Genesis Chapter 2 Commentary by Mark Dunagan

Genesis Chapter 2

Outline

I.

The Seventh Day: 2:1-3

II.

Man in the Garden: 2:4-25 A. The description of the Garden: 2:8-14 B. Man's task/obligations: 2:15-17 C. Man's loneliness: 2:18-20 D. The creation of Woman: 2:21-25

Derek Kidner observes, “The creation story has stood as a bulwark against a succession of fashionable errors--polytheism, dualism, the eternity of matter, the evil of matter, astrology--and not least, against every tendency to empty human history of meaning. It resists this nihilism explicitly, in displaying man as God's image and regent…If every generation has needed this emphasis, perhaps none has had greater need of it than the age of scientific knowledge. The scientific account of the universe...overwhelms us with statistics that reduce our apparent significance to vanishing-point...The second point may seem more weighty. If the ‘days’ were not days at all, would God have countenanced the word? Does He

1

trade in inaccuracies, however edifying?” (pp. 57-58).

The Seventh Day Genesis 2:1 “And the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them” “Finished”: “The point made by this verb is that the universe is no longer in a process of being created. What Genesis 1 allows for is not additional creation but procreation and self-perpetuation” (Hamilton p. 142). Compare with 1:11-12; 22 “be fruitful and multiply”; 1:28. Morris notes, “It is vitally important for man to realize that the present processes of the cosmos are not processes of creating and making, and therefore it would forever be impossible for him to understand about the origin of things apart from divine revelation. Both the ancient pagan evolutionists and the modern ‘scientific’ evolutionists continue over and over to repeat this same ‘folly’, trying to explain the origin and basic meaning of things in terms of a selfcontained, closed universe...The present processes of the universe are, without exception, processes of conservation and disintegration, as formulated in the two universal Laws of Thermodynamics. The processes of the creation period, on the other hand, were processes of innovation and integration” (pp. 80-81). Very simply, his point is that God ceased creating. The present natural processes of this planet didn't bring this planet into existence and neither did they form it or create life upon it. All present physical processes are governed by the Laws which God put into place after He created this world.

“This expression in 2:1 also implies that the created world came into being as a fully developed whole, as a finished product. God's creative power did not merely produce a phenomenon with vast possibilities and potentials, which, in turn, would develop in the course of eons of time (i.e. theistic evolution). The world was finished, complete, a product of God's workmanship that was fully done” (Aalders p. 74). See 1:11-12; 20; 28-30; 14-18. The word "finished" infers that creation has ceased, no new matter is being introduced into the universe. This agrees perfectly with the First Law of Thermodynamics...”Which tates that although energy can change forms it cannot be either created or destroyed and therefore the sum total of energy remains constant...Therefore, no energy is now being created or destroyed anywhere in the universe. This in turns leads to the conclusion that when energy

2

was originally created the processes of creation must have been entirely different than those now being observed”. 1 “And all the host of them”: Probably meaning everything contained in heaven and on earth. “The entire organized world” (Aalders p. 74). “The total made up of the various component parts in the planned design of creation” (Hamilton p. 141).

Genesis 2:2 “And on the seventh day God finished His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made” “Rested”: Not because He was tired (Isaiah 40:28). Rather the word "rested" means that God ceased the process of creating. Jesus pointed out that the Father has been continually "working" since creation (John 5:17). “Work”: Hamilton points out that the Hebrew word here means, “skilled labor, work that is performed by a craftsman or an artisan. Such is the measure of the finesse and professional skills of God's work” (p. 142). “Historians are puzzled to know who invented the sevenday week. It does not fit exactly into the solar year of 365 1/4 days nor into the moon-month of 29 days. Where did it come from? The simplest answer is--from God” (Watson p. 48).

Genesis 2:3 “And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; because that in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made” “Blessed and hallowed it”: Various religious groups (such as the Adventists) argue that the commandment to observe the Sabbath Day has been from the beginning and therefore is an eternal commandment which is binding upon mankind. In response: (a) Leupold rightly observes from Genesis 2:3, “it should be well observed that no commandment is laid upon mankind at this point” (p.

103). (b) None of the godly individuals in Genesis are said to have observed the Sabbath Day. (c) Israel had to be taught about the Sabbath Day, which seems somewhat strange if all the godly from Creation had been observing it (Exodus 16:22-30). (d) The Bible is very clear, that the Sabbath Day was made "known" to Israel at Mt. Sinai (Nehemiah 9:13-14). (e) The Sabbath Day was a reminder of the bondage in Egypt (Deut. 5:14-15), which also "dates" when it became binding upon Israel. (f) The Sabbath Day was a sign between God and Israel, and not other nations (Exodus 31:13,16-17). (g) The New Testament makes it very clear that the 1

Studies in the Bible And Science. Henry M. Morris pp. 48­49.

3

Sabbath commandment was not an eternal ordinance (Colossians 2:14-16; Hebrews 8:13-9:4). (h) The Sabbath Day was never the ultimate reality. Heaven is the true Sabbath for the faithful Christian (Hebrews chapter 4).

Man: The Focal Point of Creation Genesis 2:4 “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven” “Generations”: “Here one encounters the first of ten appearances of the formula ‘These are the generations of’ in Genesis (6:9; 10:1; 11:10,27; 25:12,19; 36:1,9; 37:2; cf.

5:1 for a variant of the formula (‘this is the book of the generations of Adam’)” (Hamilton p. 150). Commentators are divided over whether Genesis 2:4 is the conclusion of 1:1-2:3, or the beginning of a new section. Leupold argues that the word "generations", “Never tells how things or persons came into being. It tells what happened after such things or such persons had appeared on the scene” (p.

110).

Two Contradictory Accounts of Creation?

Critics of the Bible argue that Genesis chapter 2 was written by a different writer than Genesis 1 and that the second account of Creation contradicts the first. For in this chapter the sequence of events is claimed to be : man (2:7), trees (2:9), beasts (2:19), woman. Leupold remarks, “It is just as unlikely as it can be that the author should have been such a dunce as to set down at the very outset two mutually exclusive records of creation” (p. 108). Remember the focus in this chapter is upon the man and woman created on the sixth day (1:26-28). Chapter 2 was never intended to present a complete account of the whole creation, for one reason, the universe was already exists when this account begins (2:5). Genesis 2 is focused in a garden. “Jesus in one breath quoted words from both chapters as making sense together” (Matthew 19:4-5) (Watson p. 50). The emphasis has shifted, “Man is now the pivot of the story, as in chapter 1 he was the climax. Everything is told in terms of him...It is misleading to call this a second creation account, for it hastens to localize the scene, passing straight from the world at large to ‘a garden…in the east’; all that follows is played out on this narrow stage” (Kidner p. 58).

Genesis 2:5 “And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the

4

field had yet sprung up; for Jehovah God had not caused it to rain upon the earth: and there was not a man to till the ground”

“No plant of the field”: “A rare term, seems to denote the low bushy plants characteristic of the arid areas bordering on the fertile crescent (21:15; Job 30:4,7)” (Wenham p. 58). “No herb of the field”: That is, edible crops. “Had yet sprung up”: “These preliminary verses are saying from the special angle of this chapter what was declared in 1:2, namely that when God made the earth it was not initially...the hospitable place that we know...Even the familiar sky with its clouds and rainfall was not yet in evidence.” (Kidner p. 59). Genesis 2:5 is a description of the earth at one time. Certainly this was the description of the earth prior to Genesis 1:11. It reveals that plant life did not accidently happen, and at one point the earth was barren. Various explanations of this verse exist, but it seems to me that the simplest explanation is: Genesis 2:5 describes the earth prior to the third day of creation, and then skips days four and five and proceeds immediately to man himself (2:7).

Genesis 2:6 “but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground” “Mist”: A fog, mist or vapor. This verse informs us how the deficiency in rainfall in 2:5 was met. Some commentators feel that the water-cycle mentioned in Genesis 2:6 continued until the flood of Noah, “The change in temperature between daytime and nighttime apparently was adequate to energize daily evaporation from each local body of water and its condensation as dew and fog in the surrounding area each night. This arrangement was implemented on the second and third days of the creation week, prior to the formation of the plants on the latter part of the third day” (Morris pp. 84-85).

The Formation of Man Genesis 2:7 “And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” “The name ‘God’ is used exclusively in Genesis 1:1-2:3 (elohim). To this is now joined the proper name ‘The Lord’ (Jehovah), in Hebrew Jahweh…this point we want to emphasize that the fact that the word designates one of the names which

5

reveal the very essence of God” (Aalders pp. 83-84). “The name Yahweh (transliterated Jehovah) was a specifically Israelitish name for God. The basic meaning of the term seems to be: ‘He which is’ or ‘He who is truly present’”. 2 “Formed”: “Expresses the relation of craftsman to material, with implications of both skill (e.g. Ps. 94:9; cf. ps. 139:14-16) and a sovereignty which man forgets at his peril (Je. 18:4)” (Kidner p. 60). “Shaping in an artistic, inventive activity that requires skill and planning” (Wenham p. 59). Carefully note that God didn't allow time and chance to "form" man's body. Neither did God "form" or shape the body of Adam from the body of a monkey. He used "dust", and not a pre-existing animal. Science has confirmed that the human body is a piece of workmanship.

The Bible agrees (Psalm 139:14 “for I am fearfully and wonderfully made”). “To reproduce the human body, we would have to construct about 100,000 miles of complex blood vessels to carry the blood. Only 206 bones are included in the body.

These are hollow, marrow manufacturing organs which, weight for weight, are stronger than steel. A heart would have to be manufactured which would function normally at 72 beats per minute but may, under exertion, go as high as 200 beats…

It must pump 5 or 6 quarts of blood through the body each minute, continuously, without skipping a beat or getting tired. A pair of kidneys would have to be made which would maintain the exact proportion of water in the blood and purify over a ton of blood a day”. 3 “Dust of the ground”: “Notice the Bible says clearly that God used ‘non-living’ stuff (earth) to make man…The words can only mean that Adam was created directly from inorganic material in an instant, not from an Ape or Ape-man which had been ‘evolving’ for millions of years” (Watson p. 50). Compare with Job 10:9; Isa. 29:16; Ps. 90:3; 104:29. “It should be noted...it is definitely not necessary to hold that...man was formed out of dust or clay into some kind of clay doll. It is far more likely that these words must be understood in such a way that the body of man is entirely built up of basic substances similar to those found in the earth” (Aalders pp.

84-85). “A remarkable phrase conveying the thought that the smallest particles of which the earth was composed (in modern terminology, the basic chemical 2

The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Volume D­G, p. 761.

3

Evolution VS Science And The Bible. Teachers Guide. Bob West Publications. (no page numbers).

6

elements: nitrogen, oxygen, calcium, etc...) were also to be the basic physical elements of the human body (1 Corinthians 15:47). This fact is not at all obvious to superficial examination (rocks seem to all appearances to be composed of totally different substances than human flesh), but it has nevertheless been verified by modern science” (Morris p. 85). “Man is about 58 lb. of oxygen, 2 oz. of salt, 50 qt. of water, 3 lb. of calcium, 24 lb. of carbon, some chlorine, phosphorus, fat, iron, sulphur and glycerine” (Bob West).

“Breathed into his nostrils the breath of life”: “Man's body had been completely formed, equipped with nostrils, lungs, and the entire breathing apparatus, as well as bones and organs and other appurtenances, but was lifeless. It must be energized” (Morris p. 85). It must be carefully noted that this verse is talking about the creation of Adam. Some have attempted to argue from this verse that a human being doesn't really become a "person" or a "living soul" until they breathe for the first time, i.e. are actually born. Yet Adam was created full grown, hence this verse doesn't tell us when all since Adam become "living souls". James 2:26 argues that the presence of "human life" in any form or age is proof that the "soul" is present.

Hence, one has a "soul" long before they are actually born. “Man became a living soul”: “Soul" in this verse probably means "person" or "being". Genesis 2:7 is the formation of man's body or physical life, while 1:26 has already informed us that man is more than a body. The animals are said to have the "breath of life" in them, i.e. physical life (Genesis 7:22), yet they are not made in the image of God. Paul emphatically identifies "the man" of Genesis 2:7 with Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45).

“Breathed is warmly personal, with the face-to-face intimacy” (Kidner p. 60).

Watson makes the following interesting observations: “In a human foot the five toes are all bound together by one muscle, so the human big toe cannot grip at all strongly. But an ape grips mainly with his big toe, using it like a thumb with a separate muscle. How could the four-toes-and-a-thumb foot gradually become a five-toes-in-a-line foot? The ape-man with only a half-toe grip would have fallen off the branch and broken his neck...Why should an ape or apeman gradually become more intelligent?...Fossil animals are generally bigger than modern animals, so (if intelligence can be measured by brain size), modern apes are probably less intelligent than prehistoric apes. And of course it is well known that Cro-Magnon Man (dated 20,000 B.C.) had a bigger brain than most of us in the 20th Century A.D.” (p. 51).

7

The Garden of Eden

Genesis 2:8 “And Jehovah God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed” “Planted a garden”: “The same infinite care with which God created the universe and earthly vegetation and animals is apparent in His preparation of a home for man...The Creator desired man to have ideal living conditions in which to realize his potential” (Davis p. 82). “Eastward”: East of what? Seeing that Moses wrote this, are we to understand that “Eden” was east of the Promised Land? “Eden”: “Delight” (Leupold p. 118). Apparently the territory of "Eden" was bigger than the garden itself (2:10). “Whenever Eden is mentioned in Scripture it is pictured as a fertile area, a well-watered oasis with large trees growing (cf. Isa. 51:3; Eze. 31:9,16,18; 36:35, etc.), a very attractive prospect in the arid East” (Wenham p. 61).

Genesis 2:9 “And out of the ground made Jehovah God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” This verse is not describing the creation of all plant life (as in chapter 1) but the plant life in this particular garden. “Good for food”: “The trees in the garden were designed especially for man” (Davis p. 83). God creates things that are both useful and beautiful. Clearly, Adam was not deprived in the Garden, and neither are we (Luke 6:36; Acts 14:17). “The tree of life”: It would seem that Adam did possess a mortal body (physical) even before sin entered the world (2:7), yet access to this tree was a protection against death. When Adam and Eve sinned, access to this tree ended (3:22-24). Some suggest that had not sin entered the picture, we would of left this world, without ever having to experience death, i.e. like Enoch's translation (5:24). The fact that the Revelation writer puts the tree of life in Heaven, infers that Heaven is a place void of disease, aging, and death (Revelation 21:4).

“Tree of the knowledge of good and evil”: Adam and Eve are viewed as morally responsible (2:16-17) even before they eat of this tree.

Aalders observes, “In verse 15 man is given the task of dressing and keeping the

8

garden. This demands an ability to distinguish between the helpful and the harmful. He is given a command in verses 16-17. Clearly man can appreciate the woman that is given him in verse 23....It should be carefully noted that the ability to distinguish between good and evil was not to be acquired by eating of that tree, but precisely by not eating of it...The prohibition against eating clearly impressed on the human conscience the contrast between good and evil. But this prohibition God declared that eating of the tree was ‘evil’ in sharp distinction from not eating, which was ‘good’. It is our opinion, then, that the way in which this tree specifically taught man the difference between good and evil was by forcing man into a deliberate, conscious choice between good and evil. In that way the true conflict between good and evil was to be impressed upon the human consciousness. Evil was not something which man in himself and by himself discovered to be harmful, unacceptable, or morally objectionable. Evil was, in its very essence, a matter of being in conflict with the will of God” (pp. 92-93).

“As it stood, prohibited, it presented the alternative to discipleship: to be selfmade, wresting one's knowledge, satisfactions and values from the created world in defiance to the Creator” (Kidner p. 63). “The first man was not a cave-man but a gardener” (Watson p. 54). Some have tried to argue that this tree represented sexual awareness. Unfortunately, that interpretation doesn't add up, for God declared sexual awareness in its proper context to be a good thing (Genesis 2:24; 1 Tim. 4:1-4; Hebrews 13:4). Hamilton notes, “What is forbidden to man is the power to decide for himself what is in his best interests and what is not. This is a decision God has not delegated to the earthling. This interpretation also has the benefit of according well with 3:22, ‘the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil’. Man has indeed become a god whenever he makes his own self the center, the springboard and the only frame of reference for moral guidelines. When man attempts to act autonomously he is indeed attempting to be godlike. It is quite apparent why man may have access to all the trees in the garden except this one” (p. 166).

The Geography of Eden

Genesis 2:10 “And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads”

9

“Four head”: This river became the source for four other rivers.

Genesis 2:11 “The name of the first is Pishon: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold” “Pishon”: “It may be connected with the Hebrew root…’scatter, press on, break loose, spring forward’. Thus its meaning would be something like ‘Gusher’” (Hamilton p. 169). Found only here in the Bible. “Havilah”: (HAV uh luh). “Sandy land”? (Kidner p. 64).

Genesis 2:12 “and the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone” “Bdellium”: “A yellowish aromatic resin” (Kidner p. 64). Or, possibly some type of precious stone. “Onyx stone”: “Modern suggested translations for the Hebrew include ‘carnelian’, ‘lapis lazuli’, and ‘chrysoprase’” (Wenham p. 65).

Genesis 2:13 “And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Cush” “Gihon”: The only other Gihon mentioned in the Bible, is the spring which exists in Jerusalem, yet clearly this isn't that water-way. “Cush”: “Usually Cush refers to the land of Ethiopia...but in Genesis 10:8 it means the Cassites, the successors to the old Babylonian empire who were at home in the hills of western Iran” (Wenham pp. 6566).

Genesis 2:14 “And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth in front of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates” “Hiddekel”: (HID uh kel). “The Hiddekel is a name which, in the Assyrian monuments, is also given to the Tigris” (Morris p. 89).We must remember that the writer is describing the geographical terrain surrounding the garden of Eden before the flood. Morris reminds us: “It is evident that the geography described in these verses does not exist in the present world, nor has it ever existed since the Flood...This means, in turn, that the names which seem to be postdiluvian (Ethiopia

10

(Cush), Assyria, Tigris, Euphrates) were originally antediluvian names. The names were remembered by the survivors of the Flood and then given to people or places in the postdiluvian world...Those who have tried to identify the garden of Eden as in the present Tigris-Euphrates region fail to realize that these antediluvian rivers were completely obliterated by the Flood, and have no physical connection with their counterparts in the present world” (pp. 89-90). Equally clear from this section is that the garden of Eden was a "real" physical place upon the earth. “Verses 10-14 go to some lengths to present it as an actual, not an allegorical or mythical spot” (Kidner p. 62).

A Task in the Garden Genesis 2:15 “And Jehovah God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it” “To dress it and to keep it”: “Man's activity in that garden, unlike the type of toil associated with a cursed earth (3:17,18), was rewarded by complete fruition and productivity” (Davis p. 83). “Even though there was yet no noxious weeds, the ground was so fertile and the plant cover so luxuriant that its growth needed to be channeled and controlled” (Morris p. 92). This seems to infer that Adam was expected to "guard" the Garden and those entrusted to his care (Eve), i.e. that evil and harm did exist in this perfect world (Genesis 3:1ff). This is another verse which tells us that God expected Adam to be a spiritual leader, even before sin entered into the picture. “It is noteworthy that, even in the perfect world as God made it, work was necessary for man's good. The ideal world is not one of idleness and frolic. Even in the new world to come, after sin and the curse have been completely removed, Scripture says that ‘His servants shall serve him’ (Revelation 22:3)” (Morris p. 92).

Therefore: (a) Work with purpose and meaning is vital for human happiness.

Laziness is not the path to happiness and fulfillment. Utopia is not to be found when we don't have to work anymore. (b) This verse also infers something about "retirement". When we retire we need to have something "meaningful and purposeful" to accomplish. (c) God isn't a boring God and God had always had a "task" for His creation. (d) Heaven will not be sitting around and doing nothing.

God has exciting "service" prepared for the faithful. (e) "Perfection" doesn't mean that there isn't any work to be done. Rather, perfection includes meaningful,

11

fulfilling, and successful service.

Hamilton points out, “There is no magic in Eden. Gardens cannot look after themselves...The point is made clear here that physical labor is not a consequence of sin. Work enters the picture before sin does, and if man had never sinned he still would be working. Eden certainly is not a paradise in which man passes his time in idyllic and uninterrupted bliss which absolutely no demands on his daily schedule” (p. 171). “The charge of certain latter-day evolutionary ecologists that the concept of man's dominion has led to exploitation of earth's resources is patently absurd. God's command was to keep the ecology, not to destroy it; and those who believe and understand the Bible have always taken it that way” (Morris p. 93).

Man’s Moral Responsibility Genesis 2:16 “And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat” “Thou mayest freely eat”: Observe the almost complete freedom that Adam enjoyed. The farther one strays from God, the less real freedom that one will have (Titus 3:3; Romans 1:18ff; the story of the Prodigal Son-Luke 15). The commandments of God are not "confining", rather they are liberating (1 John 5:3).

God doesn't want to make our lives miserable, He desires to lighten our load (Matthew 11:28-30). Unfortunately, people get all worked up about what God has "forbidden" and completely forget all the realms in which we have permission and liberty.

Genesis 2:17 “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” “Thou shalt not”: God's commands are very clear. There is nothing complicated or confusing about this restriction. Adam can't argue that the "interpretation" of this verse is a bit fuzzy. Yet, when you read the rest of the Bible, including the N.T., verses that deal with equally essential matters, are just as plain (Mark 16:16; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Galatians 5:19-23; Ephesians 4:1-6:18; Colossians 3:1ff). “Thou shalt surely die”: The first death experienced by any disobedience to God's commandments is spiritual death, i.e. separation from God (Isaiah 59:1-2; Eph. 2:1-3). Physical death was a consequence which followed (Genesis 3:19).

12

We cannot blame God for the problems and suffering in this world. Whatever problems, pain, suffering and diseases exist, we have brought them all upon ourselves. Man by his own resources or creativity cannot produce a Utopian world.

The science fiction movies or shows about some society solving all is problems, are pure fiction and wishful thinking. The real pipe-dream isn't Genesis, rather it is man's hope that his own technology will save him. "Doing things our own way" will never produce paradise, in fact, it will only move us farther away from any real happiness. “These words do not necessarily imply that man was not naturally mortal. God ‘alone has immortality’ (1 Tim. 6:16), and the presence of the tree of life in the garden indicates that if man is to share the boon it must be an added gift...The translation of Enoch, ‘that he should not see death’ (Heb. 11:5). perhaps illustrates what God had prepared for man” (Kidner pp. 64-65).

Morris points out, “But love is a reciprocal relationship. One cannot really ‘love’ an inanimate object, though such a term is often carelessly used…Therefore, if God created people with the purpose of bestowing His love on them, His purpose must also have included a mutual and reciprocated love on their parts....if Adam was free to love God on his own initiative, he was obviously free also not to love God...God's creation of morally free spiritual beings...clearly must run the risk of having them reject Him and His love. It must involve a probationary period, to allow them a free decision” (p. 91). God had been very good to Adam, and God has also been very good to all men (Acts 14:17; Luke 6:36; Psalm 103:10; Acts 17:30).

Love and Rules From the beginning a love for God has always been demonstrated by keeping His commandments (John 14:15; 1 John 2:5). “In any relationship of love, divine or human, there must be a boundary which tests a relationship. Suppose someone proposed marriage to you in this way: ‘I want to marry you, but I want a free and open relationship with no rules. I plan to do whatever I please in the years ahead.’

You'd say, ‘No way, Mac or Madame.’ The relationship of love requires some boundaries. We make commitments and promises. We say, ‘Because I love you I will never do certain things, or I will try to do and be certain other things.’ So it is with God. He said to Adam and Eve, ‘I love you. It's all yours. Just keep my law to prove that you trust me’”. 4 4

My Creator, My Friend. Bruce Larson pp. 23­24.

13

In Search of a Helper Genesis 2:18 “And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him” God observed this "problem", long before Adam was even aware of it. Let no one say that “God isn't concerned about my needs”. “It is not good”: “Man, especially, was incomplete without woman; and this was not good (this does not mean it was evil, but only that it was unfinished and therefore imperfect)” (Morris p. 95).

“Alone”: “The naming of the animals, a scene which portrays man as monarch of all he surveys, poignantly reveals him as a social being, made for fellowship, not power: he will not live until he loves, giving himself away (24) to another on his own level” (Kidner p. 65). The phrase "not good" "alerts the reader to the importance of companionship for man" (Wenham p. 68). All that is lacking is "woman", yet God calls a universe without "woman" to be "not good". The Bible points out that one does not have to marry (1 Corinthians 7), yet it also reveals that man was designed to be a social being. The Christian is called upon to have interaction with the world, to influence it for good (Matthew 5:16). In addition, the command to love your neighbor as yourself, demands "social" behavior (Romans 13:8-10). The person who adopts the "anti-social", hermit, monastic lifestyle isn't fulfilling their created purpose. God has given no man the right to spend his life in seclusion. We don't have the right to "opt" out of the human race. “I will make him”: God takes the initiative. “Help meet”: “A helper fit for him, literally, ‘a help as opposite him’, i.e. corresponding to him” (Kidner p. 65). “The verb behind this word means ‘succor’, ‘save from danger’. The woman in Genessis 2 delivers or saves man from his solitude” (Hamilton p. 176). “For him”: “As agreeing to him or his counterpart.

She is the kind of help man needs, agreeing with him mentally, physically, spiritually. She is not an inferior being” (Leupold p. 130).

Even before sin enters the world, male and female roles are already defined by God. The woman is called a "help meet", that is, her role is to assist. She is not Adam's "head". Male headship is not the result of sin and female subjection is not a consequence or punishment for Eve's sin, rather, it existed even before sin entered the world. This concept is vital. For if one views their subjection as a "punishment", then of course one will resent it or have the wrong attitude towards it. But if one realizes the truth of the matter, that male headship exists for the benefit and

14

protection of both men and women (Ephesians 5:22-33), they one will enjoy and appreciate the role that God has assigned.

“Notice that God did not say, ‘The man needs children, I will make him a mate’.

The first and foremost reason for Woman's creation was that Man should have a helper and companion” (Watson p. 55). “So the woman is presented wholly as his partner and counterpart; nothing is yet said of her as child-bearer. She is valued for herself alone” (Kidner p. 65). Genesis 2:18 infers that the "irreconcilable differences" excuse in a divorce is more lie than truth. This verse argues: (a) Men and women are specifically designed for each other. God didn't create or cause the "battle of the sexes". (b) Every marriage can succeed for men and woman are compatible.

Incompatible differences, is just a nice sounding phrase or excuse for "selfishness, stubbornness and sin". (c) Men and women were never designed to "compete" with each other. They are companions and not enemies. (d) Feminism is just as wrong as "good-ole-boyism", for both theories devalue either men or women. Both theories argue that the genders should be completely independent of each other.

Genesis 2:19 “And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the heavens; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them: and whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the name thereof” “Formed”: The word "formed" here can mean "had formed". This verse does not contradict Genesis 1, for the first part of this verse really has no time-factor associated with it. The verse expresses the same truth in Genesis 1. God did form every beast of the field. God now brings those animals before Adam. “It is possible to translate ‘formed’ as ‘had formed’ (NIV). One can, however, retain the traditional translation and still avoid a contradiction. This verse does not imply that this was God's first creation of animals. Rather, it refers to the creation of a special group of animals brought before Adam for naming” (Hamilton p. 176).

“He would call them”: “This is the first fulfillment of God's directive to humankind in 1:26,28 to exercise authority over the animals. For to confer a name is to speak from a position of authority and sovereignty” (Hamilton p. 176). From day one (or should we say day six), man has been an intelligent being. Naming the animals includes the idea of discerning their natures and expressing their nature in a name. These early chapters in Genesis throw a serious monkey-wrench into those

15

who wish to combine Creation and Evolutionary theory. (1) Man's body didn't evolve (2:7). (2) Neither do we ever find a non-speaking man. From the very beginning man has sophisticated language. “Even the most ‘primitive’ tribes use very complicated language with a vocabulary of scores of thousands of words.

(One South Sea Island language has 14 different words to describe a coconut palm at different stages of its growth)” (Watson p. 57). (3) And we find man in the very beginning a lot happier in his marriage relationship than many modern men or women (2:25). “In order that the creation of woman might fulfill its true purpose, a sense of need first had to be awakened in man...This sense of need became a reality as man, with his superior intelligence, looked at the animals and recognized his own uniqueness. At the same time he must have realized that many of the animals had a certain social companionship among themselves that he lacked” (Aalders p.

94).

Genesis 2:20 “And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; but for man there was not found a help meet for him” “There was not found”: “None was like him; none could provide fellowship or companionship for him. It is abundantly clear and certain that he had not recently evolved from them!” (Morris p. 98). Even though pets are wonderful, they are no substitute for human companionship, and especially the companionship of marriage.

The Creation of Woman

Genesis 2:21 “And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof” “Deep sleep”: “A sleep like that caused by an anesthetic envelopes man's feelings and consciousness” (Leupold p. 134). “Anesthetics were not invented till the 1840's, at least 3000 years after Genesis was written (Queen Victoria was the first woman in history to have a baby under chloroform, in 1853). How could any writer B.C. possibly have guessed God's method of creating Eve? God's mercy is shown in sparing Adam unnecessary pain, and God's efficiency is shown in His closing up the wound. There is a famous Greek story somewhat on the same lines: ‘One day

16

Zeus had a headache. So Hephaestus, the fire-god took an axe and chopped open Zeus' head. Out sprang Athena, fully-armed for war!’ (Zeus apparently recovered without special treatment.) Compare this absurd legend with the dignified Bible account” (Watson p. 58).

“One of his ribs”: God took this rib from Adam for the creation of this particular woman. Since Adam and Eve all human beings have been born after the natural process of procreation (4:1), there is no reason for anyone to assume that men would have one less rib than women. Human anatomy reveals that men and women have precisely the same number of ribs. "Not made out of his head to top him, not out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved" (Matthew Henry). There is no way that this account can be spiritualized to fit Evolutionary Theory: (a) Adam is fully and only "male". (b) The woman is formed very quickly (i.e. the male population didn't sleep for a million years until the female evolved). (c) The New Testament endorses Genesis 2 as being a factual account (Matthew 19:4-6; 1 Timothy 2:13; 1 Corinthians 11:8-9).

Genesis 2:22 “and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man” “Woman”: As many have pointed out, God didn't make another man for Adam, but a woman. Today we hear people talking about "getting back to nature". Well, homosexuality isn't getting back to nature (Romans 1:26). If Jesus used Genesis to condemn unlawful divorce and remarriage (Matthew 19:4-9), then certainly Genesis also condemns homosexuality and other perversions of the male-female relationship. As do other passages (1 Corinthians 6:9) Watson notes that this extraordinary way of creating woman should of taught Adam something: “To show that man's relationship with his wife is far closer than any animal's with its mate. When Adam later studied the animals he would have found that though some (e.g. pigeons) mate for life, most are promiscuous (i.e. have several mates).

He might have thought that humans too could have several mates...But by creating Woman in this special way, God taught Adam (and us) that His plan is one man with one woman for life” (p. 58). This chapter informs us that using animal behavior as a guideline for human behavior is based on an erroneous assumption.

Today we hear people arguing that some animals demonstrate homosexual tendencies or behavior, thinking that such proves that homosexuality is natural.

17

Well, some animals also eat their young!!! And each other!! And allow me to move on without mentioning other disgusting habits that some animals demonstrate on a regular basis. The Hebrew word for "woman" is "isha", the Hebrew word for "man" is "ish".

“Brought her unto the man”: As a father gives away his daughter in marriage.

Genesis 2:23 “And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” “And the man said”: Jesus quotes what Adam said in Matthew 19:5. Therefore to question the integrity of Genesis is to question the integrity of Jesus Christ. “This is now”: “Adam's joyful ‘at last’” (Kidner p. 66). Notice the intelligence of the first man. “Man immediately recognized her as the life's companion who was the complete fulfillment of the longing that had been awakened in him” (Aadlers p. 96).

“Now at length” (Leupold p. 136). Adam demonstrates himself much more "enlightened" than many modern human beings. In our society today, there exist a number of people who try to convince themselves that they don't need anyone, especially someone of the opposite sex. Or that there is something "lost" in getting married.

“Unlike all these animals and birds with which I have been surrounded, you can almost hear him say, ‘the woman is like me. She is made of the same stuff, the right stuff! I can communicate with her and exchange ideas. She knows how I feel and cares what I think. And I can share in her feelings and thoughts as well. We are both rational, both emotional, both physical, both spiritual...She is the very helper I need!’”. 5 “Bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”: This explains the statement in verse 24.

“A man owes his life and existence to his father and mother, yet in some mysterious way he is more closely related to his wife than to his parents!” (Watson p. 59). “She shall be called”: The fact that Adam names the woman is another indication of male leadership, even before sin entered the world. “Here the first man names the first woman...Though they are equal in nature (1:26-27), that man names the woman…indicates that she is expected to be subordinate to him” (Wenham p. 70).

“Woman”: “The Hebrew word ‘woman’ is formed by adding a feminine ending to 5

Men of Strength for Women of God. F. LaGard Smith pp. 32­33.

18

the word for ‘man’. In English this is evident in our word ‘woman’, which includes the word ‘man’” (Aadlers pp. 96-97). “Therefore even their names are a reminder of the different ways in which man and woman were created--man from the dust of the ground, woman from man” (Smith p. 32).

Genesis 2:24 “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” “Therefore”: This verse is not simply a statement of mere fact. Jesus pointed out that it is God's law on marriage (Matthew 19:4-6), that time and culture did not change this law (“from the beginning”). The Marriage relationship is based on the fact that: (a) God created two genders. (b) One gender came from the other.

Hence same-gender unions can never be termed “marriages”. In fact, such unions defy the most basic fundamental truths. It is logical for the man and woman to become one flesh, for they once were literally one flesh. “Shall a man leave”: Even before sin enters the world the "man" is viewed at the leader, the one who takes the initiative. “His father and mother’: This anticipates generations to come, which infers that this "law" was not just for the garden nor was it just in force until sin came into the world (Matthew 19:4ff). “Many religions teach that grown-up children should look after their parents, but only the Bible says that a man should put his wife first” (Watson p. 59). “Leave”: The word does not mean that a man is to completely forsake his parents, i.e. cut off all ties with them (1 Timothy 5:4).

“Cleave”: The word "cleave" infers permanence, faithfulness, commitment and loyalty. “It is significant that ethnologists and anthropologists find evidence that monogamous, permanent marriage has everywhere and in all ages been considered as the ideal and preferred form of family life...The institution of monogamous marriage, home, and family as the basic medium for the propagation of the race and the training of the young is so common to human history that people seldom pause to reflect on how or why such a custom came into being. It can hardly be a product of evolution, since it is not habitual with other primates or with other mammals” (Morris p. 102). Genesis 2:24 is also one of those verses which no human being would have invented. Watson says, “No man would have dared to make this law, because it is so unpopular” (p. 59).

“They shall be one flesh”: This includes the union of physical bodies during physical love (1 Corinthians 6:16). Yet it also is meant to include much more. In the

19

marriage relationship, “Two complementary dimensions of the human personality are united as one for the optimum combination of God's creation” (Smith p. 33). It is never said that parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, brothers, sisters, or even best friends become "one flesh". This seems to infer that God's design for the marriage relationship is that it would be the most intimate relationship that a human being has with another human being in this life.

Christians need to realize that in a society that has been so devastated by divorce, people are hungry and desperate to find the truth that enables relationships to work and succeed. Close, intimate and truly "one flesh" Christian marriages, the type of marriage that you can honestly say, “My spouse is my best friend”, are probably some of the best advertising that the Church can ever have.

Genesis 2:25 “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed” “Both naked”: “No alloy of greed, distrust or dishonor” (Kidner p. 66). “Of course ‘naked’ refers primarily to physical nudity, but one may also think that no barrier of any kind drove a wedge between Adam and Eve” (Hamilton p. 181). “The man and his wife”: God married them. “Were not ashamed”: Not ashamed before each other. There was perfect openness before them and perfect honesty. After sin enters into the world, Adam and Eve attempt to clothe themselves (3:7). A great lesson needs to be learned at this point. As long as we live on this earth, mankind as a whole can never return to Genesis 2:25. Since sin has entered into this world, we can never keep "nudity" from not having sexual overtones, especially among adults. “Nudists are tying to make Paradise on Earth, which God has said is impossible” (Watson p. 60). It is very naive to think that people can get "used" to or “indifferent” to nudity. Yet, Christian husbands and wives can recapture some of the garden.

20