a development out of pantheistic myths, or are the myths and legends a perversion of the true account of man’s origin, of which this biblical record is the most ancient historic monument?

The answer to this question will be mainly governed by the belief or non-belief in the existence of a personal God, who is concerned with man and with all things of this world. The doctrine of the Omnipotent and Omniscient Deity is the logical basis of all belief in the supernatural creation of man, and that belief is of the nature of an intuition rather than the result of any process of reason.

Accepting, therefore, as we do, the Scripture doctrine of the personal God and Father of us all, we also believe that these Scriptures contain his own revelation of the beginning of human history. Portions of the record may be regarded as symbolical or parabolic in form, from the necessity of thus accommodating the record to the capacity of man’s understanding. The anthropomorphism of these ancient narratives, far from being a ground for discrediting them, is rather a mark of their genuineness. The concept of creation must be given, if given at all, in harmony with human modes of thought and feeling. The central fact revealed is, that God produced man partly from the earth and partly from himself — his body from the dust, his soul from the divine breath. All we can comprehend is, the idea that he was formed by Him who had all power in heaven and earth. As no man can tell how Jesus made the water wine, so can no man tell how God made dust and breath into a living soul, or how he builded the man’s rib into a woman. The great fact revealed is, that “Adam was first formed, then Eve,” and “the man is not of (or from) the woman, but the woman of the man.” 1 Timothy 2:13; 1 Corinthians 11:8. Accepting this great fact as matter of divine revelation, we of course reject the evolution hypothesis of a naturalistic development of man from some extinct race of pithecoids, like the gorilla or the orang-outang. We reject this hypothesis, not only because it seems in conflict with the biblical narrative, but also because its main positions do not commend themselves. In such a struggle for existence as the current doctrines of evolution assume, we would naturally suppose that the terrible gorilla, according to all known analogy, would develop into a still more ferocious animal. The struggle with a cold climate after the glacial era, and with the mighty animals of that period, would certainly seem to have produced something very diverse from the tender skin and comparatively frail mechanism which the genus homo everywhere presents to our observation. By what process of “natural selection” a ferocious orang-outang, fighting for existence, would come to lose his thick hairy hide, strong jaws, and sharp claws, is more than we can rationally conceive. But it appears, rather, that the apes are man’s contemporaries, not his predecessors. If allied at all by flesh and blood they are man’s cousins, or brothers, not his ancestors. The Darwinian theory of evolution must fill up many wide gaps before it can be accepted as accounting for the origin of man. The distance between man and the most highly developed monkey yet discovered is immensely great. “Zoologically,” says Dawson, “apes are not varieties of the same species with man; they are not species of the same genus, nor do they belong to genera of the same family, or even to families of the same order.” Nor should we forget that the regions most favourable for apes are least favourable for human life. A great gulf lies between the low animal nature of the ape, or of any other beast, and the reasoning moral nature of man. Another gap which Darwinians have not been able to bridge is, that between any two species of animals. Great varieties of species appear, but no real transmutation of species has yet been shown. Another gap back of these is, that which separates vegetable and animal life; and even if this were covered, there would be another, still broader, between any living thing and inert matter.

The notion that man was originally a savage, and elevated himself into civilization by the pressure of his own necessities, is also destitute of any evidence that commends it to the thoughtful mind. The most ancient nations of which we have any trustworthy history were highly civilized. Witness the monuments along the Euphrates and the Nile. There is no shadow of proof that these nations raised themselves out of a previous barbarism. On the other hand, it is well known that tribes and colonies, once separated from a civilized state, have deteriorated, and become savage and barbarous. Indo-European philology enables us to trace many a rude western people to an oriental source. “Within a century or two,” writes Whedon, “a large number of Caucasians excluded by slavery from a suitable place in the social system, have, even within hailing distance of what claimed to be a high civilization, changed in color, diminished in size, and forgotten letters, mechanic arts, and religion.” But no one can point as a matter of fact to a single savage tribe which became civilized and enlightened otherwise than by coming in contact with other and higher forms of civil life. Only moral forces, connected with an elevating form of religion, have lifted savage men up to higher modes of life. Left to themselves they sink lower and lower. Geology, also, sustains the doctrine of degeneracy in types of life. According to Dawson, the laws of creation, as illustrated by the record of the rocks, are these: “First, that there has been a progress in creation from few, low, and generalized types of life to more numerous, higher, and more specialized types; and, secondly, that every type, low or high, was introduced at first in its best and highest form, and was, as a type, subject to degeneracy, and to partial or total replacement by higher types subsequently introduced. In geological times,” he adds, “the tendency seems to be ever to disintegration and decay. This we see everywhere, and find that elevation occurs only by the introduction of new species in a way which is not obvious, and which may rather imply the intervention of a cause from without.” — Story of the Earth and Man, p. 235.

Some modern writers have fallen into the habit of using the terms “stone age,” “bronze age,” and “iron age,” as if the entire human race had developed in civilization according as they had used implements of these various qualities. Rude tribes, indeed, naturally make use of stone from ignorance of the manufacture of better material. But to assume that nations, or races, or mankind generally, have passed by regular gradations from a stone age to a bronze age, and from a bronze age to an iron age, is utterly fallacious and misleading. Other circumstances than those of savagery and ignorance may oblige a people to use stone or wooden implements. Compare Judges 5:8, and 1 Samuel 13:19-22. Nothing is better known than that some tribes have employed stone utensils at the same time that others have used brass and iron. In the old Chaldean tombs flint, bronze, and iron implements are found mingled together. In Xerxes’s great army were found all sorts of weapons made of wood, bone, flint, bronze, and iron. In the trenches of Alesia, where Caesar fought his last battle with the Gauls, stone, bronze, and iron weapons were mixed together in one promiscuous bed. Schliemann’s excavations on the site of ancient Troy discovered stone and bronze in the lowest relic bed, representing, as he thinks, an age anterior to the Homeric Troy. Above this was another bed in which the relics were stone and bronze; and in another, still higher and more modern, he found no traces of metal at all. But in a fourth and later bed, stone and bronze again appeared. Here, it would seem, two bronze ages preceded a stone age, and then followed another age of bronze. While, therefore, the use of stone, bronze, or iron may serve to indicate the degree of civilization to which a people has attained, it can furnish no evidence of the age of man on earth, or of his primitive condition.

From all the confusing speculations of those who, from most meagre data, rush to the conclusion that primeval man was a rude savage, self-evolved from a still more savage brute, we turn with inexpressible satisfaction to the ancient Scripture doctrine that “God created man in his own image.” He did not first involve him in savagery in order that he might evolve himself into a higher life, but he made him upright, and gave him “dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” That first period was his golden age, and afterward he “corrupted his way” upon the earth. This biblical account of man’s primitive condition and subsequent degeneracy is confirmed by the traditions of many nations, and is entirely compatible with reason and all the well-established facts of human history. This unique account we do well to accept until it is clearly shown to be false, and something better and more rational is given us in its stead. As to the perfection, mental capacity, and knowledge of the first man, speculation is idle, and extreme views are to be avoided. While we may well hesitate to believe, with Knapp, that at the time of his first consciousness he was as destitute of ideas as a new born child, we should also repudiate such extravagant assumptions as those of Dr. South, who says of Adam, that “he came into the world a philosopher; he could perceive the essences of things in themselves, and read forms without the comment of their respective properties; he could see consequences yet dormant in their principles, and effects yet unborn, and in the womb of their causes; his understanding could almost pierce into future contingents; his conjecture improving even to prophecy, or the certainties of prediction. Could any difficulty have been proposed, the resolution would have been as early as the proposal; it could not have had time to settle into doubt.” — Sermons, vol. i, pp. 24, 25. This is being “wise above what is written.” It is sufficient to know that man’s original estate was one which his divine Creator pronounced VERY GOOD.

In marked contrast with all the cosmogonies and traditions of other nations are the doctrines of these first two chapters of Genesis. Aside from any special significance in the names Elohim and Jehovah, we legitimately deduce from this record of creation the doctrine of an infinite God, a personal Creator, an all-sufficient First Cause, almighty, wise, good, condescending to the tenderest care for his creatures; a God of order, of law, of righteousness and holiness. He is a self-revealing Spirit and communicates instruction to his created intelligences. Here, also, is the doctrine of man created in the image of God, good, upright, in a state of perfect innocence, with unspeakable possibilities before him. He is the lord of the lower creations, but is himself under law. The woman is his fitting companion, and the marriage relation is to be regarded as sacred, and even more binding than other ties of human kinship. The spiritual nature of man is emphasized; he is a moral being, capable of acquiring great wisdom, and also capable of sin. The animate and inanimate creation, the land, the heavens, the sun and moon and stars are all God’s work. To sum all up in a word, here we read the doctrines of a lofty Theism and a rational and ennobling Anthropology.