3. Seventh Day—Day of Consecration (2:1–3)

1Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

2By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

The climactic seventh day is remarkably different from the foregoing six days of creation. First, there is no introductory formula (“then God said”) because his creative word is not required. Second, this day does not have the usual closing refrain “evening” and “morning” to indicate its termination. Theologically the absence of the refrain implies that creation was intended to enjoy a perpetual rest provided by God, although that rest was disrupted by human sin. Third, the seventh day is the only day of the week blessed and consecrated by God. Fourth, unlike the creation days, the number of the “seventh” day is repeated three times (twice more by the pronoun “it”). Fifth, the seventh day stands outside the paired days of creation, having no corresponding day in the foregoing creation week. The literary pattern of six plus one (6 + 1) is designed to highlight the seventh and culminating member in the seven-item arrangement. This revered “seventh day” fueled the extensive theological reflection on sabbath rest found in Israel and the church.

2:1 The chapter break is usually deemed inappropriate since the description of the creation week continues until 2:3, but it may have been placed after the sixth day in recognition of the uniqueness of the seventh day. With language reminiscent of 1:1 (“the heavens and the earth”), the verse adds the phrase “in all their vast array” so as to pay tribute to the full transformation that included the populating of the once-empty earth. The NIV's “their vast array” is the rendering of the literal “their hosts” and refers to the sun, moon, and stars as in Deut 4:19 (“all the heavenly array”) and also to the lively inhabitants of the earth that were made on days five and six.

2:2 Verses 2–3 contain four lines, the first three of which are parallel, each possessing seven words (in the Hebrew), with the midpoint of each line having the same phrase, “the seventh day.” A literal translation displays the structure:

So God finished by the seventh day his work which he did,
and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he did,
and God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it,
because on it he rested from all his work which God created to do.

This is one of the several ways the author highlighted the importance of the final day. In later Israel the “seventh” was displaced with the customary word “Sabbath,” and its ritual observance became the preeminent sign of God's covenant with Israel (e.g., Exod 20:11; 31:17).

The AV's translation of v. 2a illustrates the ambiguity in the Hebrew, which permits divine “work” (i.e., creation) continuing into the seventh day: “And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made” (also NRSV). To avoid this, ancient versions (LXX, SP, Syr) read, “On the sixth day God finished his work.” Many English versions have remedied it by taking the verb as a pluperfect “had finished” and thereby clarifying that God had completed his creation by the seventh day, not on the seventh day (e.g., NIV, NASB). Since 2:1 declares that creation was completed before the seventh day is introduced (2:2), the passage indicates that no “work” occurred on the seventh day. Exodus 40:33b has the parallel expression, “And so Moses finished the work,” which refers to Moses’ previous work on the tabernacle before the endowment of the glory cloud. The parallel lines of 2:2 are synthetic, that is, should be read together: God completed his work by the seventh day (v. 2a), resulting in his rest (v. 2b).

Repetition of creation-sabbath language is found in the construction of the tabernacle: Moses “saw” all the work the people “had done,” and he “blessed” them. Linkage between creation-sabbath and Moses’ tabernacle binds God's first work at creation with his newly directed work among Israel. The rare wording rûaḥ ’ĕlōhîm of 1:2 appears again in Exod 31:3, where Bezalel receives the “Spirit” for the purpose of constructing the tabernacle. This tie between cosmic Creator and Israel's Redeemer who formed them at Sinai explains the special importance given to Sabbath observance by the Hebrew community (Exod 20:8–11; 31:14; 35:2). After the construction of the wilderness tabernacle, the Sabbath was deemed the sign of the covenant between God and the nation (31:13, 17). According to the tabernacle narrative (Exod 25–40), Israel's Sabbath and creation's rest meet in the holy place: the Creator who sanctified the seventh day because of “rest” (2:2–3) is the covenant Lord, who sanctifies his people and tabernacles among them (e.g., Exod 31:12–17). As with man, made in the imago Dei, the earthly tabernacle also followed a “pattern” revealed by God to Moses at Sinai (Exod 25:9, 40; cf. Heb 8:5). Worship then is related to the created order itself, which existed before the formation of Israel and its sanctuary at Sinai. Worship is for all humanity—all those created in the “image of God.” The observance of Israel's sacred custom of weekly and annual sabbaths was an expression of and attestation to God's presence as their Creator-Covenant Lord.

As with “seventh day,” the same phrase “his work” (in the Hebrew) occurs three times in vv. 2–3 to emphasize that creation was God's work alone. Creation's “work” (mĕlā’kâ) has its later human parallel in the construction of the tabernacle by skilled artisans who were inspired by the Lord (e.g., Exod 31:5; 35:29; 36:1–2). “Work” also has the meaning of common, human labor (e.g., Gen 39:11; 1 Chr 27:26). “When the name ‘work’ is given to God's six days' creation, human work is ennobled to the highest conceivable degree, as being the copy of his model.” The same repetition appears for the phrase “he had done,” and the critical term “rested” (šābat) occurs twice in vv. 2–3. The repetition underscores that the end of his work was related to the completion of creation, not due to fatigue. There was simply nothing left to do; the created order was whole, requiring only the sustaining grace of God's superintendence. The verb “rested” means “the cessation of creative activity”; it has this same sense in its only other occurrence in Genesis, where God promises the postdiluvian world that the times and seasons “will never cease” (8:22). Elsewhere we find that God “rested” (nûaḥ, Exod 20:11; napaš, 31:17), but here the passage speaks of the absence of work— “he abstained” from work. The derivative noun “Sabbath” (šabbāt), which is a transliteration (not translation) of the Hebrew word, does not actually occur in the creation account (though it is obviously alluded to by šābat, “ceased”), probably since the number “seventh day” is in keeping with the numerical format of the narrative.

2:3 Of the creation week's days, this “seventh day” is uniquely “blessed” and “sanctified” by the Creator. The specific explanation in the text for the seventh day's special hallowedness is that God ceased from his work. God has already “blessed” the created order, enabling it to propagate (1:22, 28); but here the dimension of time, the “seventh day,” is said to be “blessed” of God. This “blessing” is explained by the subsequent act of consecration that is the first in the Bible. When God “sanctified” (qādaš) the day, he declared that the day was especially devoted to him. This was the charge in the Ten Words for later Israel—to observe the Sabbath by keeping it holy as a special possession of the Lord (Exod 20:8, 11). The “seventh day” was subsequently called a holy Sabbath unto the Lord when no work was to be done by human or animal (e.g., Exod 31:15; 35:2). The prophets speak of the Lord's Sabbath as “my holy day” or “my sabbaths” (Isa 58:13; Ezek 22:8; cf. Neh 9:14). Consecration in the Old Testament meant designating or setting aside persons, places, and things that were regarded sacred by virtue of their relationship to or possession by the Lord, who is holy (e.g., firstborn, tabernacle, priests).

In the Babylonian creation stories the gods are freed from their labors after the creation of humans, who were formed for the sole purpose of serving the deities’ needs. God's sabbath, however, is not aversion to labor but the celebrative cessation of a completed work, whereby he expresses his mastery over time by sanctifying it. The observance of Sabbath was unique to ancient Israel. Whereas in the Hebrew calendar (and those of other peoples) the days, months, and years were related to the solar and lunar cycles, the Sabbath is not tied to any celestial movement. “The Sabbath thus underlines the fundamental idea of Israelite monotheism: that God is wholly outside of nature.”

The Decalogue first directly ties Sabbath observance with the creation rest (Exod 20:8–11; cf. 31:17), furnishing the theological rationale for the Hebrew practice. Much of the decalogue terminology echoes Gen 2:1–3. “Sabbath” in the Fourth Commandment occurs as a synonym for “seventh”; in the direct allusion to Gen 2:3, “Sabbath” is substituted for “seventh”: “Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy” (Exod 20:11b). The seventh day of creation as a consequence is viewed as God's “sabbath”; thus for the Hebrews Sabbath takes on cosmic meaning. By the commemoration of “Sabbath,” God and his creatures share in the celebration of the good creation, and God's people are enjoined to enter into the rhythm of work and joyful rest. Embracing God's sabbath rest meant experiencing the sense of completeness and well being God had accomplished at creation in behalf of all human life.

Observance of a seventh day among Israel, however, antedates the Sinai injunction. In the wilderness sojourn there is “a Sabbath to the Lord” in which the gathering of manna is suspended for a seventh day (Exod 16:21–30). The passage obviously anticipates the Sinai legislation, but the basis, as in the Fourth Commandment, must be the creation. For the Hebrews, then, the world had always known sabbaths from the beginning. Sabbath existed before man observed it and continues whether or not God's creatures acknowledge it. The practice of a sacred “seventh” was extended beyond the cycle of the week to sacred years, festivals, and days. The Fourth Commandment therefore united the “word” of creation and the regulating “word” of the religious order for the newly created Israel. Israel's Sabbath, like God's sabbath rest, was sanctified and set apart as a special day of worship and celebration. The seventh day then pointed the Hebrew reader to a day of rejoicing over the created work of God. “It is a day on which we are called upon to share what is eternal in time, to turn from the results of creation to the mystery of creation; from the world of creation to the creation of the world.”

Also the Sabbath day was tied by Moses to the redemptive purposes of God for Israel. In Genesis the sabbath rest of God did not mean that he was idly distant, for in the garden he is found at work making garments of skin for sinful man and woman (3:21). Deuteronomy's decalogue presents this second reading of sabbath and relates its observance to the historic deliverance of Israel from Egyptian servitude (Deut 5:15). Sabbath released human and beast from the labors of the week, and likewise the Redeemer released Israel from its slavery. Together the two versions of the Fourth Commandment capture the twofold meaning of the seventh day for Israel: a celebration of God as Creator and Redeemer. The redeeming “work” of God continues as expressed through Israel's history and the particular ministry of Jesus Christ (e.g., Ps 111; John 5:17; 9:4; 17:4).

The idea of “rest” was later related to the land of promise that lay before Israel. Rest in Canaan was Israel's destiny (Exod 33:14), but the people failed to enter their rest due to disobedience (Num 14:28–30). The second generation awaited its possession (Deut 3:20; 12:10; 25:19) and eventually obtained it with blessing (Josh 1:13–15). The land experienced its sabbaths and jubilees (Lev 25:4, 11) as a symbolic recognition of the land as God's provision of rest for Israel. It was God who owned the land of rest, and Israel as aliens entered into that land only at the invitation of God and by the price of redemption (Lev 25:23–24).

Also the theological significance of creation's “seventh day” is eschatological. The seventh day has no closing refrain “evening” and “morning”; the seventh day has no end and therefore is viewed as eternal. Whereas the human workweek recurs after each Sabbath, the sabbath rest of God is eternal since creation's work is finished. Sabbath is taken up by the New Testament and interpreted in the context of the “new Moses.” The theology of this perpetual rest was expounded by the writer to the Hebrews, who spoke of a sabbath rest that yet awaits those who are in Christ Jesus (4:3–11). He bound together the two motifs of Canaan's land of rest (3:7–19), drawing on Ps 95:7b–11, and of creation's sabbath rest, quoting Gen 2:2 (4:3–11). Just as Moses’ generation had failed to possess their promised rest, the writer forewarned his readers not to commit the same failure through disbelief in Christ.

For the apostle Paul, Sabbath was a foreshadowing of the eternal realities of the Lord and the church (Col 2:16–17). The old signs of circumcision, dietary laws, and sabbath observance were set aside as “boundary markers for the people of the covenant” (cf. Gal 4:10). Christians are circumcised in heart (Rom 2:29), undefiled by foods (John 15:3), and free to treat every day as sacred (Rom 14:5, 12; 1 Tim 4:3–5). Sabbath has given way to the realities of the “Lord's day”—the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:1; 1 Cor 16:1–2). The church set aside the first day of the week as a special day for worship and proclamation. By the first day the Christian community proclaims the new creation, the era of messianic redemption.

New American Commentary - New American Commentary – Volume 1a: Genesis 1-11:26.

II. The Human Family in and Outside the Garden (2:4–4:26)

This second section traces what became of God's “good” creation as depicted in 1:1–2:3, with attention on the pinnacle of creation—human life. “The destiny of the human creation is to live in God's world, with God's other creatures, on God's terms.” Although 2:4–25 expands on certain points of 1:1–2:3, it is wedded principally to chaps. 3 and 4 as one unit under the first occurrence of the tōlĕdōt rubric: “This is the account [tôlĕdôt] of the heavens and the earth when they were created” (2:4a). As we discussed in the Introduction, the tōlĕdōt heading in Genesis announces the subject matter of the genealogy or narrative that follows. In this passage the formula introduces the narrative, which speaks of beginning events concerning creation, that is, the subsequent history of created human life. Verse 2:4a repeats the same information as 1:1 and therefore ties 1:1–2:3 and 2:4b–4:26 together; both passages recount first things, but the second narrative goes beyond the first by tracking the story of Adam's family.

Literary Structure and Origins. Three distinctive literary units make up this section: the Edenic account (2:4–3:24), which describes the first family, their habitat, and their consequent sin and expulsion from Eden; the account of Cain's murder of brother Abel (4:1–16); and last, genealogical records pertaining to Adam's sons, Cain and Seth (4:17–26). There are literary reasons for recognizing in the Edenic account a cohesive narrative produced by an original hand. J. T. Walsh has proposed for it seven scenes, with the central unit at 3:6–8 where the human participants, the man and woman, commit their tragic choice of disobedience.

A    Narrative: God sole actor and man passive (2:5–17)

B    Narrative: God main actor, man minor actor, woman and animals passive (2:18–25)

C    Dialogue: snake and woman (3:1–5)

D    Narrative: man and woman (3:6–8)

C´   Dialogue: God, man and woman (3:9–13)

B´   Narrative: God main actor, man minor actor, woman and snake passive (3:14–21)

A´   Narrative: God sole actor and man passive (3:22–24)

Also the Cain-Abel narrative (4:1–16) shows interdependence with 2:4–3:24 by structural similarities and language. Although it may be posited that the final narrative unity can be attributed to the skill of a late Hebrew author, there is no compelling reason to supplant the simpler explanation of one hand with a complex and protracted history of source and tradition compilation.

Scholars often look to Mesopotamian myth(s) to explain the origins of the garden episode, but there is no parallel to the garden narrative as a whole in the ancient Near East. Some have proposed that the narrative is made up of two separate sources, a creation myth and a paradise myth (see Introduction, “Genesis 1–11 and Ancient Literature”). Others have proposed the broad pattern of varied mythological materials on the creation of man and a “garden of God” motif. By yet another approach, Genesis 2–3 is a combination and elaboration of early traditions that had their inception in the Babylonian themes of creation and kingship, as attested, for example, in Atrahasis. Such reconstructions, however, do not readily explain the unique features of the Genesis account, such as the tree of knowledge and the emphasis on human sin. Moreover, proposing the author's indebtedness to common mythological materials cuts across the self-conscious historical purposes of the narrative (e.g., tôlĕdôt, 2:4). Would it not be incompatible for the Hebrew author to create a myth or modify a fictional account using God as the main character? Rather than myth or an expansion on primal myths, the most that can be said is that Genesis 2–3 “incorporates in its history mythical motifs” in order to address the concerns of the ancient reader.

Life In and Outside the Garden. Before we consider the commentary, we will preview the literary and theological scope of the section. The contrast between human life inside and outside the garden depends on the pivotal episode in Eden, where sin makes its first appearance; disobedience impacted three areas of human experience: (1) the relationship of man to God, (2) the relationship of man to the environment, and (3) interpersonal relationships within the human family. Before the ruinous entry of sin, these three relationships were intact. (1) The man and woman enjoy the presence of God without shame, as evidenced by their nakedness (2:25). Eden's garden, graciously provided by God, is the meeting place where God and mankind interact in fellowship and trust. (2) Human life derives sustenance from the garden and exercises dominion over Eden, and the garden flourishes since a man is present to till and care for it. All life benefits mutually from this harmonious relationship. There is no threat and discord between man and nature. All appears in accordance with the blessings of God and his gracious provision (1:28–31). (3) Also the human couple recognize their distinctive identity and enjoy a nourishing harmony. There is no competition or confusion between the man and the woman. Their union is based on an unstated covenant of reciprocal devotion.

Chapter 3, however, surprises the reader by introducing an unforeseen character in the garden. That this serpent will impact the first couple for ill is hinted at from the outset: he is “more crafty” (3:1) than the other beasts. By a play on words, there is a linkage between 2:25 (“naked,” ‘ārûmmîm) and 3:1 (“crafty,” ‘ărûm). The subsequent narration reveals that the harmony once known in the garden is shattered. (1) The garden, which once offered a setting of repose with God for the first couple, now is transformed into a hideout for the inept pair. (2) The subservient Eden suddenly declares war against its caretaker, forcing the man into the toilsome task of controlling his threatening environment. Not only does the ground oppose its human lord, but now there is enmity between the woman and the animal world, as shown by the serpent's guile. (3) Finally, the human family itself experiences the poison of the first sin. The solace of companionship turns to competition and confusion. The bliss and life of paradise in chap. 2 is matched by suffering and threat of death in chap. 3. Yet God reveals his grace in the midst of his judgment by preserving their lives. There is hope in the birth of the woman's seed (3:15), and God takes steps to clothe and protect the couple from the harshness of their new environment (3:21). The promise of blessing (1:28) will continue, but not in the garden. The man and woman no longer dwell in the garden where the “tree of life” is accessible; divine retribution expels them to the wiles of the “east side of the Garden of Eden” (3:24).

Chapter 4 details the moral as well as the familial descent of the human family. The three areas of broken relationship we have traced are continued. (1) Whereas God favors the first couple with children, it is their first child (Cain) who bears the divine “curse,” pronounced for the first time upon a human being (4:11). (2) Now the blood-tainted land that had once served Cain's agrarian skills becomes his stranger, and he, in turn, becomes a “restless wanderer on the earth” (4:10–12). (3) Finally, human struggle for preeminence results in fratricide. The death of Abel's sacrificial offerings is joined by the blood of his own death. Death, touching both animal and human life, inaugurates its reign. And like his parents, murderous Cain is expelled “east of Eden” (4:16). But despite the wicked lineage of Cain, embodied in the vicious Lamech, there remains hope for the human family through the birth of Seth, whose descendants began “to call upon the name of the Lord” (4:25–26).

The motif of “blessing” initiated in the creation narrative continues (1:22, 28; 2:3) in this section, though the term does not occur. Rather, its antithesis, “curse,” appears in this passage three of its eight occasions in Genesis (3:14, 17; 4:11). The sole condition for cursing is introduced in 2:17, where God forewarns that human disobedience results in death, but the “curse” is only directed against the soil of which man is made, not the man himself (3:17). The recounting of human sin and its consequences are focal in this section. Yet despite God's judgment, he does not abandon them; he does not curse the man or woman, though he does curse their eldest son for his reprehensible crime of murder (4:11). Rather, it is their adversary, the serpent, and the ground that bear the curses of God (3:14, 17). God continues his beneficent provision (1:26–30) for them both spiritually and physically to cope with their new condition (3:15, 21–22). Although death awaits them, their lives are mercifully prolonged, and God assures them of ultimate victory over their nemesis, the serpent. Appropriately the means for restoration will be the same vehicle by which they inherit their blessing—propagation; the woman's seed will avenge them. Divine blessing toward the human family is realized through the birth of children; therefore the progeny of the first couple is central to the development of God's blessing and restoration, as it is with the unfolding of God's promises to the later patriarchs. Chapter 4 is pivotal to the plot since now all attention is directed on the children of Eve, the mother of all living (3:20). The narrative turns on the birth and careers of her three sons, but their story has become our story. All human life is in jeopardy because evil resides not just with the tempter but now in the heart of Cain and his kind (4:7). The tempter has his agents. Righteous Abel becomes the first victim of his parents’ rebellious deed.

The grace of God shows itself even with the evil Cain, who benefits from the resolve of God to keep his word: human life will flourish. Cain receives protection (4:16) and experiences fruition; his family's genealogy expands (4:17–24), but his influence for bad seems limitless (4:23–24). But there is a reprieve: Eve gives birth to Seth, who offers hope for the human family (4:25). Seth bears still others, and a godly line continues upon the face of the earth. It was by this godly seed of Seth that the Lord is worshiped (4:26b), sounding a renewed prospect for the man and woman.

Although the garden scene presents a universal truth of humanity's condition, for its first readers the message was all too concretely real in their particular experience. Israel knew the threat of disobedience and had witnessed the death of those who rebelled in the desert (e.g., Num 13–17). The just deserts of their obedience or disobedience were spelled out in Deuteronomy's covenant. Nevertheless, God demonstrated the same compassion toward Israel in the wilderness as he did for our first parents; a second generation survives and prepares for entering the land of rest. Whereas Adam and Cain were expelled from the “land,” Israel looks toward possessing the promised land. Moses’ books conclude with Israel's eyes focused on its “Eden” (Canaan) across the Jordan River. Israel understood the contrast between the godly seed of Seth and that of Cain, whose descendants founded an expanding urban civilization marked by godlessness. Israel saw itself as the godly seed in the earth, chosen by the Lord, but it too faced the “Cains” and “Canaans” of its times who had built up its towers and cities opposing the Hebrews seeking refuge in the land. Nevertheless, they could take solace that God would preserve their number and prosper them if they too would continue to call upon the name of the Lord as he had instructed Israel at Sinai. The name that is worshiped and proclaimed by Seth and his generation (4:26) takes on fuller meaning at Sinai, where God reveals himself to Moses, explaining that he is the God of their fathers (Exod 3:14–15; 6:2–8). Early Genesis reminded them of God's promise of blessing upon a righteous seed and his full intention of bringing blessing upon Abraham's offspring by prodigious progeny and by establishing them in the land of promise.

New American Commentary - New American Commentary – Volume 1a: Genesis 1-11:26.

1. The Man and Woman in the Garden (2:4–25)

Much has been made of the differences between chaps. 1 and 2 in the history of interpretation. For well over a century critical scholars have attributed these passages to two conjectural sources (P and J) coming from different times and conveying distinct theological perspectives. A line of division is drawn at 2:4a, which is taken as the conclusion of the P(riestly) account of creation in 1:1–2:4a, and the beginning of the Yahwist's story, which consists of 2:4b–4:26. We have described already at chap. 1 the primary reasons for such a division and the problems that a dichotomy at 2:4a and 2:4b creates for this now well-entrenched reconstruction by critical scholars. Although there are some differences between chaps. 1 and 2, which we will address, there is a growing recognition that these differences can be attributed to reasons other than two original, competing creation stories. At 2:4 the author has joined the account of universal creation (1:1–2:3) and the singular story of human history (2:5–4:26).

Studies in the rhetorical features of 1:1–2:3 and 2:4–25 have shown that they are two complementary descriptions that present a congruent narrative, the second picking up on the skeletal telling of the former. They possess a number of similarities in literary structure and content that recommend that they are the product of one hand. Scholars are recognizing that chaps. 1 and 2 are not a repetition of the same matters that in places are at odds with one another, but rather chap. 2 is a thematic elaboration of the key features found in 1:1–2:3. It has long been recognized that the normal use of the formulation “these are the generations of” refers to the progeny that follows as opposed to the progenitor himself. “The generations of Terah” (11:27), for example, does not concern Terah's begetting but his offspring Abraham. Thus “these are the generations of the heavens and the earth” (2:4a) concerns not their own begetting, for this has been seen already in chap. 1; rather, the tôlĕdôt heading introduces what was the aftermath of that creation. Another indication that 2:4–25 is an expansion on chap. 1 is the similarity of 2:4 with Gen 5:1 and Num 3:1 in syntax and narrative function: the heading “this is the account of” (tōlĕdōt) is followed by a temporal clause “when” (bĕyôm). In Gen 5:1 and Num 3:1 the content of the “when” clause refers to former prominent information, so as to bring it to the attention of the reader for understanding the conditions under which the following tōlĕdōt section occurs.

In chap. 1 the peak days in the progression of creation are days three and six, in which the earth exhibits productivity (vegetation) and population (animal, human). These foci in days three and six are found again in chap. 2, where they are treated not repetitively but in a fuller way so as to give them continuing prominence. Particularly, the sixth day's events regarding the creation of man and woman and their dominion (1:26–28) are taken up in 2:4–25.

Moreover, comparative studies show that the telling of human origins in doublet is a feature observed in Sumerian and Babylonian stories. In Enki and Ninmah (ca. 2000 B.C.) the first account of the creation of human life is a general one, with creation by nipping off clay, and the second account covers the same ground in more detail. Babylonian Atrahasis has the first creation from the remains of a slain deity mixed with clay, and the second elaborates, showing that the first humans were created in seven pairs by snipping off clay. In both cases the former is general and the second specific.

As with Genesis 1 and 2, a transition from a general account to a specific one also is found in the pairing of the genealogical records in Genesis 4 with 5 and 10 with 11. They exhibit a focusing technique whereby the second genealogy in the pair becomes prominent for the following narrative, that is, Seth (chap. 5) and Shem (chap. 11). The first genealogical record also traces a line of descent; but, unlike the second genealogy, its descendants are excluded from the succeeding narrative, that is, Cain (chap. 4) and Japheth and Ham (chap. 10). Creation in 1:1–2:3 is completed without further reference, and the subsequent account (2:4–25) picks up the main aspect of that creation, namely, the man, and focuses on his creation, home, and companion in chaps. 2–4. It is Adam's history that concerns the ongoing narration.

The first indication that the narrative of chaps. 1–2 shifts focus from the broad to the specific is the inversion of “the heavens and the earth” (1:1; 2:4a) to “the earth and the heavens” in 2:4b, which shows a change in attention and prepares for a different narrative arrangement. As we will show, this inversion, “the earth and the heavens,” while echoing 1:1, is immediately related to 2:4a. The reversal “the earth and the heavens” also occurs in Ps 148:13 and is found in a chiasmus at Jer 10:11. The allusion to 1:1, “the heavens and the earth,” in 2:4a and the inversion “the earth and the heavens” at 2:4b are best explained as a transition in the narrative, carefully integrating the creation account and the narrative of the garden to follow. The genealogical framework, “these are the generations of,” in chaps. 1–11 is designed to move the narration forward, indicating the progressive movement of God's program for achieving the promissory blessings despite the setbacks of personal sin and societal wickedness. Chapter 2 picks up the thesis of blessing for mankind already introduced (1:26–28) and carries it thematically forward by recounting the first man's family and environment.

Since both narratives overlap in some points of content but yet are structured for different functions, it is not surprising that dissimilarities result. How their different aims impact the way events are narrated is well illustrated by the creation of the animals (2:19–20; 1:20–25). The different order in the creation of the animals and humanity between 1:1–2:3 and 2:4–25 has been taken as an irreconcilable conflict. Chapter 2, however, presents a topical order in the formation of the man and the animals (2:7, 19), giving priority to the man's role as master over Eden (see 2:19 note). Also in chap. 2's narrative hierarchy, the making of the animals is subservient to the larger concern of the woman's creation (vv. 18–25). The animals are paraded before the man to establish the suitability of the woman as his companion. Chapter 1, on the other hand, presents the creation of the birds and beasts before the creation of humanity to indicate a line of ascendancy in creation, from the lesser creatures to the superior mankind. Such differences can be attributed to the purpose of the present arrangement of chaps. 1 and 2. As a son carries out the purposes of a father, chap. 2 is the offspring (tôlĕdôt, 2:4a) of creation (chap. 1), showing that the reason for creation is human history. We conclude that 1:1–2:3 and 2:4–25 are compatible, and the latter is an expansion on the former with special attention on what became of the human family.

(1) Creation of the First Man (2:4–7)

4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens— 5and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground— 7the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

2:4 “This is the account of” is the first occurrence of the popular tōlĕdōt phrase that appears in Genesis. The striking difference in 2:4 is that the progenitor is “the heavens and the earth,” not a person, as is customary with the expression. This indicates that the subsequent story of human history is viewed as the outcome of the creation narration.

The chiastic parallelism of the verse obstructs the anatomizing that is found in some versions (contra NIV, NRSV but see NASB). Its ABB'A' structure evidences a single unit:

A   the heavens and the earth

B   when they were created (bārā’)

B´  when the Lord God made (‘āśâ)

A´  the earth and the heavens

By using the vocabulary of 1:1, v. 4 echoes the creation narrative's beginning affirmation; it also recalls from 1:1–2:3 the frequent word “made” (‘āśâ). Verse 4 is an independent sentence (as in 1:1), and vv. 5–7 are a distinctive syntactical unit. Verses 5–6 present a series of circumstantial clauses, describing the condition of the land when God formed the first man (2:7). This syntactical arrangement is similar to the pattern of 1:2–3, but not exactly the same since 1:2 is a positive description whereas 2:5 is negative. In 1:2 the interest lies with the “earth,” but here the sense is uncultivated “land.”

Here is the first place in Scripture where the divine name “LORD” (Yahweh) occurs, and it is found in tandem with the name “God” (Elohim). The combination of the divine names is another link between 1:1–2:3 and 2:5–4:26, since the two narratives give priority to different divine names: Elohim is exclusively used in the former narrative, and Yahweh becomes prominent in the latter. The union Yahweh-Elohim occurs only in Gen 2:4–3:24 and Exod 9:30 in the Pentateuch. The combination of divine names at 2:4b is a favorite evidence cited by source critics for the redactional wedding of the two narrative sources P and J. Problematic for any source reconstruction is why 2:4b as the introduction to the Yahwistic (J) account would have the intrusive name Elohim present. Usually it is assigned to a late priestly editor who added Elohim so as to assert that Yahweh was God, the Creator of the universe. This will hardly do, for we must ask why in late Israel guarding the deity of Yahweh as Creator would have been incumbent upon the conjectural P redactor. Moreover, there are the questions of the aberration of Elohim occurring alone at 3:1–5 in the midst of a Yahwistic source and the oddity of the joined names occurring so infrequently elsewhere if it truly reflects a serious theological concern. The idea that a late scribe whose responsibility was to guard and transmit the sacred text would have improvised with the sacred names of God for his special theological agenda is unlikely.

Rather than a source explanation, the use of the combined names commends a theological explanation that can be attributed to the author. Yahweh-Elohim is transitional in function at 2:4, but the frequency of the unusual merger of names (20x) in chaps. 2–3 indicates there is a special place for the union of names that the subject matter originally elicited. Elohim is appropriate for the majestic portrayal of God as Creator of the universe since it properly indicates omnipotent deity, whereas Yahweh is the name commonly associated with the covenant relationship between deity and his people, Israel (cf. 15:7; Exod 3:14–15). Its combination with Elohim achieves an overlapping of these theological emphases: Yahweh, the Lord of his people, is in fact the all-wise and powerful Elohim-Creator. Hence, the antecedents of Israel's precious communion with its Creator and Covenant Lord had its inception in the garden when man first knew that fellowship. The personal presence of Yahweh-Elohim among his people Israel was not an anomaly but the pattern God inaugurated from the beginning. Conversely, the absence of the name Yahweh in the conversation between the serpent and the woman (3:1–5), where treachery is contemplated, shows that the relationship with God as Covenant Lord is under assault.

2:5–6 Now the author sets about to depict what the land was like before the creation of the first man (2:7): there was (1) “no shrub of the field” (v. 5a); (2) “no plant of the field” (v. 5b); and (3) “streams came up from the earth” (v. 6). The reason for the absence of plant life is specifically stated: “the Lord God had not sent rain,” and “there was no man to work the ground” (v. 5cd). There is a subterranean source of water (v. 6), but it by itself is evidently insufficient to support plant life, leading to the critical missing item—the labor of a farmer. All this prepares the reader for the principal clause in v. 7, the creation of the first man, whose occupation will be agriculture.

How 2:5–6 relates to the cosmological account of chap. 1 is perplexing for commentators. Some, assuming two distinct accounts, consider vv. 5–6 a second attempt (J source) to describe the chaos of 1:2. Other scholars see vv. 5–6 as a reference to overall vegetation created on day three (1:11–12); consequently this means the order of creation differs with chap. 1 according to which vegetation antedates the creation of human life on day six. If it is to be harmonized with chap. 1, it is better to relate vv. 5–6 to the formation of the dry land (1:9–10), which preceded both the appearance of vegetation and man. Alternatively, the “not yet” description of v. 5 may describe only what is not living in order to prepare for the goal of the narrative, namely, the creation of the living. The purpose of v. 5 would be to show that the world as we know it did not yet exist when man was created. We will show, however, that 2:5–6 is best related to the judgment oracles of 3:8–24, indicating what the world was like before and after sin.

There is a certain ambiguity in the passage whether it speaks of the entire earth or a portion, since the terms “field” (śādeh), “earth/land” (’ereṣ), and “ground” (’ădāmâ) are interchangeable in Old Testament usage. “Field” can refer to the open fields as a wilderness home for the beasts (2:19–20; 3:1, 14; 25:29), pasture land (29:2; 30:16), or cultivated ground (37:7; 47:24). Hebrew ’ereṣ may be rendered “earth” in its universal sense or “land” in the sense of a tract of land or country, as it commonly is in Genesis. Here it is best taken as “land” since the habitat of the first man is in view. “Ground” often has to do with the soil, which is cultivated by human enterprise, and it is the same material substance of which both man and beast are made (2:7, 19). Verse 5 plays on the words “ground” and “man,” indicating that the ’ădāmâ (“ground”) needs ’ādām (“man”) to produce a robust harvest (also v. 7). Yet ultimately it is God, not man, who provides the garden (2:8) and brings life from the ground (2:9).

The purpose of this tōlĕdōt section is its depiction of human life before and after the garden sin; the condition of the “land” after Adam's sin is contrasted with its state before the creation of the man. Genesis 2:5–7 is best understood in light of 3:8–24, which describes the consequences of sin. This is shown by the language of 2:5–6, which anticipates what happens to the land because of Adam's sin (3:18, 23). When viewed in this way, we find that the “shrub” and “plant” of 2:5 are not the same as the vegetation of 1:11–12. “Plant (‘ēśeb) of the field” describes the diet of man which he eats only after the sweat of his labor (3:18–19) after his garden sin, whereas “seed-bearing plants” (‘ēśeb mazrîa‘ zera‘), as they are found in the creation narrative, were provided by God for human and animal consumption (1:11–12, 29–30; 9:3). These plants reproduce themselves by seed alone, but “plant,” spoken of in 2:5, requires human cultivation to produce the grains necessary for edible food; it is by such cultivation that fallen man will eat his “food” (3:19).

The “shrub [śîaḥ] of the field” is a desert shrub large enough to shield Hagar's teenage son (Gen 21:15) and those seeking its protection (Job 30:4, 7). Since “plant” is best defined by its recurrence in the judgment oracle (Gen 3:18), “shrub” probably parallels Adam's “thorns and thistles,” which are the by-product of God's curse on the ground (3:17–18). Thus 2:5–6 does not speak to the creation of overall vegetation but to specific sorts of herbage in the world to follow. The language of cultivation, “work the ground” (2:5), anticipates the labor of Adam, first positively as the caretaker of Eden (2:15) but also negatively in 3:23, which describes the expulsion of the man and woman from the garden. God prepared a land for the man, but in telling of his creation and the land in which he is placed, the text anticipates how the land will suffer from the effects of Adam's sin. Also required for the spreading of such plant life is rainfall. “The Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth” likewise anticipates God's judgment against corrupt man in Noah's day: “I will send rain on the earth” (7:4). Whereas in 2:5–6 rain is perceived as the welcomed welfare of God whereby herbage may survive, in the flood account the rains are the means of divine reparations for a morally depraved earth.

Despite the sin of the garden and the subsequent moral decadence of Noah's age, the grace of God in both accounts is evidenced by his providing the possibility of food and continued life (3:18–19; 9:2). In the later Mosaic community the growth or ruin of cultivated “plants” corresponded to covenant blessing or curse upon the land (e.g., Deut 11:15; 29:22). The Song of Moses draws on this imagery by speaking of God's beneficent teaching as “abundant rain on tender plants” (Deut 32:2d). Although Israel faced a sin-stained world, God blessed Israel with a productive land when it chose to live in covenant faithfulness. Israel also, however, as demonstrated by the author of Kings, will experience expulsion from its good land because of its prolonged apostasy.

Verse 6 defines the subterranean source of water that blanketed the ground. The NIV's “streams” is the rendering of the term ’ēd, which has puzzled biblical scholars (AV, NASB's “mist”) and hinders a secure interpretation. It occurs but once more in Job 36:27 (AV's “vapour”). The LXX rendering has “spring” at 2:6 but “cloud” in Job. What is at stake exegetically is the condition of the earth's surface: was it dry, lacking rainfall and having only an evaporative mist, or was the land inundated with a flow of water, whether subterranean springs or a river, as modern renderings recommend (e.g., NIV, NRSV, NJPS, NJB, NAB)? In other words, was the absence of plant life due to a lack of water or too much water? Etymologically, ’ēd is disputed; it has been attributed to different Semitic, Akkadian, or Sumerian origins. Most are agreed, however, that the term refers to either underground streams that come to the surface or a substantial river. The notion of a faint mist appears foreign to the word itself, but the context may demand it when we consider the following creation of man from the soil (2:7). Such moisture mixed with dirt would provide nicely the necessary consistency for forming man from the “dust”; an excessive watery setting (precluding “dust”) would self-evidently present problems for the anthropomorphic description in 2:7. This, however, can be accommodated in the passage by the prior planting of the garden in 2:8, where the Lord routed the water out of Eden by means of four rivers, leaving soil for both the creation of Adam and also arable ground for tilling. It would seem on balance that the explanation of underground streams covering the surface of the ground is the better understanding since it comes closer to etymological speculation and can make sense in the passage.

2:7 God's creative work is highly anthropomorphic in this chapter. He is depicted as an artisan who sculpts the man and beasts (vv. 7–8, 19) and a builder who constructs the woman (v. 22). Such personal attention and care in the making of the first human is comparable to the contemplation of God in 1:26, “Let us make man … ” The word “formed” (yāṣar) is used of a potter's activity (e.g., Isa 29:16; Jer 18:4–6) and the making of wooden images (Isa 44:9–10, 12; Hab 2:18). It is used also of God “forming” Israel (e.g., Isa 27:11; 45:9, 11), the servants of the Lord (Isa 49:5; Jer 1:5), the natural world (e.g., Ps 95:5; Isa 45:18; Amos 4:13), and Leviathan (Ps 104:26).

“Dust [‘āpār] from the ground” is the raw material from which the physical properties of the man and beast had their source. The term may refer to the loose surface dirt of the ground (Exod 8:16–17[12–13]) or the powder of something pulverized (Deut 9:21). Egypt and Mesopotamia also depicted man as made of clay, sometimes mixed with blood derived from a slain god (see “Genesis 1–11 and Ancient Literature”). God is depicted as the potter who forms Israel (Isa 64:8; Jer 18:6; cp. Sir 33:13; Rom 9:20). “Dust” as constitutive of human existence anticipates 3:19, where the penalty for the man's sin is his return to “dust” (e.g., Job 34:15). While “dust” may also show that man is fragile physically (e.g., Job 10:8–9; Ps 103:14), the intent of the passage is the association of human life and the basic substance of our making. A second play on the words “man” (’ādām) and “ground” (’ădāmâ) becomes apparent: man is related to the “ground” by his very constitution (3:19), making him perfectly suited for the task of working the “ground,” which is required for cultivation (2:5, 15). Because of man's sin, however, his origins also became his destiny (3:19; Eccl 3:20); nevertheless, the Bible offers a grand hope for the body. “Human life is embodied life.” How the human body is cared for is important to God; both libertine and ascetic views toward the body that demean it are destructive to the whole person.

In the garden man and beast share in the same physical properties and are related to their environment (2:7, 19). Unlike the plant world, both animal and human are described as living, possessing the “breath of life” (2:7; 7:22). Thus the animals are declared “living creatures” (nepeš ḥayyâ; 1:20–21, 24; 9:10), as man is described identically in the Hebrew of 2:7, “a living being” (nepeš ḥayyâ). Human and animal share in creatureliness, yet a distinction between human and animal is sharply maintained in the narrative. The source of animal life is attributed to the intermediary “ground” (2:19) from which the animals came forth “in a moment.” But the man was “gradually formed,” and his fountain of life was the divine breath: God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” This description continues the anthropomorphic language of the verse; the man receives his life force from the breath of the Creator himself, hovering over him. “Breathed is warmly personal, with the face-to-face intimacy of a kiss and the significance that this was giving as well as making; and self-giving at that.” Although both animal (7:22) and human life share in this gift of life (2:7), human life enjoys a unique relationship with God. The correspondence between man and his Maker is expressed both by the language of “image” (1:26–27) and by the metaphor of a shared “breath.”

This depiction of “inbreathing” (nāpaḥ) has a close parallel in Ezekiel's vision of dry bones (37:9–10), where the reconstituted skeletons of the slain are brought to life again by the inbreathing of the “spirit.” Here Ezekiel has “spirit” (rûaḥ) for “breath of life” (nišmat ḥayyim), but the two are treated as virtually the same here and at times elsewhere. This inbreathing essentially means that Adam's body came to life, for “breath of life” is the life-sustaining principle embodied in man that comes from God. Job 27:3 reflects this: “As long as I have life [nišmatî] within me // the breath [rûaḥ] of God in my nostrils.” “Breath” is a figure (metonymy), meaning “life,” where the breath is put as the cause of life, and “nostril” is associated with the “breath of life” (Isa 2:22) since it is the place of respiration. To possess the “breath of life” or “breath” is to be alive (e.g., Deut 20:16; Josh 10:40; Job 27:3); the absence of it describes the dead (1 Kgs 17:17).

(2) The Man's Life in the Garden (2:8–17)

8Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9And the Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12(The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) 13The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. 14The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

15The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”

Following the creation of the first man (2:4–7), the narrative addresses the provision God made for him through the planting of a garden. A constant in this passage is the bounty of God's goodness to his special creation through a beautifully complete environment with luscious verdant herbage and a land rich in water and precious stones. Eden's glittering garden was left to human supervision as his divine charge and partnership in the exercise of earthly dominion. The garden's location in Eden and the trees descriptive of the site are of special interest (2:8–9); details of its contours and possessions are given (2:10–14). Last, the narrative sets the man in the midst of Eden to perform his managerial work, and God sets before him his first opportunity to express his obedient gratitude (2:15–17).

2:8 A garden is divinely prepared for the man as his habitat. The expression here, “a garden in Eden,” is unique in distinguishing the garden from “Eden” itself. This suggests that “Eden” was a reference to a geographical area of which the garden was a part. For this reason “Eden” is used both of the garden itself and for a larger region. “Garden of the Lord” designates Eden in Gen 13:10 (cp. Isa 51:3) and later “garden of God” in Ezekiel (28:13; 31:9), indicating God as its Owner. In ancient Near Eastern mythology is found a “garden of God” motif that depicts the divine residence on earth; it typically possesses abundant waters, fertile herbage, and beautiful stones. But here “garden of God” or “garden of the Lord” is absent; God does not dwell in the garden; rather it is the place where he meets with man. Moreover, the uniqueness of the biblical depiction with its original “tree of knowledge” indicates the narrative's independence.

Later the prophets adopted Eden's fertility as a sign of eschatological salvation or, by its reversal, divine judgment (Isa 51:3; Ezek 36:35; Joel 2:3); particularly Ezekiel made extensive use of Eden's incident of fallen pride in his oracles against the king of Tyre (Ezek 28) and Egypt's pharaoh (Ezek 31). Eden's garden has traditionally been termed “paradise,” initiated by the Greek rendering and now canonized in Western culture by John Milton's Paradise Lost. Parádeisos regularly translates “garden” (gan) in the LXX version of the garden story. “Paradise” was taken up by Jewish literature (e.g., T. Levi 18:10–11) as the eternal home of the righteous and also in the New Testament, designating the presence of the ascended Christ (Luke 23:43; 2 Cor 12:4) and the eternal abode for believers (Rev 2:7).

Hebrew ‘ēden (“Eden”) probably is derived from West Semitic and means “a place of abundant waters.” In addition to phonological evidence, this is supported by the allusion to Eden as a well-watered locale in Gen 13:10. Its Hebrew meaning as a common noun is “delight”; whether or not there is an etymological linkage, the sound play of “Eden” suggests even by its name that the garden was luxuriant. However, the Bible does not present the garden as the kind of paradise that is popularly envisioned, where there is only pleasure without work or concerns (cf. 2:15). Although the term “Eden” by itself does not indicate the location of the site, it is used as a geographical designation in Genesis. The account assumes that the Hebrew reader is situated in Canaan since the location of the garden is described directionally in the “east” with respect to Canaan. It is in the general location of the Tigris and Euphrates valley as shown by the naming of these two rivers, which are said to traverse the garden (2:14).

2:9 Eden is characterized by trees yielding fruits that are pleasant in appearance and delightful to the taste: “all kinds,” “pleasing,” and “good” evidence the extravagance the garden offered. Any charge that God is stingy is unfounded, but the serpent successfully fooled his audience. “The human couple will not be able to plead deprivation as the excuse for eating the forbidden fruit.” Ironically, Eve stumbled over the allurement of God's world (3:6) and soiled it with her desire for unlawful gain.

Two trees, which are crucial to the narrative, are especially described: the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Of the two the “tree of life,” though introduced first and noted last in the garden story (2:9; 3:22, 24), is second in significance to the tree of knowledge. Both trees are located prominently in the middle of the garden (2:9; 3:3), probably implying that the two stood side by side in the center. Although the significance of their station can only be derived inferentially, D. Bonhoeffer rightly observed that symbolically the middle of Adam's world was not himself but life, the very presence of God; the tree of knowledge as a prohibition signifies that man's limitation as a creature is in the “middle of his existence, not on the edge.”

“Tree of life” indicates that the tree produces the source of life in the garden. Ultimately the tree's power to convey life was due to its Planter, who alone grants or refuses to give of its fruit. The presence of the tree indicates that the garden enjoys life, and the eating of the fruit will result in continued life—a gift that only God can confer (3:22; cp. Rev 2:7), not an inherent property of the fruit. Common to ancient Near Eastern lore was the story of man's pursuit of eternal life, which only the gods could endow. But the heroic individual in each case falls short, an ancient concession that man cannot obtain the immortality of the gods. The Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, for example, depicts its hero recovering the “plant” of life, only to lose it to the water serpent.

As we will find, many motifs in the garden story are shared with the biblical Wisdom tradition, and the tree of life is a prominent one among these. “Tree of life” occurs in the Old Testament only in Proverbs outside of Genesis; it was appropriated by the sages to represent what gives man pleasant existence (Prov 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; 15:4). Later John's apocalyptic vision sees its recurrence where Eden is regained by the saints (Rev 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19).

The preeminent “tree of knowledge” is commonly referred to in the narrative as simply the “tree” and only twice receives the full appellative “tree of knowledge” (2:9, 17). As the “tree of life” indicated the source and presence of life in the garden, which had its origins in its Planter, the “tree of knowledge” thus indicates the presence of the “knowledge of good and evil” in the garden, and the eating of it confers that knowledge (3:5, 22). On the basis of 3:22 we may assume that the eating of the tree conferred a kind of knowledge that was an exceptional possession of deity and was attributable only to God, who is the provider of the tree. However, the act of eating the fruit of this tree while granting knowledge resulted concomitantly in death for the transgressors (2:17). One of the striking features of this enigmatic account is that the tree of life, which involves the human concerns of life and death, is overshadowed by the tree of knowledge. This is because the tree of knowledge as the “tree of decision” becomes the touchstone of human destiny on which the narrative turns.

“Tree of knowledge” has been variously understood, but before we speak of the tree, it is sobering to recall that speculation about the tree was in fact Eve's error. After all that might be said, the important feature of the narrative is that the human couple defied God's commandment. This mysterious tree puzzles the interpreter because of the diverse contexts attested in the Old Testament for the phrase “good and evil” where similar expressions are found. In Genesis the exact language is limited to 2:9, 17 with similar language in 3:5, 22. Important for our purposes is the association of “knowledge” with “good and evil.” It occurs in Deut 1:39, where Moses speaks of Israel's children “who do not yet know good from bad.” Also Isa 7:15–16 speaks of a child's awareness of good and evil, “when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the good.” Aged Barzillai exclaims that he has lost this capacity: “Can I tell the difference between what is good and what is not [i.e., evil]?” (2 Sam 19:35[36]). The idea of discernment or judgment is attributed to royal figures, priests, and to God.

Furthermore, the tree of knowledge is a riddle for the interpreter because this “knowledge,” we may infer from 3:22, is a feature of deity not inherently possessed by the man and woman but then obtained by them, yet only after their act of disobedience. In some sense this acquisition meant human advancement, even sharing in the divine, but it was a progress that could hardly be called a reward; it insured only the deserts of the opposite of deity's immortality.

Typically, the acquisition of “good and evil” is related in some way by commentators to human advancement.

1.  Argued since the time of Ibn Ezra, it has been proposed that sexual awareness and the consequence of its power for procreation is awakened by the tree. This is suggested by the association of the sin of eating from the tree of knowledge and Adam and Eve's first recognition of their nakedness (3:7). Also the tree's name, “knowledge,” is taken as an allusion to “know” (yāda‘) as a sexual inference (e.g., 4:1). The absence of knowing good and evil then is sexual inexperience or incapacity (cf. Deut 1:39; 2 Sam 19:35[36]). Creation is the power of God, and human procreation is man's imitation of deity's immortality. Yet the narrative would lead us to question why sexual experience was prohibited by God (2:17); on the contrary, it is the beneficent empowerment of God, who made the sexes and ordained the institution of marriage (1:27–28; 2:25). There is a connection between the tree of “knowledge” and the awareness of nakedness, but the connection is the disobedience of Adam and Eve at the tree that brought about guilt, illustrated by the shame they experience in nakedness, not a sexual awakening.

2.  Another common opinion is that the tree confers the human capacity of moral discrimination. This is supported by the similar language in Deut 1:39 and Isa 7:15–16, where a child lacks such moral judgment; it is a capacity exercised by a wise adjudicator in 2 Sam 14:17 and 1 Kgs 3:9. But this would hardly suit the experience of the aged Barzillai unless we are to consider him in his second childhood (2 Sam 19:35[36]). The difficulty with this view lies in 3:22, which indicates that the knowledge gained is something that is beyond the human experience of the first couple. The story flounders if the couple could not discern already between obedience and disobedience before they ate of the tree; the general tenor of the passage presupposes at least this small measure of knowledge (2:16–17). They are in a state of moral innocence, not moral ignorance. Moreover, there is no apparent reason why God would have prohibited this.

3.  As a merism, meaning “everything,” the expression “good and evil” indicates an advanced knowledge, but not necessarily omniscience, which would be true only of deity. This is suggested by David's judicial wisdom exhibited in 2 Sam 14:17, 20 and the request for divine insight by Solomon in 1 Kgs 3:9 (cf. 2 Sam 13:22; 1 Kgs 22:18). Deuteronomy 1:39 shows how children are dependent upon their parents for this knowledge of “good and evil” while they remain under parental responsibility; thus the tree of knowledge concerns independent judgment and responsibility (cf. Isa 7:15–16). Yet the significance of the fall is more than the mere transition from adolescence to intellectual or moral responsibility; it involved human autonomy in judgment, an independence of God's supervision.

All three of these viewpoints agree that the “knowledge” gained was in some way related to human maturity, whether in sexual matters or judgment. But in what sense then did the human couple become like God (3:22)? And why would God forbid such maturing experiences?

4.  More likely the tree bestowed a divine wisdom. It has long been recognized that features of the garden story bear strong resemblance to wisdom literature and themes. The Wisdom tradition declares that wisdom is possessed by God (Prov 2:6; 8:22) and is humanity's proper goal of attainment (Prov 3:13; 8:10–11). Proverbs indicates, however, that it must be achieved through the “fear of the Lord” and not through grasping it independently. Moreover, there is knowledge that God possesses that man should not seek apart from revelation (Job 15:7–9; 28:12–28; 40:1–5; Prov 30:1–4); to obtain this knowledge is to act with moral autonomy. By obtaining it through disobedience, the first couple expressed their independence of God and obtained wisdom possessed by God (3:5, 22) through moral autonomy. This autonomous action meant death because this wisdom was obtained unlawfully; transgression against the law of God carried the penalty of death. In the Adapa myth it was possible for the hero to obtain the wisdom of the gods, granted by Ea, but be denied divine immortality. Thus the mortal could obtain one feature of divinity without becoming divine.

The man and woman's usurpation is the analogy drawn by the prophet when he speaks of the proud king of Tyre, who is expelled from Eden for aspiring to have the wisdom of God (Ezek 28:2, 6, 15–17). The first Adam achieved divine reputation through disobedience; the last Adam obtained exaltation by God through humility and obedience (Phil 2:6–11). Adam seized the prize, but Christ, though uniquely the image of God, refused to promote his rightful position and chose to humble himself, acquiring recognition by obedient humiliation and death. Calvin comments: “We now understand what is meant by abstaining from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; namely, that Adam might not, in attempting one thing or another, rely upon his own prudence; but that cleaving to God alone, he might become wise only by his obedience.”

When the garden setting is read against the backdrop of the Mosaic tradition, there are remarkable similarities to Israel's experience. As has been pointed out by commentators, the two garden trees are comparable to those elements in the tabernacle that represent life and the law of God. The candlestick was shaped like a tree with branches symbolizing life, giving light to the twelve loaves of bread that represented God's provision for Israel. The commands (“law”) of God were exemplified by the stone tablets in the ark of the covenant. In the same way the tree of knowledge was indicative of God's commands to be obeyed lest the curse of disobedience fall upon the law breaker. By allusion Ps 19:8–10[7–9] compares the law with the tree of knowledge and shows that it is superior, providing a knowledge obtained only through revelation. As disobedience meant death in the garden, transgressors of God's law in Israel experienced its deathly consequences. The God of the tabernacle was indeed the God of the garden. And, more importantly, as the tabernacle symbolized the presence of God among his people, the descriptive language of the garden's habitat declares that God is present with the first man. The tabernacle for Israel indicated the place of communion with God, and, similarly, it was in the garden that God and man first enjoyed that communion.

2:10–14 Eden's garden was rich in minerals and splendidly fertile with flowing waters. Its description is a digression in the text, giving supplementary information about its verdant beauty, but its significance for the narrative's motif of resplendence shows its integral part in the narrative. It is not a foreign accretion as some have proposed. Verse 15 backtracks and picks up the thought of vv. 8–9, indicating that the central concern of the narrative remains the man's place in the garden and the tree of knowledge (vv. 8–9 and 15–17), not so much the garden's appearance per se.

The garden is watered (šāqâ) by a second source (cf. šāqâ, v. 6), a river that flows out from Eden and becomes four separate tributaries (v. 10). The latter two named, the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, suggest that Eden was in Armenia from where these two rivers have their source (v. 14). The difficulty with this identification lies with the first two rivers, the rhyming “Pishon” and “Gihon” (vv. 11, 13), which are unknown. Their etymologies are of no help in locating them geographically. Havilah and Cush as geographical points of identification for Eden are also problematic, though at least we can say they appear to be related (cf. 10:7). Seven Cushite nations are named in the Table of Nations, including Havilah, whose origins are related to the regions of Africa and Arabia (10:6–7; cf. 10:29). There is, however, no necessity in taking this Havilah as the same in the garden story. As a location Cush is Africa's Nubia, south of Egypt; it usually is translated “Ethiopia” (Aithiopia) in the LXX, as it is here in v. 13. This has led some to speculate that the two rivers are the Blue and White Niles of Africa. Others have recommended that the Pishon is the Indus or Ganges rivers and the Gihon is the Nile. Cush is later commonly related to Egypt in the prophets. However, in 10:8 Cush is the ancestor of Mesopotamian kingdoms, and some think it should be related to the Kassites (Akk. Kaššû; Gk. Cossaea), located southeast of the Tigris (modern Luristan). Many have suggested that there are two sites for Cush, an Ethiopian Cush and a Mesopotamian one, but this remains uncertain. Some have taken the Gihon and Pishon as simply river canals related to the Tigris-Euphrates river system of Mesopotamia. Regardless of the identity of Cush, there is no correspondence between the description of Eden, possessing four rivers flowing into or from one central fountain, with the contemporary geography of the Tigris-Euphrates valley and Arabia. This leaves two rivers that are presently identifiable and two that are not.

Although the location remains elusive for the modern cartographer, the point of the description is clear for the reader: the habitat God has prepared is bountiful and beautiful. It has a rich resource of life-giving water and is adorned with precious metals and jewels. Both Ezekiel's temple (Ezek 47:1–12) and Revelation's New Jerusalem (Rev 22:1–2) possess flowing rivers that provide the luscious growth of trees and nurturing power for life and healing. The “good” (tôb) gold echoes the “good” creation of chap. 1 and testifies to God's excelling provision for the human couple. There was no legitimate place for the cynicism of the serpent's charges (3:5). Gold and onyx are reminiscent of the tabernacle's furnishings and priestly garments (e.g., Exod 25:1–9; and temple, 1 Chr 29:2). Gold overlay finished the sacred furniture of the tabernacle (Exod 25:11, 17, 24, 31). Particularly important was the “onyx” stone of the priestly ephod, upon which were inscribed the names of the twelve tribes (Exod 28:9–14), and the onyx of the high priest's breastplate (Exod 28:20). This language supports what we have already said: the garden is indicative of the presence of God. Moreover, the rivers Euphrates and Tigris, along with the Nile, are future boundaries descriptive of the patriarchal land pledged to Abraham (Gen 15:18). As God had prepared and assigned Eden to Adam's care, the “paradise” of Canaan's land was consigned to Abraham and his future descendants.

2:15 God placed the man in the garden for the stated purpose of supervising it. Verse 15 continues the thought of v. 8 but with a subtle difference in the language. “Put” in v. 15 translates the causative form of the verb nûaḥ, “rest,” and so could be rendered literally “caused to rest.” In v. 8, however, the term is śîm (“put, place”). Here the language of v. 15 is essentially equivalent to v. 8 in context, but “rest” bears a special significance for depicting deliverance from Noah's waters (see 5:29 discussion) in Genesis 1–11 and for speaking of the safety that Israel would experience as found in the Pentateuch. God promised to give Israel safety (“rest”) in the land from its enemies (e.g., Deut 3:20; 12:10; 25:19). This is illustrated by Lot and his family; visiting angels “led them safely [“gave rest”] out of the city” (19:16). It also is used of dedicating something before the presence of the Lord. God prepares the garden for man's safety, where he can enjoy the divine presence.

In the garden God gives the man a purposeful existence that includes overseeing his environment. Work is a God-given assignment and not a cursed condition. It was sin that spoiled the pristine relationship between the man and his environment, making work a toilsome chore that became a requirement for mere existence (3:17–19, 23). Mesopotamian accounts of human creation typically show how human beings were created for the purpose of work, but there human beings work to supply food for the selfish, lazy gods. Divine travail over their incessant labors is relieved by the creation of a human workforce. In contrast the biblical account portrays God as Provider for man's needs, a part of which is the honorable, meaningful labor of tilling the soil. “Life without work would not be worthy of human beings.”

The man's principal commission is to “work” and “take care” of his pristine garden home (v. 15). The word translated “work” (‘ābad) is the common one for tilling the soil (e.g., 3:23; 4:2, 12) or for other labor (e.g., Isa 19:9); it also speaks of “service” to another (e.g., 29:15; 31:6) and is often used of worship (e.g., Exod 3:12). The verb and its noun derivative “service” (‘ăbōdâ) frequently describe Levitical duties in tabernacle and temple worship. It also speaks of the completed “work” on the tabernacle (Exod 39:32, 42). “Take care” (šāmar) probably specifies the nature of Adam's labor. It describes the occupation of Abel (4:9), attending property and flocks (e.g., 30:31), protecting persons (28:15, 20), and frequently of “observing” covenant stipulations. For priestly duties it describes the faithful carrying out of God's instructions (e.g., Lev 8:35) and the caretaking of the tabernacle (e.g., Num 1:53; 18:5). Both terms occur together to describe the charge of the Levites for the tabernacle (Num 3:7–8; 18:7), thus again suggesting a relationship between Eden and tabernacle.

We have commented that “work” and “guard” in our passage anticipate 3:23–24, where the man and woman are expelled from the garden. Here there is a play on the word šāmar in the narrative: because the man fails through sin to “take care” (šāmar) in the garden, he is expelled, and God's cherubim “guarded” (šāmar) its access (3:24). Thus the man's assignment was fulfilled in an unexpected way by angels, and, ironically, Adam himself was prohibited from entry.

2:16 As God had given the natural world and all life-forms boundaries, human life too is instructed to live within prescribed boundaries. The verb “commanded” (v. 16) occurs twenty-five times in Genesis, but this first occurrence is the only place in Genesis where the narrative introduces a divine command by this formula: “And the Lord God commanded” (cp. 3:11, 17). Elsewhere in Genesis the formula, introducing direct discourse, always has a human subject (e.g., 12:20; 26:11; 28:1). “Commanded” (ṣāwâ) is common in the Old Testament and is often found in pentateuchal laws (particularly Deuteronomy) where Israel, “commanded” by God through Moses, received the “commandments” (miṣwôt) of the Lord for their way of life. The companion expression found in the Pentateuch, “[all] which the Lord commanded [Moses],” with its slight variations, is especially frequent in the narrative of the tabernacle's construction (chaps. 39–40). At the ark in the tent of meeting, God met with Moses where he gave all “which [the Lord] commanded [Moses] for the Israelites” (Exod 25:22; cf. also 34:32). This same expression for faithful obedience commends Noah's construction of the ark (6:22; 7:5, 9, 16) and Abraham's circumcision of Isaac (21:4). Unhappily, in the ensuing garden story the same cannot be said for Adam and Eve.

The man is addressed personally as an individual “Thou.” Unlike all other created life, the human being is endowed with special significance as a “person” in the eyes of his Creator, enjoying a privileged depth of divine-human communion. This is likewise evidenced in the creation narrative, where God spoke to mankind, unlike the creatures, when bestowing his blessing of procreation (1:28). All human life merits respect and protection by virtue of the esteemed position to which God has exalted it. The prohibition against eating the fruit of the “tree of knowledge” gave Adam opportunity to worship God through loyal devotion. Luther likened the tree to “Adam's church, altar, and pulpit. Here he was to yield to God the obedience he owed, give recognition to the Word and will of God, give thanks to God, and call upon God for aid against temptation.”

The instruction of the Lord is given as a positive expression of God's goodness rather than a harsh restriction (v. 16b). The Hebrew clause is headed by “from any/every tree [mikkōl ‘ēṣ] of the garden,” evidencing God's broad provision. This generosity is heightened by the following Hebrew construction translated “you are free to eat,” which could also be translated “you may eat freely” (cf. NRSV). This strong affirmation indicates that the provision of God for the first couple is plentiful and to be enjoyed liberally by them.

2:17 But freedom has no meaning without prohibition; the boundary for Adam is but one tree. This prohibition, however, is stated in the strongest terms, as was the provision. The adversative beginning the clause (“but”) establishes the contrast between provision and prohibition. The NIV's rendering reflects the nuance of strong prohibition by “you must not eat.” The form of the prohibition is the style of command prominent in the Ten Commandments and occurring often in the laws of Moses. The causal clause (“for,” kî) that follows explains the severity of the prohibition; the consequence of such an action is stated emphatically: “you will surely die.” This construction is the same kind as in v. 16, where the emphasis is on the liberality of God's provision. Here its emphatic nuance underscores the forewarning of the Lord. Commonly the expression “you shall surely die” decrees death for a culprit either by God (Gen 20:7; Ezek 33:8, 14) or a king. It occurs repeatedly in the legal collections of the Pentateuch, condemning criminals to death (e.g., Exod 21:12; Lev 20:2; Num 35:16–18).

The preemptive warning is necessary because, unlike the other members of the created order, mankind alone has the potential for crossing moral boundaries. Out of God's goodness and mercy he informs the man that the consequence of disobedience is death; what is at stake is whether he will choose to trust God's words. There is no suggestion from the passage, as is assumed by some, that Adam was created immortal but subsequently forfeited immortality by his sin. There is a difference between man's creation, in which he receives life by the divine inbreathing (2:7), and the perpetuation of that life gained by appropriating the tree of life (cf. 3:22). Immortality is the trait of deity alone (1 Tim 6:16). Calvin rightly noted that without sin Adam's “earthly life truly would have been temporal; yet he would have passed into heaven without death, and without injury,” thereby receiving eternal life. Perpetuating or renewing earthly life was possible through the “tree of life” (v. 9), but once sin was committed, the sanction of disobedience necessarily meant the man and woman's expulsion from the garden and its tree of life (3:22–24).

(3) The Man's Companion, the First Woman (2:18–25)

18The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called ‘woman,’

for she was taken out of man.”

24For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

25The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

The theme of provision continues in the story as God creates a “helper suitable” for the man (vv. 18, 20). Unique to the creation account is God's declaration that the man alone is “not good.” The same formula, “then God said,” which introduced God's creative word in chap. 1, expresses God's contemplation over what in his otherwise “good” creation requires his special attention. Such observation emphasizes the importance of the woman in the mind of God. Divine initiative is center stage in this passage: “The Lord God said” (v. 18), “the Lord God had formed” (v. 19), “the Lord God caused … a deep sleep” (v. 21), and “the Lord God made a woman” (v. 22). This full description of the woman's creation is unique to the cosmogonies of the ancient Near East. The Hebrews’ lofty estimation of womanhood and its place in creation was not widely held by ancient civilizations, and Israel itself failed at times to give proper recognition and honor to women. The law of Israel, however, was designed to protect those who were commonly subject to abuse by society: the orphan, widow, and alien (e.g., levirate marriage, Deut 25:5–10). Genesis's account of the woman's creation demonstrates that God intended women to be equally important in the purposes of Providence. This was already found in chap. 1, where both “male and female” are said to be image bearers of God and both are commanded to rule the world (1:26–28). The role and relationship of the man and woman is now spelled out in more detail in the garden story.

2:18 The Hebrew construction of v. 18 accentuates the negative phrase “not good” by placing it at the head of the sentence. God has made the man and provided a beautiful environment with honorable work, a setting men may sometimes consider idyllic, but God announces that more is to be done to achieve the ideal for the man. God's concern is that man is “alone.” Whether the man felt his aloneness at first is not stated; only the divine viewpoint is given. God has created human life to have fellowship with him but also to be a social entity, building relationships with other human beings. “[Man] will not live until he loves, giving himself away to another on his own level.” Isolation is not the divine norm for human beings; community is the creation of God. The commissioning of man and woman to reign over the good land (1:28) involves procreation, and only together can they achieve their destiny. This unity, however, is not merely sexual; it involves sharing spiritual, intellectual, and emotional dimensions as well. Jewish sentiment noted this: “Whoever has no wife exists without goodness, without a helpmate, without joy, without blessing, without atonement … without well-being, without a full life; … indeed, such a one reduces the representation of the divine image [on earth].”

Moreover, the dignity of the woman is heightened by the monologue of God's creative contemplation. This stands in opposition to the creation of the man and the animals, which are described in the third person. Particularly, the creation of woman gives rise to God's creation of animals in the garden as a pedagogical device for the man's observation. The woman is deemed by the divine mind “a helper suitable for him.” “Suitable” (kĕnegdô, lit., “like what is in front of him”) indicates a correspondence between the man and the woman. The focus is on the equality of the two in terms of their essential constitution. Man and woman share in the “human” sameness that cannot be found elsewhere in creation among the beasts. In every way the woman shares in the same features of personhood as does the man. In 1:26–28 this equality of the man and woman as image bearers has priority over their differences in sexual roles, although both were crucial to realizing the intended blessing.

Here, however, the garden narrative moves beyond that initial assessment by specifying a functional difference that exists between the man and woman. She is called Adam's “helper” (‘ēzer), which defines the role that the woman will play. In what way would Eve become a “helper” to the man? The term means “help” in the sense of aid and support and is used of the Lord's aiding his people in the face of enemies (Pss 20:2[3]; 121:1–2; 124:8). Moses spoke of God as his “helper” who delivered him from Pharaoh (Exod 18:4), and it is often associated with “shield” in describing God's protective care of his people.

There is no sense derived from the word linguistically or from the context of the garden narrative that the woman is a lesser person because her role differs (see more at 2:23). In the case of the biblical model, the “helper” is an indispensable “partner” (REB) required to achieve the divine commission. “Helper,” as we have seen from its Old Testament usage, means the woman will play an integral part, in this case, in human survival and success. What the man lacks, the woman accomplishes. As Paul said concisely, the man was not made for the woman “but the woman for the man” (cf. 1 Cor 11:9). The woman makes it possible for the man to achieve the blessing that he otherwise could not do “alone.” And, obviously, the woman cannot achieve it apart from the man.

Divine “help” (‘āzar) and “blessing” are found in parallel in Jacob's benediction for Joseph (49:25). Similarly, the woman is the provision of divine “help” for the man so that the Lord will bless them as they achieve the mandate. Also ‘ēzer in 2:18 anticipates in an unexpected way how Eve will be a “helper” to her husband. She will be instrumental in providing salvation for fallen Adam by her “seed,” who will defeat the serpent (3:15). Hebrew zera‘ (“seed”) may be a wordplay with the similar-sounding ‘ēzer (“helper”). Since God is said to exercise the role of “helper,” the term does not diminish the person who holds that role. If anything, the divine nuance of the term “helper” in the Pentateuch gives special dignity (e.g., Deut 33:7, 26, 29).

2:19–20 The following narration of the woman's creation explores the similarity and dissimilarity between the woman and man and the animals. It shows the uniqueness of the woman and also the singular relationship shared by man and woman.

First, the descriptive language of the animals’ creation echoes the man's creation (v. 7). God “formed” both the man and the creatures out of the same substance (“from the ground”), and both are said to be “living beings/creatures” (vv. 7, 19). The animal world is a foil for the creation of the woman to distinguish her from the animals; her source is traced to the man himself and not to the “ground.” She is the first of creation to come from a living being. God creates the man first and derives the woman from the man to insure that she is his equal in substance and to maintain the unity of the human family. Thus they enjoy a unity despite their sexual difference, and this interdependence is explicit in the expression “one flesh” (v. 24).

Second, animals and birds are paraded before the man by the divine Zookeeper for the man to name them, thereby exercising his authority over them. The creatures are named within three broad categories: domesticated “livestock,” “birds,” and “beasts of the field” (cf. 3:1). By this the man could observe that there was none among the creatures who matched him in kind. The narration brings out this implication: “For Adam no suitable helper was found” (v. 20). The point is that the man was looking for a human match, but he “found” none. The woman therefore is distinguished from the animals. She is not of the order of the animals over whom the man is to dominate (see 2:23 discussion); she will share in the responsibility of dominating the created order (1:26–28). The fact that the man is expressing his rule over the animal world in the search for an appropriate helper caused him to realize his inadequacy to the task if he continues in the impotent condition of “alone.” In this way God is preparing the man to value his mate. Just as the man was uniquely made, receiving from God the divine inbreathing of life, the woman's creation in the narrative was unique. Both the man and the woman are mysteriously made by the hands of God.

2:21–22 Third, the narration indicates by the method of making the woman that she is a special creation in the eyes of God (v. 21). She is taken from the man by a “surgical” act of God. The “deep sleep” (tardēmâ) that Adam experiences and the procedure that follows is initiated and carried out exclusively by God. The man is not even a conscious spectator. The “sleep” preserves for the man the mystery of her creation and the subsequent surprise at her appearance. “Deep sleep” is commonly used of a night's sleep (Job 4:13; 33:15; Prov 19:15), but here it is the special work of God as with Abraham's slumber (15:12; cf. 1 Sam 26:12 and fig. use Isa 29:10 with Rom 11:8). The verbal root from which this noun is derived (rādam) describes Jonah's sleep, which was not disturbed even by the roaring seas battering his Tarshish-bound ship (1:5–6).

The building block for constructing the woman is a portion of the man's essential skeletal frame. As we have already observed, the language of the garden scene is found in the tabernacle description; the term ṣēlā‘, here rendered “ribs,” appears frequently in the construction setting of the tabernacle, there translated “side.” The woman was taken from the man's side to show that she was of the same substance as the man and to underscore the unity of the human family, having one source. This is made clear by the man's description of her: “Bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (v. 23). The verb “took” (lāqaḥ), which is given prominence in the narrative (vv. 22–23), may anticipate the marital union of the two since it is the common idiom for marriage.

In Jewish tradition Adam was believed originally androgynous, that is, biologically bisexual (e.g., Gen.Rab. 8.1; Rashi), for Gen 5:2 says, “And when they were created, he [God] called them ‘man.’” This opinion is not dead. Support for this notion has been advanced by appeal to the rabbinic argument noted above and from 2:22 on the basis that man's “side,” not his “rib,” was used in the creation of Eve. Whether “side” or “rib,” it is transparent from 1:27–28, which is the basis of 5:2, that two persons are meant here, not one with two sexes, since 1:27 refers to two persons (plural “them”) of differing gender after the singular “him.” Moreover, there is no hint elsewhere in the Eden narrative that the first man in 2:7 was bisexual.

Commentators from antiquity to the present have made much of the body image where the woman is derived from the man's side as opposed to some other part of the anatomy. Does it indicate that the woman is the man's equal in position as opposed to his “helper”? In the mind of the modern feminist, “side” may suggest equality, but the rabbis could well take the same “side” and make it suit their patriarchal presumption. Genesis Rabbah (18.2) reads, “He [God] thought to himself: ‘We should not create her beginning with the head, so that she not be frivolous, nor from the eye, that she not be a starer [at men], nor from the ear, that she not be an eavesdropper, nor from the mouth, that she not talk too much [a gossip], nor from the heart, that she not be jealous, nor from the hand, that she not be light-fingered, nor from the foot, that she not be a gadabout, but from a covered up place on man. For even when a man is standing naked, that spot is covered up.” One must beware, then, reading too much into the significance of the “side.” Perhaps the best-known explication is Aquinas's Summa Theologiae (1a, 92, 3c): “For since the woman should not have ‘authority over the man’ (1 Tim 2:12) it would not have been fitting for her to have been formed from his head, nor since she is not to be despised by the man, as if she were but his servile subject, would it have been fitting for her to be formed from his feet.”

The symbolic significance of the “rib” is that the man and woman are fit for one another as companions sexually and socially. The body metaphor is employed by Paul in his writings to indicate respective roles in community, especially speaking of Christ and the church (1 Cor 12:21–25; Eph 1:22–23; 4:15–16; Col 2:19). In Eph 5:22–31 he draws on the “head-body” imagery in a domestic metaphor where the husband as “head” of the wife parallels Christ as “head” of the church (cp. 1 Cor 11:3). Paul's quotation of Gen 2:24 shows that Eph 5:28–30 is an allusion to Gen 2:22–23. It would seem that Paul had appealed to the woman as man's “rib” to indicate their loving unity, not their domestic equality. This is the significance of the “rib”; they are of the same human “stuff.”

God is depicted as a “builder” who constructs the woman from the raw resources derived from the man (v. 22). Bānâ, translated “made” (NIV, NRSV), “fashioned” (NASB, NJB, NJPS), or “built” (REB, NAB), is a frequent term for the building of edifices, but it occurs only once in early Genesis. Also it is typical in ancient Near Eastern tales where the deity creates human beings. It is used of the Lord elsewhere when he “builds” his sanctuary (Ps 78:69) and is the “Builder” (bôneh) of his heavenly residence (Amos 9:6). The anthropomorphic language of God as Potter (v. 7) or Builder shows his special involvement in the creation of the human family. Identifying Adam again in v. 22 as the woman's source reiterates the connectedness of the first couple. Again the “rib” also indicates some discontinuity since it distinguishes her constitution from both the animals and Adam, whose source was the “ground” (2:7, 19).

The Lord presents his special “project” to the man, suggesting by this that she is a gift from the man's Maker. The language “brought” is reminiscent of God's presentation of the animals to the man (2:19; cf. 7:9, 15). This echo reinforces what the man discovers: the woman is Adam's human partner. A significant difference between the two passages is that the first has a stated purpose, the naming of the animals. Here, however, there is no utilitarian purpose prescribed although the man proceeds to name her (v. 23b; 3:20). The garden “Paradise” is now complete with the presence of the woman.

2:23 The narration has steadily progressed toward this pinnacle where the man speaks for the first time, for God alone has spoken up to this point (v. 18). In the man's naming of the animals there was no recorded speech, but with the presentation of the woman, the man exclaims in poetic verse. The embedded poem is peculiar in the narrative flow and by itself draws attention to the importance of this creative event. The exclamation reflects what the narration has sought to show: the unique compatibility of the man and the woman. Adam responds by a shout affirming that he and the woman, indeed, are made up of the same “stuff.” The exclamatory nature of his response is indicated by zō’t happa‘am, rendered “This is now” by the NIV but better by the NRSV, “This at last is” (cf. 29:34–35; 30:20; 46:30). The GNB explains the proper sense: “At last, here is one of my own kind.” The noun pa‘am with the definite article is literally “this once” or “this time.” The LXX translates the clause with the neuter touto nun, “this (is) now,” taking the demonstrative (“this,” zō’t) as a reference to the event of creation, not in reference to the feminine noun “rib.” Another possible reading is to take the demonstrative as a simple deictic and read “this time, bone of my bones.”

Adam's response centers on the sameness that he and the woman share as opposed to the creatures. The parallel elements “bone [out] of my bones and flesh [out] of my flesh” have the preposition min, indicating source. Although “bone and flesh” are used figuratively in the Old Testament for kinship, this is the one place where it has a literal meaning. Possibly the expression refers to covenant loyalty, in which case Adam is expressing a covenant commitment. “My bones” and “my flesh” with their pronouns heighten the effect. Also by naming her ’iššâ (“woman”), a sound play on ’îš (“man”), he underscores their attachment. This pun is heard in English “man” and “woman.” In naming her the man also names himself ’îš, and in calling her ’îššâ he restates his own name (embedded in hers). The derivations of the two words remain unclear; they are probably used here because of their similar phonetic sound. Adam explains the meaning of the pun in the subsequent clause, again highlighting her source “out of man.” Commentators have noted the wordplay between ’ādām (“man”) and ’ādāmâ (“ground”) at 2:7 and 3:19 and between ’îš and ’iššâ. The ending -â indicates feminine gender, but a double entendre has been suggested for the -â, which in Hebrew is sometimes used to indicate direction, “to” or “toward.” For the former case the “man” returns to the “ground” (’ādāmâ). In the latter the man moves toward the “woman” (’iššâ) in 2:24, where by marriage he is “united to his wife” and they “become one flesh.”

Genesis 1–3 is the authoritative fountain for the apostle Paul's soteriology and his instruction on home and ecclesiastical order. There is escalating disagreement about the theology and relevancy of the creation-Eden narratives pertaining to the societal and ecclesiastical issues of manhood and womanhood in our culture. What we have in the Eden narrative is the origins of the fundamental institution of ancient Israel's life—the family. This we said is extended beyond the family in some respects by the apostle Paul to ecclesiastical order. Since Israel's chief interest was the family and how chap. 2 presented the prototype family (so 2:24), Genesis cannot be viewed as a paradigm for all man-woman relationships in society. To apply it universally to other social contexts, such as government, education, or commerce, would be unwarranted, for chaps. 2–3 do not address such institutions. Creation and Eden (chaps. 1–3) give a balanced picture of the man and woman in cooperation and companionship. Although they share all in common, Genesis also acknowledges that there are differences. Their sameness does not mean exactness.

Transparently, they are sexually different as “male and female” (1:27) and therefore have different roles in the procreation process. In 1:26–28 the emphasis is on their sexual correlation, but Eden's narrative elucidates and amplifies on their relationship: the man has a leadership role while the woman has a followship position. Before we speak to this, some suppose that the creation account portrays men and women in one way and the Eden narrative presents their relationship differently, even irreconcilably. But the notion of hierarchical role is hardly foreign to 1:1–2:3; there is a certain succession in the creation events from the lesser to the greater. Moreover, there is the notion of “rule” in 1:14–19 regarding the sun and moon where we find the same term as that of 3:16b, “and he shall rule over you.” We make only this point: the idea of hierarchy is inferred in 1:1–2:3, and the Eden narrative that ensues is not fundamentally at odds with it. Also some think that submission was unknown until the fall in the punishment oracle of 3:16b (see 3:16 discussion). But leadership-followship is a creation ordinance that is well attested in Genesis 2–3 despite recent protestations. Feminist theology admits this and therefore calls for a new basis for doing theology, freed from what it considers the historically conditioned patriarchy found in Genesis 1–3.

This role relationship of leader and follower is indicated directly and implicitly. First, the participant structure of Genesis 2–3 shows implicitly the hierarchy of creation: God, the man, woman, and animal (serpent). But this was reversed in the fall: the woman listens to the serpent, the man listens to the woman, and no one listens to God. This usurpation of the creation ideal is, however, properly rearranged in the judgment oracles: now the serpent is subject to the “seed” of the woman, the woman subject to the man, and all subject once again under the Lord. Second, 2:18 makes clear that differences are present. The woman is designated a “helper” in 2:18, which affirms her subordination, for “one could not say in 2:18 that man is created as a helper for the woman.” We cannot exchange the roles of the man and woman as though they were equal without undoing the narrative's texture. Also the man names the animals without the assistance of the woman; he expresses dominion over the lower orders, but he cannot complete the task of subduing and thus achieving the blessing by himself. If anything, Eden shows that Eve's attempt to subdue the serpent proved a folly. But this does not mean that the woman was only useful for procreation purposes, for there is no discussion of sexual relations in 2:23–24. The name “Eve,” meaning “living,” acknowledges her dignity as the source of all human life (3:20); she also is pivotal to the salvation of the fallen family (3:15).

Third, the priority of the man's creation is important for recognizing leadership-followship in the garden (cf. 1 Tim 2:13). It does no good to argue that by this line of reasoning the animals that were created before the woman (2:19) be reckoned as authoritative over Eve, for the sense of the entire narrative makes it indisputable that all human life is superior to the lower orders. It is within the human family that leadership-followship is indicated in the garden account. The reference to marriage in 2:24 recognizes the familial structure of authority where parent has priority over son and daughter; that common structure in Israelite life is presupposed in the creation ordinance of marriage (see 2:24). Granted, the reference here is anachronistic, for such parent-child pattern was yet to occur; but we miss the point if we dismiss this too lightly. The supposition of the biblical author is that the familial structure of authority had its inception in the garden, and that pattern is in place before the sin of Adam. For Israel the paradigm for family was that found in the garden narrative, as illustrated in Jesus’ instruction on marriage, where he integrates 1:27 and 2:23–24. The rudimentary system was conceptually in place before the fall. Also the man names the woman, indicating a difference in function (2:23; 3:20), in the same way that the naming of the elements in God's creation and the man's naming of the animals indicated a difference in relationship (see 1:5 discussion). Although naming indicates authority in the Old Testament, the narrative of Eve's creation as a whole takes steps to show that the woman is not subject to the man in the same sense that the animals are subject to him. Rather, the text presents them as partners who together exercise rule, fulfilling the mandate of 1:28 by exercising their appropriate sexual functions and respective intrahuman roles.

Fourth, the woman has her source in the man, suggesting that the man is the leader (cf. 1 Cor 11:8). The fact that the woman came from the man, which itself so impressed the man that he exclaimed “bone of my bones,” indicates that the two are inherently the same in nature, even as one connectional substance, yet they are distinctive in their person and interpersonal relationship. Ultimately, they have their mutual source in God (cf. 1 Cor 11:12), for neither creates the other. Again the text does not suggest that the man alone has access to God but rather that the man has the greater responsibility as the “firstborn” for the couple's response to God's charge. This is confirmed in chap. 3 by the quizzing of the man first about their collective actions (3:9–12), for the burden lies with the man as the responsible party for the activity of the garden. When God explains man's punishment (3:17), he attributes it to Adam's following the woman in sin. However, the sin of the man is not his listening to the woman per se but his following the woman in sin. In other words, it is too much to say that a husband should not listen to the advice of his wife. It was not simply heeding her advice; in this case it was succumbing to the content of the advice that spelled his disaster (cf. 1 Tim 2:14).

2:24 The creation of the first couple leads naturally to their relationship expressed through marriage since it is the couple's charge to procreate and subdue the earth (1:28). This verse is not the continued speech of the man but the commentary of the narrator, which is attributed to God by Jesus (Matt 19:4–5). “For this reason” (‘al kēn) does not indicate an explanation of the foregoing but rather describes the consequence of God's charge for the human family to propagate and rule. Marriage and family are the divine ideal for carrying out the mandate. As we noted, Jesus’ appeal to the garden (quoting Gen 2:23) as the basis of his teaching on marriage and divorce (Matt 19:3–9; Mark 10:2–12) indicates that the garden established a paradigm for marital behavior. That Eden was viewed by the Hebrews as the model, authoritative experience can be seen also in Jewish literature of the time but especially by Paul, who appeals to its events in speaking of the most profound theological tenets of Christianity (Rom 5:12–21; 1 Cor 15:45) and in offering instructions concerning the propriety of worship (1 Cor 11:2–16; 1 Tim 2:11–15), moral behavior (1 Cor 6:16), and marriage (Eph 5:31).

As a model for marriage this passage involves three factors: a leaving, a uniting, and a public declaration. The NIV's rendering “will leave” is ambiguous (also NASB); it can be taken by the modern reader as a description of future behavior or as an exhortation to marry. Better is the rendering “leaves” and “clings” (NRSV), indicating by the simple present tense that marriage is a universal practice. Marriage is depicted as a covenant relationship shared by man and woman. Monogamy is clearly intended. “Leave” (‘āzab) and “cling” (dābaq) are terms commonly used in the context of covenant, indicating covenant breach (e.g., Deut 28:20; Hos 4:10) or fidelity.

The significance of the language “leave” is that marriage involves a new pledge to a spouse in which former familial commitments are superseded. Marriage requires a new priority by the marital partners where obligations to one's spouse supplant a person's parental loyalties. Illustrative of this pledge is Ruth's earnest desire to remain with Naomi: “Ruth clung [dābaq] to her” (1:14) and “Don't urge me to leave [‘āzab] you” (1:16).

Our passage cannot mean that a man is not married unless he departs his father's house; it was customary in Israel for a man to remain, not leave, his father's household. This is best illustrated by Jacob's family, whose sons remained under their father's influence despite the founding of their own families and wealth. Although the sons are subject to their father's wishes, they also exercise some freedom and maintain their own household identity as shown by Reuben's authority over the life and death of his sons (42:37). Hebrew custom, rather, called for the wife to join the house of her husband (cf. Rebekah [chap. 24] and Tamar [chap. 38]). In fact, the law assumed a woman remained under the auspices of her husband's family even after her husband's death (e.g., Deut 25:5–10). The Eden narrative does not suggest that before the fall in chap. 3 men were ideally to leave their family for the woman's, which subsequently was reversed as a result of the fall. The judgment oracles do not speak to this, and it is best to view the reference to man's “leaving” as due to his priority in the narrative interest. Therefore “leave” here is metaphorical rather than literal since it was the woman who actually left her father's house.

Also marriage involves the two united in commitment; two parties are bound by stipulations, forming a new entity or relationship. The two people, although freed from their parents, are not isolated or independent; they become dependent and responsible toward one another. “One flesh” echoes the language of v. 23, which speaks of the woman's source in the man; here it depicts the consequence of their bonding, which results in one new person. Our human sexuality expresses both our individuality as gender and our oneness with another person through physical union. Sexual union implies community and requires responsible love within that union. The sexual union of the couple is, however, only symbolic of the new kinship that the couple has entered. The sexual act by itself does not exhaust marriage; marriage entails far more.

Finally, this “leaving” and “uniting” involves a public declaration in the sight of God. Marriage is not a private matter. It involves a declaration of intention and a redefining of obligations and relationships in a familial and social setting. In our contemporary climate of sexual freedom and societal tolerance for moral deviance, we would do well to reconsider the biblical viewpoint toward marriage and sexual behavior. Without question 2:24 serves as the bedrock for Hebrew understanding of the centrality of the nuclear family for the survival of society. Monogamous heterosexual marriage was always viewed as the divine norm from the outset of creation. Mosaic instruction shows considerable efforts to safeguard this ideal against its dissolution by clarifying what is “family.” Sexuality was instrumental in defining what a household was in Israel; abrogation of sexual boundaries threatened the identity of this core social institution. Without proper limits “family” ceased, and the consequence was the undoing of Israel as a nation, the same fate suffered by their predecessors (Lev 18:24–30). Strong prohibitions against sexual offenses often prescribed the penalty of death, as in the case of the heinous sins of murder and idolatry.

Adultery and promiscuity encroached upon another's household, and incest within one's own family resulted in confused lines of familial relationships. Since marriage formed a new kinship bond (“nakedness”) between the bride and her husband's brothers, making her their sister, and between her and her father-in-law, making her his daughter, sexual relationships and even marriage of in-laws after death or divorce was considered sexual incest. Hebrew marriage expanded legal responsibilities by the family toward the new member even after the death of a spouse (e.g., Deut 25:5–10). Marriage then was viewed as altering familial identity in the eyes of the community. We also find that the Mosaic law reflects the same concern regarding the similarities and distinctions between human and animal that we have found in our Genesis narrative. Sexual relations with animals were abhorrent since that revoked creation's distinctions (e.g., Exod 22:19[18]). Similarly, homosexual behavior was a confusion of sexual identity between men and women (e.g., Lev 18:22; 20:13; cf. Deut 22:5). Christian expectations for sexual behavior were the same and were a given among Jewish converts, but the Gentile world did not follow such norms. It was against the customary practices of the Greco-Roman world that Paul urged sexual restraints (e.g., Rom 1:24–28; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Thess 4:3–7).

2:25 The final verse is transitional, linking the foregoing narrative of creation and marriage to the subsequent narrative of human sin and the consequences of that disobedience (“naked,” 3:7, 10–11). Verse 25 explains that nakedness was not always a shameful condition for the human family. The Hebrew verb translated “felt no shame” (NIV) may be taken as a customary use of the verb, indicating that it was their normal condition. The common rendering “felt no shame” may suggest to the modern reader that shame is primarily an emotional response to guilt; in the following narrative, however, it is their knowledge that led to their understanding of personal shame (3:7); thus they “were not ashamed” (NRSV, NASB). True guilt is not manifest primarily in feeling but in knowledge.

Nakedness among the Hebrews was shameful because it was often associated with guilt. The parade example is the discovery of Noah's nakedness by his son, which meant family humiliation (9:22–23). Among the Levitical laws the idioms “nakedness” (e.g., Lev 18:6, 10; 20:17) and “make naked” (he‘ĕrâ) for sexual relations are used of sexual offenses (e.g., Lev 20:18–19). Particularly instructive is Exod 20:26, which prohibits men (i.e., priests) ascending the steps of God's altar, lest they expose their genitals before the Lord (cf. linen underpants, Exod 28:42–43). “And they felt no shame” fails to make explicit the adversative sense of “but they felt no shame.” It would have been remarkable to the Hebrews that the couple could be naked without embarrassment. It was in Greek culture, and not until the early first millennium B.C., that nudity among Greek males was viewed as heroic.

Also v. 25 as transitional anticipates the role of the serpent and associates the viper's trickery with the lost innocence of the first couple. The term “naked” (pl. ‘ărûmmîm) is a play on the word “crafty” (‘ārûm), which describes the nature of the serpent (3:1). As a result of the serpent's “shrewdness,” our parents sinned and experienced the embarrassment of their “nakedness” in the presence of God (3:7). Ironically, the first achievement that their newfound wisdom acquired was the realization of their nudity. Luther observed what we suspect the ancient Hebrew audience would have pondered: “Therefore this passage points out admirably how much evil followed after the sin of Adam. For now it would be regarded as the utmost madness if anyone walked about naked.”

New American Commentary - New American Commentary – Volume 1a: Genesis 1-11:26.