Genesis 2

(Genesis 2)ver. 1—3. The first Sabbath.—The great Creator, (Genesis 2)ver. 1. Thus.—So the particle vau may Ver. 3. God created and made.—English margin, “created to make.” This is but it might, with equal propriety, be rendered now, and frequently is so. Since, then, says, Henry “‘the extraction of the soul is so noble, let us not be of the number of those who, by refusing (divine) instruction, show that they despise their own souls. Ver. 8—17. Paradise described.—Much learned inquiry has been spent to ascertain the situation of Paradise, to which, no doubt, the description of Moses was a sufficient key when he wrote, if not now. It has been placed in Syria, in Chaldea and in Armenia; but the latest, and perhaps the best supported hypothesis, is that which places it in the district of Bamiyan, in the neighbourhood of Mount Caucasus.

It is in vain, however, to look for a Paradise on earth since the fall; nor is it necessary, since we are directed to a better country, where the tree of life grows more abundantly, and bears better fruit. ((Revelation 21:18-22).) But as whatever God has revealed becomes a proper subject of our attention, we may with piety inquire into the design of this garden, and its very remarkable furniture.: 1. Adam was placed in the garden of Eden, which evidently means pleasure or delights; and it was situated eastward of the country in which Moses wrote, and probably in one of the situations already named. But, as Bishop Horne and others argue, it was also probably a garden of instruction as well as pleasure; pointing out the nature of Adam’s situation, as in a state of probation, and the reward of his obedience.

In this garden grew every tree that was “pleasant to the sight and good for food, and a tree of life,” for man was not to live without food: “and in the midst of the garden, also, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” So Dr. Kennicott reads the text, by a slight correction in the pointing, which preserves the distinctive character of the tree of knowledge: ‘Of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat,” &c. ((Genesis 3:3).) The latter tree was doubtless so called, because it was the test of man’s obedience, and would produce good or evil, happiness or misery, according as he regarded or disobeyed the prohibition. Whether there was any thing in the nature of this tree to effect the evil it threatened, is not expressly said; but it is very possible, and very analogous to the course of divine providence, to suppose that sin should produce its own 2.

Adam was placed in paradise ‘to dress it and to keep it.” We have no reason to believe the ground required laborious cultivation, as at present, but, on the other hand, from the luxuriance of vegetation, it might require more dressing and trimming than even now. He was also to keep this elegant and consecrated spot from the trespasses of those animals which (though not yet ferocious) might not be suitable inhabitants for gardens, but especially for such a garden. Thus man, from his first creation, was taught to abhor idleness. 3. The covenant God made with Adam in paradise. Here we must be cautioned against supposing any thing like a bargain between the Creator and the creature. God’s covenants are dispensations of benevolence or of mercy; enjoining obedience, and promising reward: man’s part was only to obey, and thankfully to acknowledge the blessing, which, after the fall, was done by sacrificing.

The condition here was, the refraining from one particular tree, while of all the others he might eat without restraint. And this restraint was laid on man merely as a test of implicit obedience, when he had every ground to believe, that there must be wise reasons for a prohibition guarded with so severe a penalty. Ver. 18—25. The naming of animals, and formation of Eve.—The former may very naturally be supposed a work requiring some time and attention, as the Hebrew names are allowed to be striking and appropriate; some, particularly of [the] logue; nor perhaps when she “did eat,” or he might have interceded; but she, having been herself seduced, now tempts her husband, “and nz pi B£AT;” and by eating ** Of that forbidden tree,: Brought death into the world, and all our woe.”—Milton.

Ver. 7-13. The consequences of the fall.—It is fruitless to inquire what might have been the effect as to us, if Eve only had eaten of the forbidden fruit, and not Adam, for it was with him alone that the first covenant was made; but infinite Wisdom foreseeing all consequences—“the end from the beginning”—provides accordingly. ‘‘Adam was not deceived,” as St. Paul assures us, and himself confesses; “but the woman,” being the weaker vessel, she “was deceived,” and transgressed. ((1 Timothy 2:14).) But what were the consequences?—The eyes of them both were opened.” Whether the fruit of this tree had any power of creating irregular sensations, we know not; but certainly, though “their eyes were opened,” their minds were much confused.

1. “They were ashamed”—not of having been so ungrateful to God, or so credulous to the ser- «see but of being seen by their Maker in the state in which he had formed them! And then they attempt to hide themselves from the eye of Omniscience among the trees; or, still more ridiculous! by a few leaves sewed or plaited together as aprons or girdles. How nearly allied are sin and folly! So much is sin against our own interest, that the greatest sinner is always the greatest fool.:: “They heard the voice of the Lord God walking.” From this it has been inferred, that the Deity in communion with Adam, assumed a human form; but this is not certain; the term *walking” is elsewhere used by Moses, in reference to sound only, as at Sinai, (Exodus xix.

19.) the voice waxing louder, appeared to come nearer. Perhaps it was a voice of tempest and of thunder, like that which was addressed to our Lord when he was upon earth, and the Jews said it thundered; ((John 12:29).) and thunder is often in scripture called “the «voice of God.” (See (Psalms 29:3-5).) But the Hebrew reads, literally as in the margin, “in the wind of the day;” and we know that “God walks upon the wings of the wind,” and “makes the clouds his chariot.” ((Psalms 104:3).) We need not wonder, therefore, that our first parents attempted to fly the divine presence, however vain and silly the attempt. And, t. Hear now the momentous inquiry—‘Adam, where art thou?’ And we may observe, that when God makes inquiries of his creatures, it is not for his information but for ours.

It is important often to put such inquiries to ourselves—Where am I? and what am I about? If we were thus to judge ourselves, we should “not be judged,” at least not condemned. ((1 Corinthians 11:31).)—2. The sure consequences of guilt are fear and shame: “I was afraid, because I was naked;” and thus fear and shame often betray our guilt as they did Adam’s.—3. Remark his vain subterfuge, “I hid myself.” So guilty children hide themselves, by placing their hands before their eyes. Alas! that man should ever think of hiding himself among a few trees, when, if even rocks and mountains were to fall upon us, they could not screen us from the All-seeing Eye. ((Revelation 6:15-16).) Lastly, our unhappy first parent is brought to convict himself: yet his confession is not candid and ingenuous, but equivocating and reluctant.

“I did eat,’ which should have been his first words, are placed last, and preceded by an apology which only aggravated the crime, “‘The woman that THou didst give me!’ But she was given for a help meet, and not a tempter. This was ungrateful to his Maker, thus to throw back in his face his greatest earthly gift—it was ungenerous and unkind to her, as she was the weaker vessel. “She gave me!’ But it was his office to control, and not to obey: the man was the head of the woman, not the woman of the man. And supposing that she fell before he came to the fatal scene, he should rather have been her advocate and apologist, than her accuser. “She gave me”’—then he should have refused, and not have joined her in the transgression.

But why did Adam eat? He was not deceived. He must have instantly perceived she had done wrong, and the only apology offered by him was an aggravation of his crime—he “loved the creature more than the Creator,’ which was the great source of idolatry from the beginning. ((Romans 1:25).) But the woman is now called, and she also, (such is the nature of sin!) wishing to shift the fault from herself, throws it upon the serpent. ‘The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.” “Sin (says Henry) is a brat that nobody is willing to own…. Those that are willing enough to take the pleasure and also sin, are backward enough to take the blame and shame of it. 3 Ver. 14—19. ‘The offenders sentenced. cWe may here observe, that though the serpent was the last accused, he was the first condemned: in fact, the old serpent himself had been con-

Notes on the verses

Ver. 2. On the seventh day God ended.—The Samaritan text with the LXX. and Syriac versions, read, ‘On the sixth day.” (Kennicott.) But many critics prefer the present text, rendering it, ‘God had ended;” or, as Ainsworth, ‘had finished:” both amount to the same meaning as the above version. [Rested, or, rather, ceased, as the Hebrew word is not opposed to weariness, but to action; as the Divine Being can neither know fatigue, nor stand in need of rest.]—Bagster. It has been often asked, whether the formation of angels, of whom we read frequently in the Scriptures, formed any part of the six days’ creation and if so, of which? But the most judicious commentators seem to think with Dr. John Edwards, ‘‘that Moses designed not to include the creation “of angels”

in this account. Evidency of the Scrip. Nor does this appear to be a modern idea; for when the Emperor Julian asked why nothing is said of the creation of angelic spirits, and of the invisible world? Cyril of Alexandrian asked in reply, ‘What occasion is there for us to be informed respecting the history of things, of which we could form no just conception?’ Biblio. Biblica. That, however, angels were previously created, we may infer from the following texts. 1. Man was made “a little lower than the angels.” (Psalms 8:5). Angels, therefore, previously existed. 2. In the passage above quoted, “the morning stars” and ‘the sons of God,” who could be no other than angels, praised God on the occasion.

See Doddridge’s Lect. generally considered as a Hebrew pleonasm; but Parkhurst renders it, “which God created to act:” i.e. to actuate the vast machinery of nature. Hervey explains it to mean, “the production of a continued succession of animals, vegetables,” &c. by means of the “prolific instruments and principles” now established. Ver. 4. In the day.—i.e. time: for other instances of this larger use of the term day, see also (Psalms 37:13). (Hebrews 3:11). (Revelation 5)xviii 8. This was the day of creation; so we read also of the day of affliction and of death; day of redemption, salvation, and of judgment. See also Johnson’s larger The Lord God.—JEHOVAH, (or as the Jews pronounce it, Yehovah) was the distinctive proper name of the God of Israel.

Hence Jovis Pater, or Father Jove, afterwards corrupted to Jupiter. Ver. 6. A mist.—The Hebrew word aid, is evidently used for “a flood,” like the flood of Egypt. (Amos 8:8). So the LXX., Aquila, Jerome, &c. which idea is adopted by Dr. Boothroyd, Dr. Geddes, and C. Taylor, the editor of Calmet, Ver. 7. Dust.—Margin, “Dust or Mould.” Some moderns explain this of the “minute corpuscles of elementary bodies,” which savours too much of modern science. Moses, probably, meant only to state our humble origin.—The critics divide the chapters here, and begin (Genesis 2)with the verse 10. Ver. 8. The last hypothesis as to the situation of paradise, is that of Major Wilford, first published in ‘the Asiatic Researches,”

of which large extracts are given by C. Taylor, in his ‘‘Scripture illustrated.” Here the Major finds rivers, &c. exactly answering the description of Moses, except the names, which he supposes to be appellatives, Ver. 9. Dr. Kennicott labours, with much ingenuity, to prove that the tree of life was not a single tree, but a species; and it is remarkable that Ezekiel speaks of ‘‘very many trees on one side (the river) and on the other;—that they are all trees for meat (food); whose leaf shall not fade;” and ‘‘it shall bring forth new fruit according to its months, (i.e. monthly;) and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine.” Ezekiel xlvii. 7—12. Compare St. John’s account of ‘the tree of life on either side of the river in the New Jerusalem.”

(Revelation 22:2). And see Dr. Kennicott’s Dissertation on the Tree of Life. [Pison: the Phasis, a river of Cholchis, emptying itself into the Euxine sea, where there is a city called Chabala.]—Bagster. Ver. 12. Bdellium (pronounced Dellium.)—The pearl oyster, according to Bochart and Dr. Clarke, [Bdellium is a transparent aromatic gum; but the Hebrew word probably denotes either pearl or crystal. ‘The onyx is a precious stone, so called from a Greek word signifying a man’s nail, to the colour of which it nearly approaches.]—Bagster Ver. 13. [Gihon: the Araxes, which runs into the Caspian sea: both words denote rapidity.]—Bagster. Ethiopia.—Hebrew and English margin, Cush; but there are four countries which bear this name in Scripture, from the sons of Cush having at different times changed their residence.

If we adopt the hypothesis of Major Wilford, this must be Balk, or Bactria. See (Genesis 10:7-8).5 and Taylor’s Map of Paradise. Ver. 14. Hiddekel: the Tigris.—Bagster. Ver. 17. Shalt not eat of it.—Many have speculated upon the species of this tree, but as it was a single tree, and paradise was, after the fall, shut up for ever, the probability is, that its existence was neither preserved nor perpetuated. All inquiries are therefore useless… Thew shalt surely die.—Hebrew and English margin, ‘In dying thou shalt die.” The LXX. render it, ‘‘Thou shalt die the death.”” What that meant, will be best seen in the sequel. See on (Genesis 3:19). Ver. 18. A help meet.—Margin, ‘‘A help as before him;” i.

e. a female, as in the animals he saw before him. Parkhurst. ‘A counterpart,” says Hutchinson, very properly; one that shall supply all his wants. 2 Ver. 21. A deep sleep.—The LXX. render this an ecstasy; and some have ingeniously imagined, that in his sleep Adam might have a view of Eve, and such information as prepared him to say, ‘This is now bone of my bone,” &c. See Taylor’s Expos. Index. Took one of his ribs.—From this, some have supposed that Adam had been furnished with an extra rib for this purpose at his creation; but this is all conjecture: God is never at a loss for means to accomplish his designs, though they may not always be approved by man. re = Ver. 22. Made he woman.—The Hebrew term, as the margin intimates, signifies builded; a hint honourable to the female sex.

Man was formed like clay in the hands of the potter; but she who was to build up his house, had the honour to be built up by God. Ver. 23. She shall be called woman.—The Hebrew name is the feminine, not of Adam, but of Ish—man; denominated, not from his origin, but his sex, male; whence Ishah, which we render woman, is the female, the feminine of male. The same word is rendered wife in the next verse, and the terms are used interchangeably throughout the Scriptures. pot Ver. 24. Therefore.—Because she is nearer to man than any other relation of life. She is part of man; “his counterpart;” the partner of his heart. These are evidently not the words of Adam, but of Moses; and as he wrote by inspiration, therefore, our Lord cites them as the words of God, (Matthew 19:5). (Mark 10:7) But he quotes a word not now in the Hebrew text; “They TWAIN (or two) shall be one flesh.” The same passage with the word in question, is twice referred to by St. Paul, (1 Corinthians 6:16). (Ephesians 5:31), and it is remarkable, that though dropped in the Hebrew, it is still found in “the Vulgate, the LXX., the Syriac, the Arabic and the Sami Dr. A. Clarke 16 Chap. III. Ver. 1. The term Nachash, here used for serpent, does not mark the species, for it is applied not only to land and sea serpents, but also to the fiery serpents in the wilderness. ((Numbers 21:7).) [Serpent: the Samaritan copy, instead of nachash, ‘a serpent,’ reads cachash, ‘a liar, or deceiver,’ which is in harmony with the language of our Saviour.

(John 8:44).]— Bagster. But two or three circumstances may be inferred from it. 1. From its derivation we infer its subtlety and keenness: ‘a serpent’s eye’? was proverbial among the Greeks for keenness, penetration, and fascination: hence Minachesh ((Deuteronomy 18:10).) is an augur, particularly by means of serpents; and hence Balaam practised enchantments, probably of this nature. (See (Numbers 24:1). in Heb.) 2. The noun feminine is used for native brass, i.e. copper; and many serpents are said to resemble this metal in their colour. (Parkhurst.) Taylor also tells us of the Najah, (or spectacled serpent,) that in the sun its scales glitter like “the most resplendent gold;” and other serpents there are most beautifully variegated.

(Calmet, Naturas Hist.) So Milton describes this serpent, “With burnish’d neck of verdant gold.”—Par. Lost, ix. 501. Yet it any wonder that such a creature, and harmless, (as all the creatures were also in paradise) should attract the attention of a woman? But, 3. It was naked: for the word rendered ‘‘more subtle,” is literally ‘more naked,” being the same that is used in the preceding verse for the nakedness of our first parents: (and the reader should bear in mind that the division of chapters is a modern invention.) Now Eve could not but observe, that the cattle were clothed with hair, and birds with feathers; but here was a creature, like herself, without either, and with a skin exquisitely beautiful.

If it should be objected that serpents have scales, so have we, as the microscope demonstrates; and the scales of some serpents may be as little perceptible to the naked eye as ours. It was then the beauty of the serpent that first attracted Eve’s notice. Ver. 4, The serpent said.—It may seem strange that the woman was not startled when she first heard the serpent speak; but, in this early stage of her life, it is possible that she might not know that speech was wholly confined to man. Milton, however, supposes, that the wily serpent made this circumstance an argument in his favour, pretending that it was the fruit of this forbidden tree that had endowed him both with speech and reason. Par.

Lost. b, ix. J. 680, &c. Ver. 7, Eyes were opened.—Eyes of their mind and conscience, to see and feel their guilt: for they had been deluded, thus blinded by the subtlety of the serpent. There is no evidence that they had lost their natural vision. They sewed.—The word means simply fastened together, and here, by twisting or plaiting Aprons, The margin is literally, “things to gird about;” girdles. As the leaves of this tree were broad and near at hand, they formed the most natural covering of their nakedness. Ver. 8. Walking.—In (Exodus 19:19). this is rendered “waxed louder and Pirie further remarks, that God “answered Job out of the whirl- See also (1 Chronicles 14:15). (Ezekiel 1:4), (Acts 21)

2. wind,” (Genesis 38:1). Pirie’s Works. i Ver. 1. Dr. Kennicott translates this verse more literally, and with more spirit. | What! of the tree which I commanded thee not to eat, hast thou Ver. 14. Most remarkable, as relates to this subject, is a tradition still prevalent among the Hindoos. They relate that the god Creeshna, when incarnate, had a terrible conflict with Kalli-naga, the black serpent with a thousand heads, and after being supposed destroyed, at length triumphed over him, and taking his heads one by one, tore them from his body, and casting them at his feet, trampled and danced on them. Another representation, founded on the same tradition, describes Creeshna as treading on the serpent, which at the same time bites his heel.

No worshipper of Vishnu, of any distinction, is without an image of this, in gold, silver, or copper.—Maurice’s Hist. of Hindostan. Similar traditions may be traced in other ancient nations. See Burder’s Oriental Customs. To the same source must be attributed the worship of serpents among the Egyptians and other ancient nations: (see Gill on (Genesis 3:1).) and even the devil-worship among the Negroes, who worship him that he may not hurt them. Hence, also, were serpents considered sacred, a curious instance of which occurred in the close of the seventeenth century. A hog, which had by some means killed and swallowed one of these favourite reptiles, in the country of the Widahs, so provoked them, that the marduks (or priests) procured a general slaughter of the swine; and if the king had not loved pork, a hog had not been left in Widah.

See Hist. of Jamaica. Ver. 15. “It,” or rather “He.”—So Ainsworth and Dr. Boothroyd. See also Poli Synop. in loc.; the Assembly’s Annotations, and Dr. A. Clarke’s Comment. The word Zara (seed) is singular, and agrees in gender with this pronoun. And St. Paul teaches us to apply it primarily to Christ. Gal. iii, 16. Ver. 16. Multiplying, will multiply.—The same Hebrew form of expression as is used (Genesis 2:17). ‘‘Dying thou shalt die;” and if we render that properly, it should seem this should be rendered in like manner; “I will surely multiply thy sorrow and thy conception.” It does not appear, however, that fertility was meant as a punishment; but, by a figure in rhetoric, (called Hendiadis) two substantives are here used for a substantive and an adjective; as we should say, ‘‘thy sorrowful conception.”

A figure frequently made use of (says Dr. Kennicott) in sacred as well as profane authors.” Ver. 18. Thorns and thistles shall it (the ground) bring forth.—These, as Dr. Lardner observes, are not now to be supposed newly created; but, like the woman’s sorrow in conception, were to be “greatly multiplied.” So we have a familiar proverb, that “ill weeds grow apace.”