“We have here, I. The settlement of the kingdom of nature, in God's resting from the work of creation, Gen 2:1, Gen 2:2. Here observe, 1. The creatures made both in heaven and earth are the hosts or armies of them, which denotes them to be numerous, but marshalled, disciplined, and under command. How great is the sum of them! And yet every one knows and keeps his place. God uses them as his hosts for the defence of his people and the destruction of his enemies; for he is the Lord of hosts, of all these hosts, Dan 4:35. 2. The heavens and the earth are finished pieces, and so are all the creatures in them. So perfect is God's work that nothing can be added to it nor taken from it, Ecc 3:14. God that began to build showed himself well able to finish. 3. After the end of the first six days God ceased from all works of creation. He has so ended his work as that though, in his providence, he worketh hitherto (Joh 5:17), preserving and governing all the creatures, and particularly forming the spirit of man within him, yet he does not make any new species of creatures. In miracles, he has controlled and overruled nature, but never changed its settled course, nor repealed nor added to any of its establishments. 4. The eternal God, though infinitely happy in the enjoyment of himself, yet took a satisfaction in the work of his own hands. He did not rest, as one weary, but as one well-pleased with the instances of his own goodness and the manifestations of his own glory. II. The commencement of the kingdom of grace, in the sanctification of the sabbath day, Gen 2:3. He rested on that day, and took a complacency in his creatures, and then sanctified it, and appointed us, on that day, to rest and take a complacency in the Creator; and his rest is, in the fourth commandment, made a reason for ours, after six days' labour. Observe, 1. The solemn observance of one day in seven, as a day of holy rest and holy work, to God's honour, is the indispensable duty of all those to whom God has revealed his holy sabbaths. 2. The way of sabbath-sanctification is the good old way, Jer 6:16. Sabbaths are as ancient as the world; and I see no reason to doubt that the sabbath, being now instituted in innocency, was religiously observed by the people of God throughout the patriarchal age. 3. The sabbath of the Lord is truly honourable, and we have reason to honour it - honour it for the sake of its antiquity, its great Author, the sanctification of the first sabbath by the holy God himself, and by our first parents in innocency, in obedience to him. 4. The sabbath day is a blessed day, for God blessed it, and that which he blesses is blessed indeed. God has put an honour upon it, has appointed us, on that day, to bless him, and has promised, on that day, to meet us and bless us. 5. The sabbath day is a holy day, for God has sanctified it. He has separated and distinguished it from the rest of the days of the week, and he has consecrated it and set it apart to himself and his own service and honour. Though it is commonly taken for granted that the Christian sabbath we observe, reckoning from the creation, is not the seventh but the first day of the week, yet being a seventh day, and we in it, celebrating the rest of God the Son, and the finishing of the work of our redemption, we may and ought to act faith upon this original institution of the sabbath day, and to commemorate the work of creation, to the honour of the great Creator, who is therefore worthy to receive, on that day, blessing, and honour, and praise, from all religious assemblies.”

“Thus the heavens and the earth were finished,.... Perfected and completed in the space of six days, gradually, successively, in the manner before related; by the word and power of God they were on the first day created out of nothing, but they were not perfected, beautified, and adorned, and filled, until all the creatures in the were made: and all the host them, of the heavens and the earth; the host of heavens are the sun, moon, and stars, often so called in Scripture, and also the angels; see Luk 2:13 wherefore this may be considered as a proof of their creation within the above space of time, probably on the first day, though the Jews commonly say on the second; for if all the host of heaven were made at this time, and angels are at least a part of that host, then they must be then made, or otherwise all the host of heaven were not then and there made, as here affirmed: and the host of the earth, or terraqueous globe, are the plants, herbs, and trees, the fowls, fishes, animals, and man; and these are like hosts or armies, very numerous, and at the command of God, and are marshalled and kept in order by him; even some of the smallest of creatures are his army, which are at his beck, and he can make use of to the annoyance of others, as particularly the locusts are called, Joe 2:11.”

“And on the seventh day God ended his work, which he had made,.... Not that God wrought anything on the seventh day, or finished any part of his work on that day, because he could not then be said to rest from all his work, as be is afterwards twice said to do; and because of this seeming difficulty the Septuagint, Samaritan, and Syriac versions, read, "on the sixth day". The two latter versions following the former, which so translated for the sake of Ptolemy king of Egypt, as the Jews say (a), that he might not object that God did any work on the sabbath day: and Josephus (b) observes, that, Moses says the world, and all things in it, were made in those six days, as undoubtedly they were; and were all finished on the sixth day, as appears from the last verse of the preceding chapter; and yet there is no occasion to alter the text, or suppose a various reading. Some, as Aben Ezra observes, take the sense of the word to be, "before the seventh day God ended his work", as they think may be rendered, and as it is by Noldius (c): or the words may be translated, "in the seventh day, when God had ended", or "finished his work" (d), which he had done on the sixth day, then he rested on the seventh day from all his works which he had made: not as though weary of working, for the Creator of the ends of the earth fainteth not, nor is weary, Isa 40:28 but as having done all his work, and brought it to such perfection, that he had no more to do; not that he ceased from making individuals, as the souls of men, and even all creatures that are brought into the world by generation, may be said to be made by him, but from making any new species of creatures; and much less did he cease from supporting and maintaining the creatures he had made in their beings, and providing everything agreeable for them, and governing them, and overruling all things in the world for ends of his own glory; in this sense he "worketh hitherto", as Christ says, Joh 5:17. (a) T. Bab. Megilla fol. 9. 1. & Gloss. in ib. (b) Antiqu. l. 1. c. 1. sect. 1. (c) Concord. part. Eb. p. 144. No. 1007. Perfecerat. "ante diem septimum"; some in Yatablus. (d) "et compleverat", Drusius; "quum perfecisset", Junius & Tremellius, Piscator; "had finished", Ainsworth.”

“He rested, &c. That is, he ceased to make any new kinds of things. Though, as our Lord tells us, John v. 17. He still worketh, viz. by conserving and governing all things, and creating souls. (Challoner) — Seventh day . This day was commanded, Exodus xx. 8, to be kept holy by the Jews, as it had probably been from the beginning. Philo says, it is the festival of the universe, and Josephus asserts, there is no town which does not acknowledge the religion of the sabbath. But this point is controverted, and whether the ancient patriarchs observed the seventh day, or some other, it is certain they would not fail, for any long time, to shew their respect for God’s worship, and would hardly suffer a whole week to elapse without meeting to sound forth his praise. The setting aside of stated days for this purpose, is agreeable to reason, and to the practice of all civilized nations. As the Hebrews kept Saturday holy, in honour of God’s rest, so we keep the first day of the week, by apostolic tradition, to thank God for the creation of the world on that day, and much more for the blessings which we derive from the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the sending down of the Holy Ghost, which have given it a title above all other days. (Haydock) — On the seventh day, at the beginning of this verse, must be taken exclusively, as God finished his work on the 6th, whence the same Septuagint and Syriac have here on the 6th day. (Haydock) — But the Hebrew and all the other versions agree with the Vulgate. (Calmet) — The similarity of ver. 6 and ver. 7 in Hebrew may have given rise to this variation. (Haydock)”

“AND G-D BLESSED THE SEVENTH DAY AND HE SANCTIFIED IT. He blessed it through the Manna. [On all other days of the week there fell one portion per person, whereas on the sixth day — the eve of the Sabbath — a double portion fell.] And He sanctified it through the Manna [by not having it fall on the Sabbath]. And the verse is written here with reference to the future. Thus are the words of Rabbeinu Shlomo [Rashi] as quoted from Bereshith Rabbah. In the name of the Gaon Rav Saadia they have said that the blessing and sanctification refer to those who observe the Sabbath, meaning that they will be blessed and sanctified. However, from the intimation of the verse it does not appear that it refers to something which will happen in the future. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that the blessing signifies additional well-being, that on the seventh day there is a renewal of procreative strength in the body, and in the soul, a greater capacity in the functioning of the reasoning power. And He sanctified it by not working on it as He did on the other days. Now Ibn Ezra’s interpretation is correct to those who believe in it for this additional well-being he speaks of is not perceptible to human senses. The truth is that the blessing on the Sabbath day is the fountain of blessings and constitutes the foundation of the world. And He sanctified it that it draw its sanctity from the Sanctuary on high. If you will understand this comment of mine you will grasp what the Rabbis have said in Bereshith Rabbah concerning the Sabbath: [“Why did He bless the Sabbath? It is] because it has no partner,”) is a direct quote from the Midrash there. (See Theodore’s ed. of Bereshith Rabbah, p. 95, variants.) In the printed edition of the Midrash, the word l’phi (because) is missing. and that which they have further related [that G-d said to the Sabbath]: “The congregation of Israel will be thy partner.” And then you will comprehend that on the Sabbath there is truly an extra soul. WHICH G-D IN CREATING HAD MADE. The work which should have been done on the Sabbath, He did in the double work which He executed on the sixth day, as it is explained in Bereshith Rabbah. So says Rashi. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra, however, explained simply that His work refers to the roots of all species to which He gave the power to make [i.e., to produce] after their own kind. [Thus the verse would translate: which G-d had created in order to make it.] To me, the explanation appears to be that He rested from all His work which He created out of nothing; to make from it all the works mentioned on the six days. Thus the verse is stating that G-d rested from creating and forming — from the creation He created on the first day, and from the formation He formed on the rest of the days. And it is possible that the word la’asoth (to make) is connected with the expression above in the verse, that in it He rested from all His work which He created from making, [thus making the word la’asoth to be understood as mila’asoth (from making)]. So also are the verses: Until he ceased ‘lispor’ (to count), which means milispor (until he left off counting); And they ceased ‘livnoth’ (to build) the city,, 11:8. which means milivnoth; Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount; (going up) should be understood as me’aloth (from going up). And they departed not ‘mitzvath’ (the commandment of the king, which should be understood as mimitzvath (from the commandment); and thus in many other cases. Know that in the word la’asoth (to make, to do) is also included a hint that the six days of creation represent all the days of the world, i.e., that its existence will be six thousand years. For this reason the Rabbis have said: “A day of the Holy One, blessed be He, is a thousand years.” Thus on the first two days the world was all water, and nothing was perfected during them. They allude to the first two thousand years when there was no one to call on the name of the Eternal. And so the Rabbis said: “The first two thousand years there was desolation.” However, there was the creation of light on the first day corresponding to the thousand years of Adam who was the light of the world and who recognized his Creator. Perhaps Enosh did not worship idols until the death of the first man. On the second day G-d said, ‘Let there be a firmament… and let it divide,’ for on that “day” [i.e., the second thousand-year period] Noah and his sons — the righteous ones — were separated from the wicked, who were punished in water. On the third day, the dry land appeared; plants and trees began growing, and fruits ripened. This corresponds to the third thousand-year period which begins when Abraham was forty-eight years old, for then he began to call the name of the Eternal. A righteous shoot did then spring forth in the world for he attracted many people to know the Eternal, just as the Rabbis interpreted the verse: And the souls that they had gotten in Haran — and he commanded his household and his children after him, and they shall keep the way of the Eternal, to do righteousness and judgment., 18:19. This course continued until his descendants received the Torah on Sinai and the House of G-d was also built on that “day,” and then all commandments — which are “the fruits” of the world — were affirmed. Know that from the time twilight falls it is already considered as the following day. Therefore, the subject of every “day” begins somewhat before it, just as Abraham was born at the end of the second thousand years. And you will see similar examples for each and every day. On the fourth day the luminaries — the large and the small and the stars — were created. Its “day,” in the fourth thousand-year period, began seventy-two years after the First Sanctuary was built and continued until one hundred seventy-two years after the destruction of the Second Sanctuary. Now on this “day,” the children of Israel had light, for the glory of the Eternal filled the house of the Eternal, and the light of Israel became the fire upon the altar in the Sanctuary, resting there like a lion and the dog, that the first Sanctuary was built by King Solomon who was of the tribe of Judah, likened to a lion (see Genesis 49:9), while the second Sanctuary was built by the government of the Persians, symbolized by the dog (see Rosh Hashanah 4 a). consuming the offerings. Afterwards their light diminished and they were exiled to Babylon just as the light of the moon disappears before the birth of the new moon. Then the moon shone for them all the days of the Second Sanctuary, and the fire upon the altar rested on it like a dog. and the dog, that the first Sanctuary was built by King Solomon who was of the tribe of Judah, likened to a lion (see Genesis 49:9), while the second Sanctuary was built by the government of the Persians, symbolized by the dog (see Rosh Hashanah 4 a). And then the two luminaries disappeared towards eventide and the Sanctuary was destroyed. On the fifth day the waters swarmed with living creatures and fowl flying above the earth. This was a reference to the fifth thousand-year period which began one hundred seventy-two years after the destruction of the Second Sanctuary since, during this millennium, the nations will have dominion, and man will be made as the fishes of the sea, as the creeping things, that have no ruler over them; they take up all of them with the angle, catch them in their net and gather in their drag, and no one seeks the Eternal. On the sixth day in the morning, G-d said: ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.’ Their creation took place before sunrise, even as it is written, The sun ariseth, they withdraw, and crouch in their dens. Then man was created in the image of G-d, and this is the time of his dominion, as it is written, Man goeth forth unto his work and to his labor until the evening., Verse 23. All this is an indication of the sixth thousand-year period in the beginning of which the “beasts,” symbolizing the kingdoms that knew not the Eternal, will rule, but after a tenth thereof — in the proportion of the time from the first sparklings of the sun to the beginning of the day — the redeemer will come, as it is said concerning him, And his throne is as the sun before Me. This is the son of David, who was formed in the image of G-d, as it is written, And behold, there came with the clouds of heaven, one like unto a son of man, and he came even to the Ancient One of days, and he was brought near before Him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom. This will take place one hundred eighteen years after the completion of five thousand years, that the word of the Eternal by the mouth of Daniel might be accomplished: And from the time that the continual burnt-offering shall be taken away, and the detestable thing that causeth appalment set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. here means “years.” Thus 172 years after the destruction of the Second Temple, the fifth millennium began. Add this to the 118 years after the beginning of the sixth millennium, and you have 1290 years, as mentioned in the verse. It would appear from the change of days — from the swarms of the waters and the fowl created on the fifth day to the beasts of the earth created on the sixth day — that in the beginning of the sixth thousand-year period a new ruling kingdom will arise, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly,, 7:7. Ramban refers here to rise of Islam. and approaching the truth more than the preceding ones. The seventh day which is the Sabbath alludes to the World to Come, “which will be wholly a Sabbath and will bring rest for life everlasting.” And may G-d guard us during all the days and set our portion with His servants, the blameless ones.”

“And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it,.... A day in which he took delight and pleasure, having finished all his works, and resting from them, and looking over them as very good; and so he pronounced this day a good and happy day, and "sanctified" or appointed it in his mind to be a day separated from others, for holy service and worship; as it was with the Jews when they became a body of people, both civil and ecclesiastical: or this is all said by way of prolepsis or anticipation, as many things in this chapter are, many names of countries and rivers, by which being called in the times of Moses, are here given them, though they were not called by them so early, nor till many ages after: and according to Jarchi this passage respects future time, when God "blessed" this day with the manna, which descended on all the days of the week, an omer for a man, and on the sixth day double food; and he "sanctified" it with the manna which did not descend at all on that day: besides, these words may be read in a parenthesis, as containing an account of a fact that was done, not at the beginning of the world, and on the first seventh day of it; but of what had been done in the times of Moses, who wrote this, after the giving of the law of the sabbath; and this being given through his hands to the people of Israel, he takes this opportunity here to insert it, and very pertinently, seeing the reason why God then, in the times of Moses, blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it, was, because he had rested on that day from all his works, Exo 20:11 and the same reason is given here, taken plainly out of that law which he had delivered to them: because that in it he had rested from all his work, which God created and made; which shows, that this refers not to the same time when God blessed and hallowed the seventh day, which was done in the times of Moses, but to what had been long before, and was then given as a reason enforcing it; for it is not here said, as in the preceding verse, "he rested", but "had rested", even from the foundation of the world, when his works were finished, as in Heb 4:3 even what "he created to make" (e), as the words may be here rendered; which he created out of nothing, as he did the first matter, in order to make all things out of it, and put them in that order, and bring them to that perfection he did. (e) "creavit ut faceret", V. L. "creaverat ut faceret", Pagninus, Montanus.”

“And God blessed the seventh day - The original word ברך barach, which is generally rendered to bless, has a very extensive meaning. It is frequently used in Scripture in the sense of speaking good of or to a person; and hence literally and properly rendered by the Septuagint ευλογησεν, from ευ, good or well, and λεγω, I speak. So God has spoken well of the Sabbath, and good to them who conscientiously observe it. Blessing is applied both to God and man: when God is said to bless, we generally understand by the expression that he communicates some good; but when man is said to bless God, we surely cannot imagine that he bestows any gifts or confers any benefit on his Maker. When God is said to bless, either in the Old or New Testament, it signifies his speaking good To man; and this comprises the whole of his exceeding great and precious promises. And when man is said to bless God, it ever implies that he speaks good Of him, for the giving and fulfillment of his promises. This observation will be of general use in considering the various places where the word occurs in the sacred writings. Reader, God blesses thee when by his promises he speaks good To thee; and thou dost bless him when, from a consciousness of his kindness to thy body and soul, thou art thankful to him, and speakest good of his name. Because that in it he had rested - שבת shabath, he rested; hence Sabbath, the name of the seventh day, signifying a day of rest - rest to the body from labor and toil, and rest to the soul from all worldly care and anxieties. He who labors with his mind by worldly schemes and plans on the Sabbath day is as culpable as he who labors with his hands in his accustomed calling. It is by the authority of God that the Sabbath is set apart for rest and religious purposes, as the six days of the week are appointed for labor. How wise is this provision! It is essentially necessary, not only to the body of man, but to all the animals employed in his service: take this away and the labor is too great, both man and beast would fail under it. Without this consecrated day religion itself would fail, and the human mind, becoming sensualized, would soon forget its origin and end. Even as a political regulation, it is one of the wisest and most beneficent in its effects of any ever instituted. Those who habitually disregard its moral obligation are, to a man, not only good for nothing, but are wretched in themselves, a curse to society, and often end their lives miserably. See Clarke's note on Exo 20:8; See Clarke's note on Exo 23:12; See Clarke's note on Exo 24:16; and See Clarke's note on Exo 31:13; to which the reader is particularly desired to refer. As God formed both the mind and body of man on principles of activity, so he assigned him proper employment; and it is his decree that the mind shall improve by exercise, and the body find increase of vigor and health in honest labor. He who idles away his time in the six days is equally culpable in the sight of God as he who works on the seventh. The idle person is ordinarily clothed with rags, and the Sabbath-breakers frequently come to an ignominious death. Reader, beware.”

“Notice again, I ask you, the insight of this remarkable author, or rather the teaching of the Holy Spirit. I mean, after narrating to us detail by detail all the items of creation and going through the works of the six days, the creation of human beings and the authority granted them over all visible things, now he sums them all up in the words, "This is the book about the origins of heaven and earth when they were created." It is worth enquiring at this point why it is he calls it the book of heaven and earth in view of the fact that the book contains many other things and teaches us about a greater number of matters about the virtue of good people, about God's loving kindness and the considerateness he demonstrated in regard both (99c) to the firstformed human being and to the whole human race, and about a lot of other things it would be impossible to list right now. Don't be surprised, dearly beloved; after all, it is the custom with Holy Scripture not to describe every thing to us in detail in every case but rather to begin with a summary of related items and to leave further detail to be considered by rightminded listeners as they take in what is said. So that you may learn this is the case, I will make it clear from the very verses just now read. What I refer to is this: notice Sacred Scripture taught us in detail in the preceding verses the creation of everything, but now, instead of mentioning them all, it says: "This is the book about the origins of heaven and earth when they were created, on the day God made heaven and earth," and so on. Do you see how it con fines the whole account to heaven and earth, leaving us to get from them a sweeping view of all the other things? (99d) I mean, when it said heaven and earth, it included everything together in those words, both things on earth and things in heaven. So, just as in its account of created things it doesn't mention them all one by one but gives a summary of related items and makes no further attempt to describe them to us, so too it called the whole book the book about the origins of heaven and earth, even though it contains many other things, evidently leaving us to work out from the reference to these two that all visible things are of necessity contained in this book, both those in heaven and those on earth.”

“In these verses, I. Here is a name given to the Creator which we have not yet met with, and that is Jehovah - the LORD, in capital letters, which are constantly used in our English translation to intimate that in the original it is Jehovah. All along, in the first chapter, he was called Elohim - a God of power; but now Jehovah Elohim - a God of power and perfection, a finishing God. As we find him known by his name Jehovah when he appeared to perform what he had promised (Exo 6:3), so now we have him known by that name, when he had perfected what he had begun. Jehovah is that great and incommunicable name of God which denotes his having his being of himself, and his giving being to all things; fitly therefore is he called by that name now that heaven and earth are finished. II. Further notice taken of the production of plants and herbs, because they were made and appointed to be food for man, Gen 2:5, Gen 2:6. Here observe, 1. The earth did not bring forth its fruits of itself, by any innate virtue of its own but purely by the almighty power of God, which formed every plant and every herb before it grew in the earth. Thus grace in the soul, that plant of renown, grows not of itself in nature's soil, but is the work of God's own hands. 2. Rain also is the gift of God; it came not till the Lord God caused it to rain. If rain be wanted, it is God that withholds it; if rain come plentifully in its season, it is God that sends it; if it come in a distinguishing way, it is God that causeth it to rain upon one city and not upon another, Amo 4:7. 3. Though God, ordinarily, works by means, yet he is not tied to them, but when he pleases he can do his own work without them. As the plants were produced before the sun was made, so they were before there was either rain to water the earth or man to till it. Therefore though we must not tempt God in the neglect of means, yet we must trust God in the want of means. 4. Some way or other God will take care to water the plants that are of his own planting. Though as yet there was no rain, God made a mist equivalent to a shower, and with it watered the whole face of the ground. Thus he chose to fulfil his purpose by the weakest means, that the excellency of the power might be of God. Divine grace descends like a mist, or silent dew, and waters the church without noise, Deu 32:2. III. A more particular account of the creation of man, Gen 2:7. Man is a little world, consisting of heaven and earth, soul and body. Now here we have an account of the origin of both and the putting of both together: let us seriously consider it, and say, to our Creator's praise, We are fearfully and wonderfully made, Psa 139:14. Elihu, in the patriarchal age, refers to this history when he says (Job 33:6), I also am formed out of the clay, and (Psa 139:4), The breath of the Almighty hath given me life, and (Job 32:8), There is a spirit in man. Observe then, 1. The mean origin, and yet the curious structure, of the body of man. (1.) The matter was despicable. He was made of the dust of the ground, a very unlikely thing to make a man of; but the same infinite power that made the world of nothing made man, its master-piece, of next to nothing. He was made of the dust, the small dust, such as is upon the surface of the earth. Probably, not dry dust, but dust moistened with the mist that went up, Gen 2:6. He was not made of gold-dust, powder of pearl, or diamond dust, but common dust, dust of the ground. Hence he is said to be of the earth, choikos - dusty, Co1 15:47. And we also are of the earth, for we are his offspring, and of the same mould. So near an affinity is there between the earth and our earthly parents that our mother's womb, out of which we were born, is called the earth (Psa 139:15), and the earth, in which we must be buried, is called our mother's womb, Job 1:21. Our foundation is in the earth, Job 4:19. Our fabric is earthly, and the fashioning of it like that of an earthen vessel, Job 10:9. Our food is out of the earth, Job 28:5. Our familiarity is with the earth, Job 17:14. Our fathers are in the earth, and our own final tendency is to it; and what have we then to be proud of? (2.) Yet the Maker was great, and the make fine. The Lord God, the great fountain of being and power, formed man. Of the other creatures it is said that they were created and made; but of man that he was formed, which denotes a gradual process in the work with great accuracy and exactness. To express the creation of this new thing, he takes a new word, a word (some think) borrowed from the potter's forming his vessel upon the wheel; for we are the clay, and God the potter, Isa 64:8. The body of man is curiously wrought, Psa 139:15, Psa 139:16. Materiam superabat opus - The workmanship exceeded the materials. Let us present our bodies to God as living sacrifices (Rom 12:1), as living temples (Co1 6:19), and then these vile bodies shall shortly be new-formed like Christ's glorious body, Phi 3:21. 2. The high origin and the admirable serviceableness of the soul of man. (1.) It takes its rise from the breath of heaven, and is produced by it. It was not made of the earth, as the body was; it is a pity then that it should cleave to the earth, and mind earthly things. It came immediately from God; he gave it to be put into the body (Ecc 12:7), as afterwards he gave the tables of stone of his own writing to be put into the ark, and the urim of his own framing to be put into the breast-plate. Hence God is not only the former but the Father of spirits. Let the soul which God has breathed into us breathe after him; and let it be for him, since it is from him. Into his hands let us commit our spirits, for from his hands we had them. (2.) It takes its lodging in a house of clay, and is the life and support of it. It is by it that man is a living soul, that is, a living man; for the soul is the man. The body would be a worthless, useless, loathsome carcase, if the soul did not animate it. To God that gave us these souls we must shortly give an account of them, how we have employed them, used them, proportioned them, and disposed of them; and if then it be found that we have lost them, though it were to gain the world, we shall be undone for ever. Since the extraction of the soul is so noble, and its nature and faculties are so excellent, let us not be of those fools that despise their own souls, by preferring their bodies before them, Pro 15:32. When our Lord Jesus anointed the blind man's eyes with clay perhaps he intimated that it was he who at first formed man out of the clay; and when he breathed on his disciples, saying, Receive you the Holy Ghost, he intimated that it was he who at first breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life. He that made the soul is alone able to new-make it.”

“In the day that the Lord God made, etc. - The word יהוה Yehovah is for the first time mentioned here. What it signifies see the note on Exo 34:5, Exo 34:6. Wherever this word occurs in the sacred writings we translate it Lord, which word is, through respect and reverence, always printed in capitals. Though our English term Lord does not give the particular meaning of the original word, yet it conveys a strong and noble sense. Lord is a contraction of the Anglo-Saxon, Hlaford, afterwards written Loverd, and lastly Lord, from bread; hence our word loaf, and ford, to supply, to give out. The word, therefore, implies the giver of bread, i.e., he who deals out all the necessaries of life. Our ancient English noblemen were accustomed to keep a continual open house, where all their vassals, and all strangers, had full liberty to enter and eat as much as they would; and hence those noblemen had the honorable name of lords, i.e., the dispensers of bread. There are about three of the ancient nobility who still keep up this honorable custom, from which the very name of their nobility is derived. We have already seen, Gen 1:1, with what judgment our Saxon ancestors expressed Deus, the Supreme Being, by the term God; and we see the same judgment consulted by their use of the term Lord to express the word Dominus, by which terms the Vulgate version, which they used, expresses Elohim and Jehovah, which we translate Lord God. God is the good Being, and Lord is the dispenser of bread, the giver of every good and perfect gift, who liberally affords the bread that perisheth to every man, and has amply provided the bread that endures unto eternal life for every human soul. With what propriety then does this word apply to the Lord Jesus, who is emphatically called the bread of life; the bread of God which cometh down from heaven, and which is given for the life of the world! Joh 6:33, Joh 6:48, Joh 6:51. What a pity that this most impressive and instructive meaning of a word in such general use were not more extensively known, and more particularly regarded! See the postscript to the general preface. I know that Mr. H. Tooke has endeavored to render this derivation contemptible; but this has little weight with me. I have traced it through the most accredited writers in Saxony and on Saxon affairs, and I am satisfied that this and this only, is its proper etymology and derivation.”

“The historical account of the world, which commences at the completion of the work of creation, is introduced as the "History of the heavens and the earth," and treats in three sections, (a) of the original condition of man in paradise (Gen 2:5-25); (b) of the fall (Gen 3); (c) of the division of the human race into two widely different families, so far as concerns their relation to God (Gen 4). The words, "these are the tholedoth of the heavens and the earth when they were created," form the heading to what follows. This would never have been disputed, had not preconceived opinions as to the composition of Genesis obscured the vision of commentators. The fact that in every other passage, in which the formula "these (and these) are the tholedoth" occurs (viz., ten times in Genesis; also in Num 3:1; Rut 4:18; Ch1 1:29), it is used as a heading, and that in this passage the true meaning of תולדות precludes the possibility of its being an appendix to what precedes, fully decides the question. The word תולדות, which is only used in the plural, and never occurs except in the construct state or with suffixes, is a Hiphil noun from הוליד, and signifies literally the generation or posterity of any one, then the development of these generations or of his descendants; in other words, the history of those who are begotten or the account of what happened to them and what they performed. In no instance whatever is it the history of the birth or origin of the person named in the genitive, but always the account of his family and life. According to this use of the word, we cannot understand by the tholedoth of the heavens and the earth the account of the origin of the universe, since according to the biblical view the different things which make up the heavens and the earth can neither be regarded as generations or products of cosmogonic and geogonic evolutions, nor be classed together as the posterity of the heavens and the earth. All the creatures in the heavens and on earth were made by God, and called into being by His word, notwithstanding the fact that He caused some of them to come forth from the earth. Again, as the completion of the heavens and the earth with all their host has already been described in Gen 2:1-3, we cannot understand by "the heavens and the earth," in Gen 2:4, the primary material of the universe in its elementary condition (in which case the literal meaning of הוליד would be completely relinquished, and the "tholedoth of the heavens and the earth" be regarded as indicating this chaotic beginning as the first stage in a series of productions), but the universe itself after the completion of the creation, at the commencement of the historical development which is subsequently described. This places its resemblance to the other sections, commencing with "these are the generations," beyond dispute. Just as the tholedoth of Noah, for example, do not mention his birth, but contain his history and the birth of his sons; so the tholedoth of the heavens and the earth do not describe the origin of the universe, but what happened to the heavens and the earth after their creation. בּהבּראם does not preclude this, though we cannot render it "after they were created." For even if it were grammatically allowable to resolve the participle into a pluperfect, the parallel expressions in Gen 5:1-2, would prevent our doing so. As "the day of their creation" mentioned there, is not a day after the creation of Adam, but the day on which he was created; the same words, when occurring here, must also refer to a time when the heavens and the earth were already created: and just as in Gen 5:1 the creation of the universe forms the starting-point to the account of the development of the human race through the generations of Adam, and is recapitulated for that reason; so here the creation of the universe is mentioned as the starting-point to the account of its historical development, because this account looks back to particular points in the creation itself, and describes them more minutely as the preliminaries to the subsequent course of the world. הבראם is explained by the clause, "in the day that Jehovah God created the earth and the heavens." Although this clause is closely related to what follows, the simplicity of the account prevents our regarding it as the protasis of a period, the apodosis of which does not follow till Gen 2:5 or even Gen 2:7. The former is grammatically impossible, because in Gen 2:5 the noun stands first, and not the verb, as we should expect in such a case (cf. Gen 3:5). The latter is grammatically tenable indeed, since Gen 2:5, Gen 2:6, might be introduced into the main sentence as conditional clauses; but it is not probable, inasmuch as we should then have a parenthesis of most unnatural length. The clause must therefore be regarded as forming part of the heading. There are two points here that are worthy of notice: first, the unusual combination, "earth and heaven," which only occurs in Psa 148:13, and shows that the earth is the scene of the history about to commence, which was of such momentous importance to the whole world; and secondly, the introduction of the name Jehovah in connection with Elohim. That the hypothesis, which traces the interchange in the two names in Genesis to different documents, does not suffice to explain the occurrence of Jehovah Elohim in Gen 2:4-3:24, even the supporters of this hypothesis cannot possibly deny. Not only is God called Elohim alone in the middle of this section, viz., in the address to the serpent, a clear proof that the interchange of the names has reference to their different significations; but the use of the double name, which occurs here twenty times though rarely met with elsewhere, is always significant. In the Pentateuch we only find it in Exo 9:30; in the other books of the Old Testament, in Sa2 7:22, Sa2 7:25; Ch1 17:16-17; Ch2 6:41-42; Psa 84:8, Psa 84:11; and Psa 50:1, where the order is reversed; and in every instance it is used with peculiar emphasis, to give prominence to the fact that Jehovah is truly Elohim, whilst in Psa 50:1 the Psalmist advances from the general name El and Elohim to Jehovah, as the personal name of the God of Israel. In this section the combination Jehovah Elohim is expressive of the fact, that Jehovah is God, or one with Elohim. Hence Elohim is placed after Jehovah. For the constant use of the double name is not intended to teach that Elohim who created the world was Jehovah, but that Jehovah, who visited man in paradise, who punished him for the transgression of His command, but gave him a promise of victory over the tempter, was Elohim, the same God, who created the heavens and the earth. The two names may be distinguished thus: Elohim, the plural of אלוהּ, which is only used in the loftier style of poetry, is an infinitive noun from אלהּ to fear, and signifies awe, fear, then the object of fear, the highest Being to be feared, like פּחד, which is used interchangeably with it in Gen 31:42, Gen 31:53, and מורא in Psa 76:12 (cf. Isa 8:12-13). The plural is not used for the abstract, in the sense of divinity, but to express the notion of God in the fulness and multiplicity of the divine powers. It is employed both in a numerical, and also in an intensive sense, so that Elohim is applied to the (many) gods of the heathen as well as to the one true God, in whom the highest and absolute fulness of the divine essence is contained. In this intensive sense Elohim depicts the one true God as the infinitely great and exalted One, who created the heavens and the earth, and who preserves and governs every creature. According to its derivation, however, it is object rather than subject, so that in the plural form the concrete unity of the personal God falls back behind the wealth of the divine potencies which His being contains. In this sense, indeed, both in Genesis and the later, poetical, books, Elohim is used without the article, as a proper name for the true God, even in the mouth of the heathen (Sa1 4:7); but in other places, and here and there in Genesis, it occurs as an appellative with the article, by which prominence is given to the absoluteness of personality of God (Gen 5:22; Gen 6:9, etc.). The name Jehovah, on the other hand, was originally a proper name, and according to the explanation given by God Himself to Moses (Exo 3:14-15), was formed from the imperfect of the verb הוה = היה. God calls Himself אהיח אשׁר אהיה, then more briefly אהיה, and then again, by changing the first person into the third, יהוה. From the derivation of this name from the imperfect, it follows that it was either pronounced יהוה or יהוה, and had come down from the pre-Mosaic age; for the form הוה had been forced out of the spoken language by היה even in Moses' time. The Masoretic pointing יהוה belongs to a time when the Jews had long been afraid to utter this name at all, and substituted אדני, the vowels of which therefore were placed as Keri, the word to be read, under the Kethib יהוה, unless יהוה stood in apposition to אדני, in which case the word was read אלהים and pointed יהוה (a pure monstrosity.) (Note: For a fuller discussion of the meaning and pronunciation of the name Jehovah vid., Hengstenberg, Dissertations on the Pentateuch i. p. 213ff.; Oehler in Herzog's Cyclopaedia; and Hlemann in his Bibelstudien. The last, in common with Stier and others, decides in favour of the Masoretic pointing יהוה as giving the original pronunciation, chiefly on the ground of Rev 1:4 and Rev 1:5, Rev 1:8; but the theological expansion ὁ ὤν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος cannot be regarded as a philological proof of the formation of יהוה by the fusion of הוה, הוה, יהי into one word.) This custom, which sprang from a misinterpretation of Lev 24:16, appears to have originated shortly after the captivity. Even in the canonical writings of this age the name Jehovah was less and less employed, and in the Apocrypha and the Septuagint version ὁ Κύριος (the Lord) is invariably substituted, a custom in which the New Testament writers follow the lxx (vid., Oehler). If we seek for the meaning of יהוה, the expression אהיה אשׁר אהיה, in Exo 3:14, is neither to be rendered ἔσομαι ὃς ἔσοαι (Aq., Theodt.), "I shall be that I shall be" (Luther), nor "I shall be that which I will or am to be" (M. Baumgarten). Nor does it mean, "He who will be because He is Himself, the God of the future" (Hoffmann). For in names formed from the third person imperfect, the imperfect is not a future, but an aorist. According to the fundamental signification of the imperfect, names so formed point out a person as distinguished by a frequently or constantly manifested quality, in other words, they express a distinctive characteristic (vid., Ewald, 136; Gen 25:26; Gen 27:36, also Gen 16:11 and Gen 21:6). The Vulgate gives it correctly: ego sum qui sum, "I am who I am." "The repetition of the verb in the same form, and connected only by the relative, signifies that the being or act of the subject expressed in the verb is determined only by the subject itself" (Hoffmann). The verb היה signifies "to be, to happen, to become;" but as neither happening nor becoming is applicable to God, the unchangeable, since the pantheistic idea of a becoming God is altogether foreign to the Scriptures, we must retain the meaning "to be;" not forgetting, however, that as the Divine Being is not a resting, or, so to speak, a dead being, but is essentially living, displaying itself as living, working upon creation, and moving in the world, the formation of יהוה from the imperfect precludes the idea of abstract existence, and points out the Divine Being as moving, pervading history, and manifesting Himself in the world. So far then as the words אהיה אשר אהיה are condensed into a proper name in יהוה, and God, therefore, "is He who is," inasmuch as in His being, as historically manifested, He is the self-determining one, the name Jehovah, which we have retained as being naturalized in the ecclesiastical phraseology, though we are quite in ignorance of its correct pronunciation, "includes both the absolute independence of God in His historical movements," and "the absolute constancy of God, or the fact that in everything, in both words and deeds, He is essentially in harmony with Himself, remaining always consistent" (Oehler). The "I am who am," therefore, is the absolute I, the absolute personality, moving with unlimited freedom; and in distinction from Elohim (the Being to be feared), He is the personal God in His historical manifestation, in which the fulness of the Divine Being unfolds itself to the world. This movement of the person God in history, however, has reference to the realization of the great purpose of the creation, viz., the salvation of man. Jehovah therefore is the God of the history of salvation. This is not shown in the etymology of the name, but in its historical expansion. It was as Jehovah that God manifested Himself to Abram (Gen 15:7), when He made the covenant with him; and as this name was neither derived from an attribute of God, nor from a divine manifestation, we must trace its origin to a revelation from God, and seek it in the declaration to Abram, "I am Jehovah." Just as Jehovah here revealed Himself to Abram as the God who led him out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give him the land of Canaan for a possession, and thereby described Himself as the author of all the promises which Abram received at his call, and which were renewed to him and to his descendants, Isaac and Jacob; so did He reveal Himself to Moses (Ex 3) as the God of his fathers, to fulfil His promise to their seed, the people of Israel. Through these revelations Jehovah became a proper name for the God, who was working out the salvation of fallen humanity; and in this sense, not only is it used proleptically at the call of Abram (Gen 12), but transferred to the primeval times, and applied to all the manifestations and acts of God which had for their object the rescue of the human race from its fall, as well as to the special plan inaugurated in the call of Abram. The preparation commenced in paradise. To show this, Moses has introduced the name Jehovah into the history in the present chapter, and has indicated the identity of Jehovah with Elohim, not only by the constant association of the two names, but also by the fact that in the heading (Exo 3:4) he speaks of the creation described in Gen 1 as the work of Jehovah Elohim.”

“"On the day God made heaven and earth," the text goes on, "before any grass of the field appeared on the earth or any crop of the field sprouted, since God, you see, had not sent rain on the earth, and there was no human being to till the soil; a spring (100a) used to flow out of the ground and water the whole face of the earth." , [ Gen 2:5 ] Great is the treasure concealed in these brief words hence the need for us to unfold the meaning of the text with great sagacity, under the guidance of God's grace, and to lead you to share in this spiritual wealth. The Holy Spirit, after all, in his foreknowledge of future events wishes to prevent anyone's being able to engage in controversy later on, and in opposition to Sacred Scripture to set notions from their own reasoning against the dogmas of the Church; so now again, after teaching us the order of created things what was created first and what second and the fact that from the earth in compliance with the Lord's word and direction the earth produced plants and was stirred into pangs of fertility, without depending on the sun for assistance (how could it, after all, the sun not yet being created?) nor on the moisture from showers, nor on human labor (100b) (human beings, after all, not having been brought forth), accordingly once again he makes mention of all the items one by one so as to stop the unbridled tongue of people spoiling to make a show of their shamelessness. What in fact does he say? "On the day God made heaven and earth before any grass of the field appeared on the earth or any crop of the field sprouted. God, you see, had not sent rain on the earth, and there was no human being to till the soil; a spring used to flow out of the ground and water the whole face of the earth." He intends to convey the fact that by his word and direction things not existing previously were brought into existence, and what had not been, came into view all of a sudden. 'Crop' means what springs from the soil: when it says 'crop' it means plants of all kinds. And in teaching us about showers, again Sacred Scripture added, "God, you see, had not sent rain on the earth " that is to say, no showers had so far been sent from on high. (100c) And after this it finally shows us that there was no dependence on human labor either: "There was no human being," it says, remember, "to till the soil" [ Gen 2:5 ] as if to shout aloud and tell every one coming later: Listen to this and learn how everything springing from the earth was produced, and don't think it was all due to the care of people working the soil, nor attribute its birth pangs of fertility to them but to the word and direction given it from the beginning by the Creator. All this happens that you may learn that there was no dependence on the assistance of the other elements for the growth of its plants; instead, what was required was the direction of the Creator. What is really remarkable and surprising is that the one who now by his own word awakens the earth to germination of so many plants and demonstrates his own power surpassing human reasoning, this same earth, heavy as it is (100d) and supporting such a huge universe on its back, he rested on the waters as foundation, as the inspired author says, "He who rests the earth on the waters as foundation." [ Ps 136:6 ] What human reasoning could arrive at this design? I mean, when people build their houses and have in mind to sink foundations, they first dig a hole: if on reaching some depth they see a trace of dampness, they take every step to remove it all and only then sink the foundations. By comparison with this the Creator of all creates everything in a way contrary to humankind so that you may learn even from this his ineffable power and the fact that, when he wishes, the very elements can be seen to per form in a way contrary to their own abilities in compliance with the Creator's wishes. To make this subject clearer to you, let us make you familiar with the preceding point and then pass on to the next. You see, it is contrary to the nature of the waters to carry a heavy body in this way; and, again, it is foreign to the earth to take its position on such a foundation. Why do you marvel at this? After all, if you take it into your head to study each created thing, you will encounter the infinite power of the Creator and the fact that by his own will he governs all visible things. This, in fact, can be seen happening also in the case of fire: though it has the capacity to burn up, and it prevails over everything, consuming all material of stone, wood, iron and other bodies with ease, yet when the Creator so directed, it left untouched delicate and perishable bodies and, in fact, kept the children unharmed in the middle of the furnace. [ Dan 3 ] Don't be surprised if it left these bodies untouched and if, in fact, this irrational element demonstrated (101b) the kind of restraint that cannot be described. You see, it did not so much as harm their hair; instead, it formed a circle around them and kept them inside it; the substance of the fire, as it were, responded in obedience, and in compliance with the Lord's direction it kept those excellent children safe and sound, so that they moved about in the furnace with such ease as though strolling through a meadow or garden. And, lest anyone think that what they saw was not a fire at work, the loving Lord for that purpose did not hamper its efficacy; instead, he allowed its burning qualities to remain active, rendering his servants proof against its harmful effect but ensuring that those who thrust them in might learn the extent of the power of the Lord of all: the fire showed its force against them, burning and consuming them as they stood outside the furnace while at the same time encircling the children inside. Do you see how, whenever the Lord wishes, (101c) each of the elements changes its properties into the very opposite? The Lord, you see, is also Creator, and he governs everything according to his own will. Do you want to see this very thing happening also in the case of the waters? Well, just as in the present case the fire refrained from harming the people right inside it, on the one hand, neglecting to exercise its own power, while, on the other hand, it exercised that power in the case of those who happened to be outside it, in like manner we will see the waters drowning some but giving way be fore others so that they crossed over in safety. Remember in this connection, I ask you, Pharaoh and the Egyptians, and the people of the Hebrews, how the latter by the Lord's command and under the leadership of the great Moses crossed the Red Sea in this way as though across dry land, whereas the Egyptians with Pharaoh wanted to go the same way as the He brews, (101d) but were submerged and drowned. Thus even the elements know how to respect the Lord's servants and to keep in check their own impulse. Let us hear an account of the number of times we have betrayed our own salvation through being hot-tempered, and angry, and a prey to the other passions through our indifference, and let us imitate the great obedience of these elements, irrational though they are, while we are endowed with the gift of reason. After all, if fire, which has such capacity to burn, which is so fierce, left untouched in that fashion delicate and perishable bodies, what allowance can be made for human beings not prepared to check their own rage despite the Lord's command and eliminate resentment against their neighbor? What is even worse is the fact that fire, while having this property mean, to burn did not demonstrate this capacity, whereas the human being, a creature gentle, and rational, and mild, behaves in a manner contrary to its nature and through indifference (102a) casts itself in the mold of the wild beasts. Hence even Sacred Scripture, with these sorts of disturbing passions in mind, in many places applies the names of brutes and of wild beasts to those gifted with reason: some times it calls them dogs on account of their shameful and headstrong behavior "Dumb dogs are they," it says, remember, "unable even to bark" [ Isa 56:10 ] at other times horses on account of their unbridled appetites "They turned into rutting horses, each neighing after his neighbor's wife" [ Jer 5:8 ] at other times asses for their folly and stupidity-- "He has resembled the monsters that lack all intelligence," it says, remember, "and has become like them" [ Ps 49:13 ] --at other times lions and leopards on account of their greed and rapacity, at other times serpents because of their deceit-- "Poison of serpents," it says, "on their lips " [ Ps 140:3 ] -- whereas at other times it called them snakes and vipers on account of their venom and malice, as blessed John cried aloud in these words: "Snakes, brood of vipers, who has shown you how to flee from the wrath to come?" [ Matt 3:7 ] (102b) And it adds other names appropriate to the various passions in the hope that eventually they may feel ashamed of this behavior and turn back to their true nobility, coming to terms with their true nature and giving the laws of God pride of place before their own passions to which through sloth they have given themselves up.”

“טרם יהיה בארץ WAS NOT YET IN THE EARTH — Wherever טרם occurs in the Scriptures it means “not yet” and does not mean “before”. It cannot be made into a verbal form, saying הטרים as one says הקדים (verbal form of קדם) and this passage proves that this is the meaning and not "before" as well as another (Exodus 9:30), כי טרם תראון “that ye do not yet fear the Lord”. Therefore you must explain this verse also thus: “No plant of the field was yet in the earth” at the time when the creation of the world was completed on the sixth day before man was created, and וכל עשב השדה טרם יצמח means “and every herb of the field had not yet grown”. But as regards the third day of creation about which it is written “The earth brought forth etc.” this does not signify that they came forth above the ground but that they remained at the opening of the ground (i. e. just below the surface) until the sixth day (Chullin 60a). כי לא המטיר BECAUSE GOD HAD NOT CAUSED IT TO RAIN — And what is the reason that God had not caused it to rain? כי אדם אין לעבוד את האדמה BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MAN TO TILL THE GROUND, and there was, therefore, no one to recognize the utility of rain. When Adam came (was created), however, and he realised that it was necessary for the world, he prayed for it and it fell, so that trees and verdure sprang forth. ה' אלהים THE LORD GOD — The Lord (יהוה) is His Name, whereas אלהים signifies that He is Ruler and Judge over all. This, too, is its meaning, according to the plain sense, wherever it occurs: The Lord who is God (Ruler and Judge).”

“AND EVERY SHRUB OF THE FIELD. In the opinion of our Rabbis in Bereshith Rabbah, [every herb of the field created] on the third day [did not come forth above the ground but] they remained just below the surface of the earth, and on the sixth day they grew after He caused rain to fall on them. In my opinion, in accordance with the plain meaning of Scripture, on the third day the earth did bring forth the grass and the fruit trees in their full-grown stature and quality as He commanded concerning them. And now Scripture tells that there was no one to plant and sow them for future purposes, and the earth would not produce until a mist would come up from it and water it, and man was formed who would work it — to seed, to plant, and to guard. This is the meaning of the shrub of the field… had not yet grown. It does not say “the shrub of the ground” for only a place which is cultivated is called “field,” as in Which thou hast sown in the field and We will not pass through field or through vineyard. This is the course of the world that was to be following the six days of creation and forever after, that due to the mist the heavens will bring down rain, and due to the rains the earth will make the seeds that are sown in it to spring up.”

“And every plant of the field, before it was in the earth,.... That is, God made it, even he who made the heavens and the earth; for these words depend upon the preceding, and are in close connection with them; signifying that the plants of the field, which were made out of the earth on the third day, were made before any were planted in it, or any seed was sown therein from whence they could proceed, and therefore must be the immediate production of divine power: and every herb of the field before it grew: those at once sprung up in perfection out of the earth, before there were any that budded forth, and grew up by degrees to perfection, as herbs do now: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth: so that the production of plants and herbs in their first formation could not be owing to that; since on the third day, when they were made, there was no sun to exhale and draw up the waters into the clouds, in order to be let down again in showers of rain: and there was not a man to till the ground; who was not created till the sixth day, and therefore could have no concern in the cultivation of the earth, and of the plants and herbs in it; but these were the produce of almighty power, without the use of any means: some Jewish writers (f), by the plant and herb of the field, mystically understand the first and second Messiah, for they sometimes feign two; see Isa 4:2. (f) Zohar in Gen. fol. 32. 4.”

“The account in vv. 5-25 is not a second, complete and independent history of the creation, nor does it contain mere appendices to the account in Gen 1; but it describes the commencement of the history of the human race. This commencement includes not only a complete account of the creation of the first human pair, but a description of the place which God prepared for their abode, the latter being of the highest importance in relation to the self-determination of man, with its momentous consequences to both earth and heaven. Even in the history of the creation man takes precedence of all other creatures, as being created in the image of God and appointed lord of all the earth, though he is simply mentioned there as the last and highest link in the creation. To this our present account is attached, describing with greater minuteness the position of man in the creation, and explaining the circumstances which exerted the greatest influence upon his subsequent career. These circumstances were-the formation of man from the dust of the earth and the divine breath of life; the tree of knowledge in paradise; the formation of the woman, and the relation of the woman to the man. Of these three elements, the first forms the substratum to the other two. Hence the more exact account of the creation of Adam is subordinated to, and inserted in, the description of paradise (Gen 2:7). In Gen 2:5 and Gen 2:6, with which the narrative commences, there is an evident allusion to paradise: "And as yet there was (arose, grew) no shrub of the field upon the earth, and no herb of the field sprouted; for Jehovah El had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; and a mist arose from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground." היה in parallelism with צמח means to become, to arise, to proceed. Although the growth of the shrubs and sprouting of the herbs are represented here as dependent upon the rain and the cultivation of the earth by man, we must not understand the words as meaning that there was neither shrub nor herb before the rain and dew, or before the creation of man, and so draw the conclusion that the creation of the plants occurred either after or contemporaneously with the creation of man, in direct contradiction to Gen 1:11-12. The creation of the plants is not alluded to here at all, but simply the planting of the garden in Eden. The growing of the shrubs and sprouting of the herbs is different from the creation or first production of the vegetable kingdom, and relates to the growing and sprouting of the plants and germs which were called into existence by the creation, the natural development of the plants as it had steadily proceeded ever since the creation. This was dependent upon rain and human culture; their creation was not. Moreover, the shrub and herb of the field do not embrace the whole of the vegetable productions of the earth. It is not a fact that the field is used in the second section in the same sense as the earth in the first." שׂדה is not "the widespread plain of the earth, the broad expanse of land," but a field of arable land, soil fit for cultivation, which forms only a part of the "earth" or "ground." Even the "beast of the field" in Gen 2:19 and Gen 3:1 is not synonymous with the "beast of the earth" in Gen 1:24-25, but is a more restricted term, denoting only such animals as live upon the field and are supported by its produce, whereas the "beast of the earth" denotes all wild beasts as distinguished from tame cattle and reptiles. In the same way, the "shrub of the field" consists of such shrubs and tree-like productions of the cultivated land as man raises for the sake of their fruit, and the "herb of the field," all seed-producing plants, both corn and vegetables, which serve as food for man and beast. - The mist (אד, vapour, which falls as rain, Job 36:27) is correctly regarded by Delitzsch as the creative beginning of the rain (המטיר) itself, from which we may infer, therefore, that it rained before the flood.”

“But I don't know how I strayed from the thread of the sermon on to these matters. Come now, let us return at this late stage to the preceding point, and let us see what else this blessed author wants to teach us today. You see, after saying, "This is the book about the origins of heaven and earth," he presses on and describes further for us with great detail the creation of the human being. Since he had briefly said above, "God made the human being; in God's image he made them," [ Gen 1:26 ] he now says, "God shaped the human being from the dust of the earth, (102c) and breathed into him a breath of life; the human being became alive." [ Gen 2:7 ] A mighty saying, giving rise to great wonderment, and beyond the limits of human under standing: "God shaped the human being," it says, "taking dust from the earth." Just as in the case of all the visible creatures I kept saying that the Creator of all performs everything in a manner contrary to human nature so as to demonstrate his ineffable power through this as well, so too in the case of the formation of the human being we will find this taking place. I mean, notice how he rested the earth on the waters, some thing human reasoning does not without faith succeed in accepting, and that whenever he wishes he succeeds in converting the properties of all things to their opposite, as we have shown. Well, this very same thing Sacred Scripture now reveals to us happening in the case of the formation of the human being as well: "God shaped (102d) the human being," it says, "taking dust from the earth." What is that you say? Taking dust from the earth he shaped the human being? Yes, it says; it did not simply say 'earth' but 'dust,' something more lowly and substantial even than earth, so to say. You think the saying amazing and incredible; but if you recall who is the creator in this case, you will no longer withhold faith in the event but marvel at the Creator's power and bow your knee to it. If, on the other hand, you chanced to put your mind to these matters in light of the limitations of your powers of reason, you would likely get this strange idea into your head, namely, that a body could never be made from earth a brick or a pot, yes, but never could such a body be made. Do you see that unless we take into account the Creator's power and suppress our own reasoning which betrays such limitations, we will be unable to accept the sublimity of the message? After all, the words require the eyes of faith, spoken as they are (103a) with such great considerateness and with our limitations in mind. You see, that very remark, "God shaped the human being, and breathed," is properly inapplicable to God; yet because of us and our limitations Sacred Scripture expresses it in that way, showing considerateness to us, so that, having been thought worthy of the considerateness, we might be enabled to arrive at that sublime level of thought.' "God shaped the human being," it says, "taking dust from the earth." Finally, from these words spring no little instruction in humility, as long as we are prepared to be alert to it. I mean, whenever we consider where our nature derived the beginning of its subsistence, even if we put our brains to it thousands of times, we are humbled and chastened, and in our efforts to plumb our being we learn to respect proper limits. For this reason, God, caring for our salvation, thus directed the tongue of the sacred writer for our instruction. (103b) You see, when Sacred Scripture said in its previous statement, "God made the human being; in God's image he made them," [ Gen 1:26 ] he gave him complete control of visible things lest out of ignorance of the composition of his own being he might conjure up inflated notions of his own importance and transgress the limits proper to him. Hence, when Scripture comes back to the point it teaches us also the manner of our composition and the beginning of our creation, and whence the first human being was produced and how it was produced. After all, into what depths of madness would we not have tumbled if, despite this teaching and despite the knowledge that the human being takes the beginning of its composition from the earth as do the plants and the irrational beings (though its formation and the bodiless being of the soul has given it a marked superiority, thanks to God's loving kindness, (103c) this constituting after all the basis of its rationality and its endowment with control over all creation), if then with this knowledge this creature shaped from the earth had conjured up the notion of its equality with God owing to the serpent's deceit, and if the blessed author had been content with his first account and had not repeated himself in teaching us everything with precision,16 into what depths of madness would we not have tumbled? The result is that we gain the greatest possible degree of instruction in philosophy from learning whence we derive the composition of our being from the very outset. "God shaped the human being," the text says, "taking dust from the earth, and breathed into him a breath of life." Since it was explaining to human beings who were unable to understand in any way other than we ourselves can understand, it employs this kind of concreteness of expression,'' and intends also to teach us that the Lord's loving kindness intended that this creature shaped from the earth (103d) should have also a rational being by reason of a soul, by means of which this living thing emerged complete and perfect. "He breathed into him a breath of life," the text says; the creature shaped from the earth, it means, was endowed with this breath as a vital force, and this became the origin of the soul's being. At any rate, the text added: "The human being became alive." That shaped thing, that creature from the dust, received the breathing of the breath of life, and "it became alive." the text says. What is the meaning of "became alive"? Enjoying vital force, having limbs to its body that respond to this vital force and obey its will. But I have no idea how we upset that arrangement, and how such an onset of evil occurred as to oblige it to follow the bidding of the flesh, (104a) so that what should in the manner of a queen have presided and exercised rule we have unseated from her throne and forced to obey the pleasures of the flesh, ignorant as we are of its nobility and the degree of pre eminence it has the good fortune to be accorded. I mean, think of the order of its formation, I ask you, and consider what this shaped thing was before the Lord's breathing which meant a breath of life for it and resulted in its becoming alive. Simply a lifeless shell, without vital force, and useful for nothing, so that its total makeup and its succession to such great esteem all stems from that action of breathing made upon it by God. Lest you think this happened from things al ready created at that time instead of from something that happens each day at the present time, consider, I ask you, how after the departure of the soul this body appears odious and unpleasant? (104b) How repulsive, how much reeking with stench, how marked by complete deformity this creature that previously when it had the soul to conduct it was bright, graceful, marked by beauty of form, abounding with intelligence, enjoying great aptitude for the performance of good deeds. So, with this in mind, and realizing the nobility of our soul, let us be guilty of no behavior unworthy of it nor defile it with unfitting actions, subjecting it to the thrall of the flesh and showing so little appreciation and regard for what is so noble and endowed with such preeminence. After all, because of the soul's being, we who are intertwined with a body can, if we wish (104c) and under the influence of God's grace, strive against disembodied powers, can walk on earth as though coursing across heaven, and pass our lives in this manner, suffering no inferiority. How that can be, I will tell you. You see, when people prove, despite entanglement with a mortal body, to live the same life as those supernal powers, how will they not be deemed worthy of grace from God for keeping untarnished the soul's nobility, though subject to the body's necessities. Who could possibly prove, someone says, to be of such character? Quite likely this thing is thought unlikely by us be cause of the extreme paucity of our virtue. But if you are pre pared to learn that this is not out of the question, consider, I ask you, those who have been pleasing to the Lord from the beginning up to the present time (104d) the mighty John, son of infertility, citizen of the desert; Paul, the world's teacher; and the whole series of saints, who happened to have the same nature as ourselves, subject to the same necessities of the body and no longer consider the thing to be impossible, nor be apathetic where virtue is concerned, but accept such opportunities as the Lord leaves for laying hold of virtue with ease. Our loving Lord, you see, knowing the weakness of our purpose and our tendency to fall, has left us great remedies in the reading of the Scriptures so that we might constantly apply them to ourselves and recall the lives of those great and wonderful men. Thus we may be led to imitation and not neglect virtue, but (105a) rather avoid evil and do everything so as not to prove ourselves unworthy of those unspeakably good people. May this be the good fortune of all of us, thanks to the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom with the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory, power and honor, now and forever, for ages of ages. Amen.”

“First of all, the fact that God formed man from the mud of the earth usually raises a question about the sort of mud it was or the kind of material the term mud signifies. Those enemies of the Old Book [the Manichaeans], looking at everything in a carnal manner and therefore always being in error, bitingly find fault with this point as well, namely, that God formed man from the mud of the earth. For they say, "Why did God make man from mud? Did he lack a better and heavenly material from which he could make man, that he formed him fragile and mortal from this earthly corruption?" To begin with, they do not understand how many meanings either earth or water has in the Scriptures, for mud is a mixture of earth and water. Also we say that the human body began to waste away and to be fragile and mortal after sin. But the Manicheans abhor in our body only the mortality that we merited as punishment. But even if God made man from the mud of this earth, still what is there that is strange or difficult for God in making the human body such that it would not be subject to corruption if, in obedience to God's commandment, he had not willed to sin? For we say that the beauty of heaven was made from nothing or from formless matter, because we believe that the Maker is almighty. Why is it strange that the almighty Maker could make the body from some sort of mud of the earth so that before sin it afflicted man with no trouble or need and wasted away from no corruption?”

“וייצר AND GOD FORMED — Here the letter yod is written twice to intimate that there were two formations — a formation of man for this world, and a formation of man for resurrection; in the case of animals, however, which will not stand after death for judgment before God the word referring to their formation— ויצר —(Genesis 2:19) is not written with two yods (Midrash Tanchuma, Tazria 1). עפר מן האדמה DUST OF THE EARTH — He gathered his dust (i. e. that from which he was made) from the entire earth — from its four corners — in order that wherever he might die, it should receive him for burial (Midrash Tanchuma, Pekudei 3). Another explanation: He took his dust from that spot on which the Holy Temple with the altar of atonement was in later times to be built of which it is said, (Exodus 20:24) “An altar of earth thou shalt make for Me” saying, “Would that this sacred earth may be an expiation for him so that he may be able to endure” (Genesis Rabbah 14:8). ויפח באפיו AND BREATHED INTO HIS NOSTRILS — He made him of both, of earthly and of heavenly matter: the body of the earthly, and the soul of the heavenly. For on the first day were created heaven and earth, on the second, He created the firmament for the heavenly beings, on the third He said, “Let the dry land appear” — for the earthly beings, on the fourth He created the lights for the heavenly beings, on the fifth He said, “Let the waters swarm…” — for the earthly beings. Consequently on the sixth there had to be created a being composed of both, of heavenly and of earthly matter, for otherwise there would have been envy (lack of harmony) among the works of Creation, in that there would have been devoted to one class of them one day more of the Creation than to the others (Genesis Rabbah 12:8). לנפש חיה A LIVING SOUL — Also cattle and beasts are called נפש חיה (1:20, 22, 24), but the נפש of man is the most highly developed of all of them, because to him was granted understanding and speech.”

“AND HE BREATHED INTO HIS NOSTRILS THE BREATH OF LIFE. This alludes to the superiority of the soul, its foundation and secret, since it mentions in connection with it the full Divine Name.. And the verse says that He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life in order to inform us that the soul did not come to man from the elements, as He intimated concerning the soul of moving things, nor was it an evolvement from the Separate Intelligences. Rather, it was the spirit of the Great G-d: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and discernment. For he who breathes into the nostrils of another person gives into him something from his own soul. It is this which Scripture says, And the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding, since the soul is from the foundation of binah (understanding) by way of truth and faith. here signify Cabalistic concepts. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 33. This corresponds to the saying of the Rabbis in the Sifre:. “Vows are like swearing ‘by the life of the King:’ oaths are like swearing ‘by the King Himself.’ Although there is no proof for it in Scripture, there is an allusion to it: By the living G-d, and by the life of your soul.”. It does not say “by the life of G-d,” which would indicate that His life is independent of Him; rather it says, by the living G-d, thus indicating that life is His very essence. (The correctness of this translation is indicated by the patach under the word chai, which is not in the construct state, and therefore means “the living G-d.”) See my Hebrew commentary, p. 33, for further elucidation of this point. Thus there is an allusion here to the teaching of the Sifre that “an oath is like swearing ‘by the King Himself,’” since in this verse quoted, where an oath is being given, it says, by the living G-d. This is an oath “by the King Himself.” In the case of a person, however, it says “by the life of your soul,” thus indicating that in a human being his life and his soul are two independent things. This explains the tzere under the word chei, which indicates a construct state combining two independent nouns. Thus there is an allusion to “Vows are like swearing ‘by the life of the King.’” See also Note 293. And in the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah we find: “What is the meaning of the word vayinafash (and He rested)? It teaches us that the day of the Sabbath preserves all souls, for it is vayinafash” [i.e., from the word nefesh, soul]. It is from here that you will understand the expression, speaking the oath of G-d. The person learned in the mysteries of the Torah will understand. Know that those who engage in research have differed concerning man. Some say that man has three souls. One is the soul of growth, like that in a plant; or you may call this “the force of growth.” Then there is also a soul of movement in him, which Scripture mentioned concerning fish, animals, and everything that creeps upon the earth. The third is the rational soul. And there are some philosophers who say that this soul in man which comes from the Most High comprises these three forces while the soul is but one. This verse in its plain meaning so indicates for it states that G-d formed man of the dust of the ground, but he lay there lifeless like a dumb stone, and the Holy One, blessed be He, breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and then man became a living soul, able to move about by virtue of this soul, just like the animals and the fish, concerning which He said: ‘Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures,’ and ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature.’, Verse 24. This is the meaning of the expression here, ‘lenefesh chayah’ (into a living soul) man was made, meaning man turned into a soul in which there is life, after having been as a potsherd with the potsherds of the earth. For the letter lamed in the word lenefesh indicates the opposite, [namely, that from being a potsherd he became a living soul]. And so it is in the verses, And the water shall turn ‘ledam’ (into blood) upon the dry land; And it turned ‘lenachash’ (into a snake);, Verse 3. And He made the sea ‘lecharavah’ (into dry land)., 14:21. Onkelos, however, said: “And it became a speaking soul in man.” From this it would appear that his opinion coincides with those who say that man has various souls and that this rational soul which G-d breathed into his nostrils became a speaking soul. It appears to me that this also is the opinion of our Rabbis, as we may deduce from what they said: “Rava created a man. He sent him to Rabbi Zeira who spoke to him but he did not answer. Said Rabbi Zeira to him: ‘You are created by one of the colleagues; return to your dust.’” And in Midrash Vayikra Rabbah we find written: “Said Rabbi Avin: When a man sleeps, the body tells the neshamah (the moving spirit), and the neshamah tells the nefesh (the rational soul), and the nefesh tells the angel.” So also the verse, He gathers unto Himself his spirit and his breath, indicates, according to its plain meaning, that his spirit and breath are two distinct things. That being so, the verse, And the Eternal G-d formed man, states the formation of movement, that man was formed into a creature capable of movement since “formation” denotes life and perception by virtue of which he is a man and not a kneaded mass of dust, just as it is said, And the Eternal G-d formed out of the ground every beast of the field, and He brought them unto the man. And after He formed him with the power of perception, He breathed into his nostrils a living soul from the Most High, this soul being in addition to the formation mentioned, and the whole man became a living soul since by virtue of this soul he understands and speaks and does all his deeds and all other souls and their powers in man are subject to it. The letter lamed in the word lenefesh is thus the lamed indicating possession, just as in the following verses: My lord, O king, ‘lecha ani’ (I am thine), and all that I have; ‘lakoneh’ (to him that bought) it, throughout his generations; ‘lecha ani’ (I am thine), save me. Or, it may be that the verse is stating that man wholly became a living soul and was transformed into another man, as all His formations were, from now on, directed towards this soul.”

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground,.... Not of dry dust, but, as Josephus (h) says, of red earth macerated, or mixed with water; the like notion Hesiod (i) has; or out of clay, as in Job 33:6 hence a word is made use of, translated "formed", which is used of the potter that forms his clay into what shape he pleases: the original matter of which man was made was clay; hence the clay of Prometheus (k) with the Heathens; and God is the Potter that formed him, and gave him the shape he has, see Isa 64:8, there are two "jods", it is observed, in the word, which is not usual; respecting, as Jarchi thinks, the formation of man for this world, and for the resurrection of the dead; but rather the two fold formation of body and soul, the one is expressed here, and the other in the following clause: and this, as it shows the mighty power of God in producing such a creature out of the dust of the earth, so it serves to humble the pride of man, when he considers he is of the earth, earthy, dust, and ashes, is dust, and to dust he must return. And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; which in that way entered into his body, and quickened it, which before was a lifeless lump of clay, though beautifully shapen: it is in the plural number, the "breath of lives" (l), including the vegetative, sensitive, and rational life of man. And this was produced not with his body, as the souls of brutes were, and was produced by the breath of God, as theirs were not; nor theirs out of the earth, as his body was: and these two different productions show the different nature of the soul and body of man, the one is material and mortal, the other immaterial and immortal: and man became a living soul; or a living man, not only capable of performing the functions of the animal life, of eating, drinking, walking, &c. but of thinking, reasoning, and discoursing as a rational creature. (h) Antiqu. l. 1. c. 1. (i) Opera & dies, ver. 60. (k) Martial. l. 10. Epigram. 38. (l) Heb. "spiraculum vitarum", Pareus.”

“"Then Jehovah God formed man from dust of the ground." עפר is the accusative of the material employed (Ewald and Gesenius). The Vav consec. imperf. in Gen 2:7, Gen 2:8, Gen 2:9, does not indicate the order of time, or of thought; so that the meaning is not that God planted the garden in Eden after He had created Adam, nor that He caused the trees to grow after He had planted the garden and placed the man there. The latter is opposed to Gen 2:15; the former is utterly improbable. The process of man's creation is described minutely here, because it serves to explain his relation to God and to the surrounding world. He was formed from dust (not de limo terrae, from a clod of the earth, for עפר is not a solid mass, but the finest part of the material of the earth), and into his nostril a breath of life was breathed, by which he became an animated being. Hence the nature of man consists of a material substance and an immaterial principle of life. "The breath of life," i.e., breath producing life, does not denote the spirit by which man is distinguished form the animals, or the soul of man from that of the beasts, but only the life-breath (vid., Kg1 17:17). It is true, נשׁמה generally signifies the human soul, but in Gen 7:22 חיּים נשׁמת־רוּח is used of men and animals both; and should any one explain this, on the ground that the allusion is chiefly to men, and the animals are connected per zeugma, or should he press the ruach attached, and deduce from this the use of neshamah in relation to men and animals, there are several passages in which neshamah is synonymous with ruach (e.g., Isa 42:5; Job 32:8; Job 33:4), or חיים רוח applied to animals (Gen 6:17; Gen 7:15), or again neshamah used as equivalent to nephesh (e.g., (Jos 10:40, cf. Jos 10:28, Jos 10:30, Jos 10:32). For neshamah, the breathing, πνοή, is "the ruach in action" (Auberlen). Beside this, the man formed from the dust became, through the breathing of the "breath of life," a חיּה נפשׁ, an animated, and as such a living being; an expression which is also applied to fishes, birds, and land animals (Gen 1:20-21, Gen 1:24, Gen 1:30), and there is no proof of pre-eminence on the part of man. As חיּה נפשׁ, ψυχὴ ζῶσα, does not refer to the soul merely, but to the whole man as an animated being, so נשׁמה does not denote the spirit of man as distinguished from body and soul. On the relation of the soul to the spirit of man nothing can be gathered from this passage; the words, correctly interpreted, neither show that the soul is an emanation, an exhalation of the human spirit, nor that the soul was created before the spirit and merely received its life from the latter. The formation of man from dust and the breathing of the breath of life we must not understand in a mechanical sense, as if God first of all constructed a human figure from dust, and then, by breathing His breath of life into the clod of earth which he had shaped into the form of a man, made it into a living being. The words are to be understood θεοπρεπῶς. By an act of divine omnipotence man arose from the dust; and in the same moment in which the dust, by virtue of creative omnipotence, shaped itself into a human form, it was pervaded by the divine breath of life, and created a living being, so that we cannot say the body was earlier than the soul. The dust of the earth is merely the earthly substratum, which was formed by the breath of life from God into an animated, living, self-existent being. When it is said, "God breathed into his nostril the breath of life," it is evident that this description merely gives prominence to the peculiar sign of life, viz., breathing; since it is obvious, that what God breathed into man could not be the air which man breathes; for it is not that which breathes, but simply that which is breathed. Consequently, breathing into the nostril can only mean, that "God, through His own breath, produced and combined with the bodily form that principle of life, which was the origin of all human life, and which constantly manifests its existence in the breath inhaled and exhaled through the nose" (Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 62). Breathing, however, is common to both man and beast; so that this cannot be the sensuous analogon of the supersensuous spiritual life, but simply the principle of the physical life of the soul. Nevertheless the vital principle in man is different from that in the animal, and the human soul from the soul of the beast. This difference is indicated by the way in which man received the breath of life from God, and so became a living soul. "The beasts arose at the creative word of God, and no communication of the spirit is mentioned even in Gen 2:19; the origin of their soul was coincident with that of their corporeality, and their life was merely the individualization of the universal life, with which all matter was filled in the beginning by the Spirit of God. On the other hand, the human spirit is not a mere individualization of the divine breath which breathed upon the material of the world, or of the universal spirit of nature; nor is his body merely a production of the earth when stimulated by the creative word of God. The earth does not bring forth his body, but God Himself puts His hand to the work and forms him; nor does the life already imparted to the world by the Spirit of God individualize itself in him, but God breathes directly into the nostrils of the one man, in the whole fulness of His personality, the breath of life, that in a manner corresponding to the personality of God he may become a living soul" (Delitzsch). This was the foundation of the pre-eminence of man, of his likeness to God and his immortality; for by this he was formed into a personal being, whose immaterial part was not merely soul, but a soul breathed entirely by God, since spirit and soul were created together through the inspiration of God. As the spiritual nature of man is described simply by the act of breathing, which is discernible by the senses, so the name which God gives him (Gen 5:2) is founded upon the earthly side of his being: Adam, from אדמה (adamah), earth, the earthly element, like homo from humus, or from χαμά, χαμαί, χαμᾶθεν, to guard him from self-exaltation, not from the red colour of his body, since this is not a distinctive characteristic of man, but common to him and to many other creatures. The name man (Mensch), on the other hand, from the Sanskrit mânuscha, manuschja, from man to think, manas = mens, expresses the spiritual inwardness of our nature.”

“I SEE YOUR INSATIABLE interest, your great enthusiasm and eager attention, and the way you are all coming to spiritual teaching expectant and impatient. On the other hand, I am conscious of my own great inadequacy. Still, I am anxious to lay before you this mean and pal try table frequently, and in fact daily, trusting that you will readily receive what is said, stimulated as you are with your own enthusiasm. One can see this happening in the case of material nourishment: whenever guests come to dinner with a keen appetite, they eat with great relish whatever is placed before them, no matter if the meal happens to be paltry and the? host ungenerous whereas when the diners have indifferent appetite, no matter if the meal is sumptuous and the menu varied, it is wasted on them since they can't do justice to the good things provided. Here today, however, your enthusiasm has in fact been enlivened through God's grace and the repast is a spiritual one; so we, too, are enthusiastic in speaking to you, knowing that we bring these divine teachings to attentive listeners. The farmer is like this, too: he gives the soil all the attention he is capable of digging the furrows, hauling the plough, rooting out thorns so when he finds the pasture rich and fertile, he sows the seed lavishly; buoyed up already with high hopes he counts the days to the sprouting of the crop, recalling the productivity of the land and expecting a harvest far in excess of the sowing. That is the way we behave, too: we see your enthusiasm increasing day by day, your interest blossoming, and your zeal bearing fruit. We have high hopes of you, and with greater enthusiasm and zeal ourselves we strive as far as we are able to contribute to the building up of your love, to God's glory and the pride of God's church. (105d) So come now, if you please, let us recall the few things said yesterday, and move on in turn to today's reading. We need to say what it was we were discussing yesterday, how far we got, and where we stopped. "God formed the human being, taking dust from the earth, and he breathed into him a breath of life; the human being became alive." [ Gen 2:7 ] What I was saying before I will say now, and will not cease saying continually, that great and unspeakable is the kindness of the Lord of all creatures towards us men. He displayed great considerateness for the sake of our welfare, and bestowed great honor on this creature namely, the human person and made plain in words and deeds that he exhibits greater care of human beings than of other visible things. There is no reason why I should not presume on your goodness to explore the same theme today, too. For, just as with grains of incense, the more they are moved about with your fingers, the greater fragrance they give out, so it is with the Scriptures in our experience: the more you devote yourself to studying them, the more you are able to discover the treasure hidden in them, and thereby gain great and unspeakable wealth. "God." it says, "formed the human being, taking dust from the earth." Do you notice straightway the difference in the way the sentence opens? In the case of all the other creatures blessed Moses taught us the manner of creation, saying, "God said, Let there be light, and there was light;" [ Gen 1:3 ] "Let the firmament be made;" [ Gen 1:6 ] "Let the water be gathered together; [ Gen 1:9 ] "Let the stars be made;" [ Gen 1:14 ] (106b) "Let the earth put forth a crop of vegetation;" [ Gen 1:11 ] "Let the waters bring forth reptiles with living souls;" [ Gen 1:20 ] and "Let the earth bring forth a living thing." [ 24 ] Do you see how they were all created by a word? Let us notice instead what it says in the case of the creation of human beings. "God formed the human being." [ Gen 2:7 ] Do you see how, by the considerateness shown in the words he uses on account of our limitations, it teaches us both the manner of the creation and the difference, and all but shows us (so to speak in human fashion) man being shaped by God's hands as another author says, "Your hands made me, and formed me." [ Job 10:8 ] You see, if he had simply ordered that the human per son spring out of the earth, then the object of the order would merely have been produced, would it not? Instead, for the purpose of communicating to us lasting teaching through the manner of creation (106c) to avoid an impression false to reality, everything is explained precisely in this way, and the text reads, "God formed the human being, taking dust from the earth." Even in this detail notice the regard for us. I mean, he does not simply take some soil, but dust, the finest grains of soil, so to say, and this very dust of the earth by his own design he changed into the human kind of body. You see, just as he brought into being the very substance of the soil when it did not exist, so now, at will, he changed the dust from soil into body. At this it is good to exclaim what was said by blessed David, "Who will speak of the wonders of the Lord, and bring to our ears all his praises?" [ Ps 106:2 ] namely, that from dust he produced such a creature and elevated it to such eminence, and that he displays such marks of regard for it right from the outset, revealing in all this his own loving kindness. The text says, "He breathed into him a breath of life; the human being became alive." In this regard some senseless people, moved by their own reasoning, and having no regard for what is proper to God nor any appreciation of the considerateness revealed in the words, try to say that the soul comes from the substance of God. Such madness, such stupidity! What false paths has the devil prepared for those bent on following him! To realize it, consider how these paths lead in quite different directions. Some seize on a reading of the text, "He breathed," to say that souls come from the substance of God, whereas others on the contrary say they change into the substance of the worst of brute beasts. What could be worse than such folly? Since their reasoning is dulled, and (107a) they miss the true meaning of Scripture, they are like men blinded in the eyes of their mind, stumbling in various directions down cliffs: some accord the soul excessive esteem, others depress it unduly. Because if they wanted to assign a mouth to God on the score of Scripture's saying, "He breathed into him," they would have to equip him with hands too, since it says, "He formed the human being." Anyhow, in case by wanting to make a display of these people's stupidity we, too, find ourselves induced to utter unseemly remarks, let's have done with their folly and turn aside from such idiocy; let us follow the direction of Sacred Scripture in the interpretation it gives of itself, provided we don't get completely absorbed in the concreteness of the words, but realize that our limitations are the reason for the concreteness of the language. Human senses, you see, would never be able to grasp what is said if they had not the benefit of such great considerateness. So recognizing our limitations, and the fact that what is said refers to God, let us accept the words as equivalent to speaking about God; let us not reduce the divine to the shape of bodies and the structure of limbs, but understand the whole narrative in a manner appropriate to God. For the deity is simple, free of parts and shape; should we form an impression from ourselves and want to ascribe an arrangement of limbs to God, we would be in danger of falling into the irreverence pagans are guilty of. So when you hear Scripture saying, "God formed the human being," think of the same power as was responsible for "Let it be made;" likewise when you hear the sentence, "He breathed into him a breath of life," reason this way too, that just as he created the incorporeal beings, (107c) So he decided this body made from the dust should have a rational soul and be able to use a body's limbs. You see, this body created in the Lord's design was like an instrument needing someone to activate it, rather like a lyre that needs someone who can by his own skill and artistry raise a fitting hymn to the Lord through his own limbs, as though by the strings of the Lyre. The text says: "He breathed into him a breath of life, and the human being became alive." What is the sense of that, "He breathed a breath of life"? The body made this way, it is saying, he wanted to have a living force and he so directed; this became for the creature a living soul in other words, full of movement, with the ability to display its own skill through the movement of its limbs. "Let the waters produce reptiles with living souls." and at once the living beings emerged from the waters; likewise in the case of the earth in the same terms: "Let the earth produce a living being." Not so, however, in the case of the human person: first its body is created from the dust, and afterwards the power of life is given to it, and this is the being of the soul. Accordingly Moses said about the beasts. "Its blood is its life." [ Lev 17:11 ] But in the case of the human person its being is incorporeal and immortal, and has a great superiority over the body, to the same extent as incorporeal form surpasses the corporeal. Perhaps, however, someone may say: Why is it that, if the soul is more important than the body, the lesser is created first, and then the greater afterwards? Don't you see, dearly beloved, that even in the process of creation this very sequence is followed? That is to say, just as heaven and earth, the sun and moon, and everything else is created, including the brute beasts, and after all these the human per son, the one destined to enjoy control of all of them, in the very same way in the actual creation of the human person the body is produced first and then the soul, greater though its importance is. The procedure is the same with the brute beasts: though they are destined to be useful in the service of human beings, they are created before them so that the ones intended to enjoy the use of these beasts will find them ready for service. So, too, the body is created before the soul, so that when the soul is produced according to God's ineffable wisdom, it will be able to display its own vital forces through the movement of its body. The text goes on: "The Lord God planted a garden in Eden in the east, and placed in it the human being he had formed." When the Lord of all had demonstrated his characteristic loving kindness in creating the one for whom everything had been provided, and setting him in its midst, immediately he began to bestow on this human person deeds of kindness. "God," it says, "planted a garden in Eden in the east." Notice here, dearly beloved, that unless we take the words in a manner appropriate to God, we will inevitably be trapped in a deep pitfall. I mean, what would be likely to be said about this sentence, too, by those rash enough to interpret in human fashion everything said about God? "God planted a garden," it says. What does that mean, pray? did he have need of tools, and gardening, and every other skill to beautify the garden? Not at all. Rather, in this case too, we need to understand the word "planted" in this sense namely, that he commanded a garden to be created on the earth so that the human being he had produced should live in the garden. I mean, to prove that he created the garden for human beings, listen to Scripture itself saying, "God planted a garden in Eden in the east, and placed in it the human being he had formed." [ Gen 2:8 ] The reason blessed Moses inserted the name of the place in the text was that it would not be possible for those inclined to take things lightly to deceive the ears of the simple and say the garden was not on earth but in heaven, and dream up wild theories of that kind. You see, despite the use of such precision by Sacred Scripture, some people have not questioned the glib words of arrogant commentators and far fetched philosophy, even to the extent of denying Holy Writ and saying the garden was not on earth, giving contrary views on many other passages, taking a direction opposed to a literal understanding of the text, and thinking that what is said on the question of things on earth has to do with things in heaven. And, if blessed Moses had not used such simplicity of expression and such considerateness, the Holy Spirit directing his tongue, where would we not have come to grief? Sacred Scripture, though, whenever it wants to teach us some thing like this, gives its own interpretation, and doesn't let the listener go astray. On the other hand, since the majority of listeners apply their ears to the narrative, not for the sake of gaining some profit but for enjoyment, they are at pains to take note of things able to bring enjoyment rather than those that bring profit. So, I beg you, block your ears against all distractions of that kind, and let us follow the norm of Sacred Scripture. And when, dearly beloved, you hear that "God planted a garden in Eden in the east," take the word "planted" in a sense appropriate to God, namely, that he commanded this happen; and, about the next phrase, believe that a garden came into being, and in that place that Scripture indicated. Not to believe in the contents of Sacred Scripture, and introduce instead other views from one's own reasoning, is in my opinion to bring great peril to those rash enough to at tempt it. "He placed in it, " the text says, "the human being he had formed." Notice at once the regard he shows towards him. Having created him outside the garden, he immediately brought him in so as to provide him with an experience of his kindness through the things in the garden; he was introduced into the garden so that he might know the regard God had for him through the actions done there. "He placed in it the human being he had formed." The word "placed" let us interpret this way: he ordered him to live there in order that what he saw and his way of life should give him much pleasure, and should awaken him to an expression of thanks in consideration of all the kindness he had received without ever doing anything to deserve it. So don't let the reading "placed" disturb you; it is, after all, the unfailing custom of Scripture to employ human ways of speaking for our sake and for our benefit. To be convinced of this, notice how previously, in the case of creation of the stars, it used the same term in saying "He placed them in the firmament of heaven." [ Gen 1:17 ] not that we should think of them fixed in heaven (for each of them pursues its own path moving from place to place), but to teach us that he commanded them to be in heaven just as he commanded the human being to live in the garden.”

“מקדם EASTWARD — In the east of Eden He planted the garden. Should you say, however, it is already written, (1:27) “and He created the man etc.”, then I say that I have seen the Baraitha of R. Eliezer the son of R. José the Galilean, dealing with the thirty two rules of interpretation according to which the Torah (Agada) can be interpreted, and the following is one of them: when a general statement of an action is followed by a detailed account of it, the latter is a particularisation of the former: — “And He created the man” is a general statement, but it does not explicitly state whence he was created and what God did unto him. Now it repeats it and explains these things: “And the Lord God formed man”, “and He made to grow for him the garden of Eden”, and He caused a deep sleep to fall upon him.” He who hears this might think that it is a different account entirely, whereas it is nothing else but the details of the former general statement. Similarly with reference to the cattle the creation of which has been mentioned above (1:27). it resumes and writes, (2:19) “and out of the ground the Lord [God] formed every beast of the field etc.”, for the purpose of explaining “and He brought them unto the man to give them names”, and also to state that the fowls were created from the swamps.”

“AND THE ETERNAL G-D PLANTED A GARDEN ‘MIKEDEM’ (EASTWARD) IN EDEN. Rashi explained that “in the east of Eden He planted the garden.” But Onkelos translated mikedem to mean “previously,” [that is, before man was created]. And so have the Rabbis said in Bereshith Rabbah, and this is the correct explanation. The meaning of vayita (and He planted) is not that He brought the trees from another place and planted them here for it was from that place that He caused them to grow, just as it is said, And out of the ground the Eternal G-d caused to grow every tree. But the purport of the expression, and the Eternal G-d planted, is to state that it was the planting of the Eternal, for before He decreed upon the earth, Let the earth put forth grass, He had already decreed that in that place there be a garden, and He further said: “Here shall be this tree, and here that tree,” like the rows of planters. It was unlike the rest of the places on the earth concerning which He said, Let the earth put forth grass… and fruit-tree, and it then grew without order. Now concerning the trees of the garden of Eden He decreed that they grow branches and bear fruit forever, the root thereof was never to wax old in the earth, and the stock thereof was never to die in the ground. These trees were not to need any one to tend and prune them. For if they were in need of cultivation, who tended them after man was driven therefrom? This also is the meaning of the expression, And the Eternal G-d planted, that they were His plantings, the work of His hands, and existing forever, even as it is said, Its leaf shall not wither, neither shall the fruit thereof fail … because the waters thereof issue out of the sanctuary. If so, what then is the meaning of the verse: And He put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and to keep it? He put him [man] there so that he should sow for himself wheat and all kinds of produce, and every herb bearing seed, and rows of spices, reaping and plucking and eating at his will. This also is the meaning of to cultivate it and to keep it — to cultivate the ground of the garden by the rows he [man] would make there, for the part of the garden where the trees were was not to be cultivated. It is possible that [in the words le’ovdah uleshomrah — literally, to cultivate her and to keep her,] He refers to the garden in the feminine gender, just as in the verses: And as the garden causeth the things that are sown in her to spring forth; And plant gardens. (gardens) is here in the feminine gender. Our Rabbis noted this use of the feminine gender, saying in Bereshith Rabbah: “Le’ovdah uleshomrah (to cultivate her and to keep her) — these words refer to the sacrifices, as it is said, ‘Ta’avdun’ (Ye shall serve) G-d upon this mountain. It is this which Scripture says, ‘Tishm’ru’ (Ye shall keep) to offer unto Me in its appointed season.” The intent of the Rabbis in this interpretation is that plants and all living beings are in need of primary forces from which they derive the power of growth and that through the sacrifices there is an extension of the blessing to the higher powers. From them it flows to the plants of the garden of Eden, and from them it comes and exists in the world in the form of “rain of goodwill and blessing,” through which they will grow. This conforms to what the Rabbis have said: “The trees of the Eternal have their fill, the cedars of Lebanon, which He hath planted. Rabbi Chanina said: Their life shall have its fill; their waters shall have their fill; their plantings shall have their fill.” “Their life” refers to their higher foundations; “their waters” refer to His good treasure which brings down the rain; and “their plantings” refer to their force in heaven, just as the Rabbis have said: “There is not a single blade of grass below that does not have a constellation in heaven that smites it and says to it, ‘Grow.’ It is this which Scripture says, Knowest thou the ordinances of the heavens? Canst thou establish ‘mishtara’ (the dominion thereof) in the earth — [mishtara being derived from the root] shoter (executive officer).””

“Man consisting of body and soul, a body made out of the earth and a rational immortal soul the breath of heaven, we have, in these verses, the provision that was made for the happiness of both; he that made him took care to make him happy, if he could but have kept himself so and known when he was well off. That part of man by which he is allied to the world of sense was made happy; for he was put in the paradise of God: that part by which he is allied to the world of spirits was well provided for; for he was taken into covenant with God. Lord, what is man that he should be thus dignified - man that is a worm! Here we have, I. A description of the garden of Eden, which was intended for the mansion and demesne of this great lord, the palace of this prince. The inspired penman, in this history, writing for the Jews first, and calculating his narratives for the infant state of the church, describes things by their outward sensible appearances, and leaves us, by further discoveries of the divine light, to be led into the understanding of the mysteries couched under them. Spiritual things were strong meat, which they could not yet bear; but he writes to them as unto carnal, Co1 3:1. Therefore he does not so much insist upon the happiness of Adam's mind as upon that of his outward state. The Mosaic history, as well as the Mosaic law, has rather the patterns of heavenly things than the heavenly things themselves, Heb 9:23. Observe, 1. The place appointed for Adam's residence was a garden; not an ivory house nor a palace overlaid with gold, but a garden, furnished and adorned by nature, not by art. What little reason have men to be proud of stately and magnificent buildings, when it was the happiness of man in innocency that he needed none! As clothes came in with sin, so did houses. The heaven was the roof of Adam's house, and never was any roof so curiously ceiled and painted. The earth was his floor, and never was any floor so richly inlaid. The shadow of the trees was his retirement; under them were his dining-rooms, his lodging-rooms, and never were any rooms so finely hung as these: Solomon's, in all their glory, were not arrayed like them. The better we can accommodate ourselves to plain things, and the less we indulge ourselves with those artificial delights which have been invented to gratify men's pride and luxury, the nearer we approach to a state of innocency. Nature is content with a little and that which is most natural, grace with less, but lust with nothing. 2. The contrivance and furniture of this garden were the immediate work of God's wisdom and power. The Lord God planted this garden, that is, he had planted it - upon the third day, when the fruits of the earth were made. We may well suppose to have been the most accomplished place for pleasure and delight that ever the sun saw, when the all-sufficient God himself designed it to be the present happiness of his beloved creature, man, in innocency, and a type and a figure of the happiness of the chosen remnant in glory. No delights can be agreeable nor satisfying to a soul but those that God himself has provided and appointed for it; no true paradise, but of God's planting. The light of our own fires, and the sparks of our own kindling, will soon leave us in the dark, Isa 50:11. The whole earth was now a paradise compared with what it is since the fall and since the flood; the finest gardens in the world are a wilderness compared with what the whole face of the ground was before it was cursed for man's sake: yet that was not enough; God planted a garden for Adam. God's chosen ones shall have distinguishing favours shown them. 3. The situation of this garden was extremely sweet. It was in Eden, which signifies delight and pleasure. The place is here particularly pointed out by such marks and bounds as were sufficient, I suppose, when Moses wrote, to specify the place to those who knew that country; but now, it seems, the curious cannot satisfy themselves concerning it. Let it be our care to make sure a place in the heavenly paradise, and then we need not perplex ourselves with a search after the place of the earthly paradise. It is certain that, wherever it was, it had all desirable conveniences, and (which never any house nor garden on earth was) without any convenience. Beautiful for situation, the joy and the glory of the whole earth, was this garden: doubtless it was earth in its highest perfection. 4. The trees with which this garden was planted. (1.) It had all the best and choicest trees in common with the rest of the ground. It was beautiful and adorned with every tree that, for its height or breadth, its make or colour, its leaf or flower, was pleasant to the sight and charmed the eye; it was replenished and enriched with every tree that yielded fruit grateful to the taste and useful to the body, and so good for food. God, as a tender Father, consulted not only Adam's profit, but his pleasure; for there is a pleasure consistent with innocency, nay, there is a true and transcendent pleasure in innocency. God delights in the prosperity of his servants, and would have them easy; it is owing to themselves if they be uneasy. When Providence puts us into an Eden of plenty and pleasure, we ought to serve him with joyfulness and gladness of heart, in the abundance of the good things he gives us. But, (2.) It had two extraordinary trees peculiar to itself; on earth there were not their like. [1.] There was the tree of life in the midst of the garden, which was not so much a memorandum to him of the fountain and author of his life, nor perhaps any natural means to preserve or prolong life; but it was chiefly intended to be a sign and seal to Adam, assuring him of the continuance of life and happiness, even to immortality and everlasting bliss, through the grace and favour of his Maker, upon condition of his perseverance in this state of innocency and obedience. Of this he might eat and live. Christ is now to us the tree of life (Rev 2:7; Rev 22:2), and the bread of life, Joh 6:48, Joh 6:53. [2.] There was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so called, not because it had any virtue in it to beget or increase useful knowledge (surely then it would not have been forbidden), but, First, Because there was an express positive revelation of the will of God concerning this tree, so that by it he might know moral good and evil. What is good? It is good not to eat of this tree. What is evil? It is evil to eat of this tree. The distinction between all other moral good and evil was written in the heart of man by nature; but this, which resulted from a positive law, was written upon this tree. Secondly, Because, in the event, it proved to give Adam an experimental knowledge of good by the loss of it and of evil by the sense of it. As the covenant of grace has in it, not only Believe and be saved, but also, Believe not and be damned (Mar 16:16), so the covenant of innocency had in it, not only "Do this and live," which was sealed and confirmed by the tree of life, but, "Fail and die," which Adam was assured of by this other tree: "Touch it at your peril;" so that, in these two trees, God set before him good and evil, the blessing and the curse, Deu 30:19. These two trees were as two sacraments. 5. The rivers with which this garden was watered, Gen 2:10-14. These four rivers (or one river branched into four streams) contributed much both to the pleasantness and the fruitfulness of this garden. The land of Sodom is said to be well watered every where, as the garden of the Lord, Gen 13:10. Observe, That which God plants he will take care to keep watered. The trees of righteousness are set by the rivers, Psa 1:3. In the heavenly paradise there is a river infinitely surpassing these; for it is a river of the water of life, not coming out of Eden, as this, but proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb (Rev 22:1), a river that makes glad the city of our God, Psa 46:4. Hiddekel and Euphrates are rivers of Babylon, which we read of elsewhere. By these the captive Jews sat down and wept, when they remembered Sion (Psa 137:1); but methinks they had much more reason to weep (and so have we) at the remembrance of Eden. Adam's paradise was their prison; such wretched work has sin made. Of the land of Havilah it is said (Gen 2:12), The gold of that land is good, and there is bdellium and the onyx-stone: surely this is mentioned that the wealth of which the land of Havilah boasted might be as foil to that which was the glory of the land of Eden. Havilah had gold, and spices, and precious stones; but Eden had that which was infinitely better, the tree of life, and communion with God. So we may say of the Africans and Indians: "They have the gold, but we have the gospel. The gold of their land is good, but the riches of ours are infinitely better." II. The placing of man in this paradise of delight, Gen 2:15, where observe, 1. How God put him in possession of it: The Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden; so Gen 2:8, Gen 2:15. Note here, (1.) Man was made out of paradise; for, after God had formed him, he put him into the garden: he was made of common clay, not of paradise-dust. He lived out of Eden before he lived in it, that he might see that all the comforts of his paradise-state were owing to God's free grace. He could not plead a tenant-right to the garden, for he was not born upon the premises, nor had any thing but what he received; all boasting was hereby for ever excluded. (2.) The same God that was the author of his being was the author of his bliss; the same hand that made him a living soul planted the tree of life for him, and settled him by it. He that made us is alone able to make us happy; he that is the former of our bodies and the Father of our spirits, he, and none but he, can effectually provide for the felicity of both. (3.) It adds much to the comfort of any condition if we have plainly seen God going before us and putting us into it. If we have not forced providence, but followed it, and taken the hints of direction it has given us, we may hope to find a paradise where otherwise we could not have expected it. See Psa 47:4. 2. How God appointed him business and employment. He put him there, not like Leviathan into the waters, to play therein, but to dress the garden and to keep it. Paradise itself was not a place of exemption from work. Note, here, (1.) We were none of us sent into the world to be idle. He that made us these souls and bodies has given us something to work with; and he that gave us this earth for our habitation has made us something to work on. If a high extraction, or a great estate, or a large dominion, or perfect innocency, or a genius for pure contemplation, or a small family, could have given a man a writ of ease, Adam would not have been set to work; but he that gave us being has given us business, to serve him and our generation, and to work out our salvation: if we do not mind our business, we are unworthy of our being and maintenance. (2.) Secular employments will vary well consist with a state of innocency and a life of communion with God. The sons and heirs of heaven, while they are here in this world, have something to do about this earth, which must have its share of their time and thoughts; and, if they do it with an eye to God, they are as truly serving him in it as when they are upon their knees. (3.) The husbandman's calling is an ancient and honourable calling; it was needful even in paradise. The garden of Eden, though it needed not to be weeded (for thorns and thistles were not yet a nuisance), yet must be dressed and kept. Nature, even in its primitive state, left room for the improvements of art and industry. It was a calling fit for a state of innocency, making provision for life, not for lust, and giving man an opportunity of admiring the Creator and acknowledging his providence: while his hands were about his trees, his heart might be with his God. (4.) There is a true pleasure in the business which God calls us to, and employs us in. Adam's work was so far from being an allay that it was an addition to the pleasures of paradise; he could not have been happy if he had been idle: it is still a law, He that will not work has no right to eat, Th2 3:10; Pro 27:23. III. The command which God gave to man in innocency, and the covenant he then took him into. Hitherto we have seen God as man's powerful Creator and his bountiful Benefactor; now he appears as his Ruler and Lawgiver. God put him into the garden of Eden, not to live there as he might list, but to be under government. As we are not allowed to be idle in this world, and to do nothing, so we are not allowed to be wilful, and do what we please. When God had given man a dominion over the creatures, he would let him know that still he himself was under the government of his Creator.”

“And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden,.... Or "had planted" (m), for this was not now done after the formation of man, but before; and so the word translated "eastward" may be rendered, as it is by some, "before" (n): for the plain meaning is, that God had planted a garden before he made man, even on the third day, when all herbs, and plants, and trees were produced out of the earth. The whole world was as a garden, in comparison of what it is now since the fall: what then must this spot of ground, this garden be, which was separated and distinguished from the rest, and the more immediate plantation of God, and therefore is called the garden of the Lord, Gen 13:10 and which Plato (o) calls "Jove's garden?" This garden was planted in the country of Eden, so called very probably from its being a very pleasant and delightful country; and though it is not certain, and cannot be said exactly where it was, yet it seems to be a part of Mesopotamia, since it is more than once mentioned with Haran, which was in that country, Kg2 19:12 and since it was by the rivers Tigris and Euphrates, when they were become one stream, which ran through this country, and parted again at this garden; and the country there, as Herodotus (p) says, is the most fruitful he ever saw; and it seems to be much better to place it here than in Armenia, where the fountain of these rivers is said to be: so Tournefort (q) thinks it lay in the country, or plain of the three churches (or Ejmiadzit), in Armenia, about twenty French leagues distant from the heads of Euphrates and Araxes, and near as many from the Phasis, a country exceeding pleasant and fruitful. A very learned man (r) is of opinion, that the garden of Eden was in the land of Judea to the east, by the lake of Gennesaret or Tiberias, and the lake of Asphaltites, called the Dead sea, and takes in, in its compass, the famous valley, or the great plain, and the plains of Jericho, and great part of Galilee, and all that tract which Jordan flows by, from Gennesaret to the country of Sodom; and he takes the river Jordan to be , "the river of Eden", from whence it has its name of Jordan; and Gennesaret he interprets as if it was , "Gansar", the garden of the prince, that is, of Adam, the prince of all mankind. He argues from the situation of the place, and the pleasantness and fruitfulness of it, the balsam of Jericho, and other odoriferous plants that grew there, and what are called the apples of paradise: and it must be owned, that this country abounded with gardens and orchards: it is mentioned in the Jewish Misnah, where the commentators (s) say, it was a country in the land of Israel, in which were many gardens and orchards, that produced excellent fruit; and the fruits of Gennesaret are spoken of in the Talmud (t) as exceeding sweet: and with this agrees the account Josephus (u) gives of it, that it is"wonderful in nature and goodness, and through its fertility refuses no plant; everything is set here; the temper of the air suits with different things; here grow nuts, and more winter fruit; and there palms, which are nourished with heat, and near them figs and olives, which require a softer air--not only it produces apples of different sorts, beyond belief, but long preserves them; and indeed the most excellent of fruit; grapes and figs it furnishes with for ten months, without intermission, and other fruit throughout the whole year, growing old, with them.''And it may be further observed, that it is asked by the Jewish Rabbins, why it is called Genesar? and the answer is, because "the gardens of princes"; these are the kings who have gardens in the midst of it: another reason is given, because it belonged to Naphtali, a portion in the midst of it, as it is said, and of "Naphtali a thousand princes", Ch1 12:34. (w) And it is worthy of remark, that Strabo calls Jericho, which was within this tract, "the paradise of balsam" (x); and there, and hereabout, as Diodorus Siculus (y), and Justin (z) relate, grew this aromatic plant, and nowhere else; it was not to be found in any other part of the world. And it appears from Scripture, that if the plain of Jordan was not the garden of Eden, it is said to be, "as the garden of the Lord", Gen 13:10 and if the "caph" or "as" is not a note of similitude, but of reality, as it sometimes is, it proves it to be the very place; and the above learned writer takes it to be not comparative, but illative, as giving a reason why it was so well watered, because it was the garden of the Lord: and the Jews have some notion of this, for they say, if that the garden of Eden is in the land of Israel, Bethshean is the door of it, or entrance into it; the gloss gives this reason, because the fruits were sweeter than any other (a); and this was near, at the entrance of the great plain before mentioned; and before which was this place, as Josephus says (b): and if the garden of Eden was in those parts, it may be observed, that where the first Adam first dwelt, and where he sinned and fell, Christ the second Adam frequently was; here he conversed much, taught his doctrines, wrought his miracles; and even here he appeared after his resurrection from the dead. But the opinions of men about this place are very many, and there is scarce any country in the whole world but one or another has placed the garden of Eden in it; nay, some have assigned a place for it out of the earth, in the eighth sphere. Such a garden undoubtedly there was somewhere, and it is said to be placed "eastward", either in the eastern part of the country of Eden, see Gen 4:16 or to the east of the desert where Moses was when he wrote; or to the east of Judea, as Mesopotamia was: and if this garden was in Judea, the place assigned for it by the above learned person, it was in the eastern part of that country; see Num 32:19. This garden was an emblem either of the church of Christ on earth, which is a garden enclosed, surrounded with divine power, and distinguished with divine grace; a small spot in comparison of the world; is of Jehovah's planting, and is his property; and is an Eden to his people, where they enjoy much spiritual pleasure and delight: or however of the place and state of the happiness of the saints in the other world, often called a paradise in allusion to this, Luk 23:43 and which is of God's planting, and therefore called the paradise of God, and is an Eden, where are pleasures for evermore: and this seems to be what the Jews mean when they say (c), that the garden of Eden, or paradise, was created before the world was; which is no other than what Christ says of it in other words, Mat 25:34. and there he put the man whom he had formed; not as soon as he had planted the garden, but as soon as he had made man; and from hence it is generally concluded, that man was made without the garden, and brought from the place where he was formed, and put into it; and which some say was near Damascus: but be it where it will, it is most probable that it was not far from the garden; though there seems no necessity for supposing him to be made out of it; for the putting him into it may signify the appointing and ordering him to be there, and fixing and settling him in it, for the ends and uses mentioned, see Gen 2:15. (After the global destruction of Noah's flood, it is doubtful that the location of the Garden of Eden could be determined with any degree of certainty today. Ed.) (m) "plantaverat", V. L. Vatablus, Piscator, Pareus, Drusius, Cartwright; "ornaverat plantis", Junius & Tremellius. (n) "a principio", V. L. so Onkelos; "antes vel antequam", same in Fagius, Cartwright. (o) In Symposio, apud Euseb. praepar. Evangel. l. 12. c. 11. p. 584. (p) Clio sive, l. 1. c. 193. (q) Voyage to the Levant, vol. 3. p. 161, 162. (r) Nichol. Abrami Pharus Vet. Test. l. 2. c. 16. p. 56. So Texelius (Phoenix, l. 3. c. 7. sect. 7.) takes it to be in the land of Promise, not far from the Dead sea, or sea of Sodom, and in the country about Jordan; and of the same opinion is Heidegger (Hist. Patriarch. Exerc. 4. sect. 42. p. 15.) (s) Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Maaserot, c. 3. sect. 7. (t) T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 44. 1. Erubin, fol. 30. 1. & Pesachim, fol. 8. 2. (u) De Bello Jud. l. 3. c. 9. sect. 8. (w) Aruch in voce fol. 37. 1. (x) Geograph. l. 16. p. 525. (y) Bibliothec. l. 19. p. 734. (z) E Trogo, l. 36. c. 3. (a) T. Bab. Erubin, fol. 19. 1. (b) Antiqu. l. 12. c. 8. sect. 5. 1 Maccab. v. 52. (c) T. Bab. Pesachim, fol. 54. 1. Nedarim, fol. 39. 2.”

“A garden eastward in Eden - Though the word עדן Eden signifies pleasure or delight, it is certainly the name of a place. See Gen 4:16; Kg2 19:12; Isa 37:12; Eze 27:23; Amo 1:5. And such places probably received their name from their fertility, pleasant situation, etc. In this light the Septuagint have viewed it, as they render the passage thus: Εφυτευσεν ὁ Θεος παραδεισον εν Εδεν, God planted a paradise in Eden. Hence the word paradise has been introduced into the New Testament, and is generally used to signify a place of exquisite pleasure and delight. From this the ancient heathens borrowed their ideas of the gardens of the Hesperides, where the trees bore golden fruit; the gardens of Adonis, a word which is evidently derived from the Hebrew עדן Eden; and hence the origin of sacred gardens or enclosures dedicated to purposes of devotion, some comparatively innocent, others impure. The word paradise is not Greek; in Arabic and Persian it signifies a garden, a vineyard, and also the place of the blessed. The Mohammedans say that God created the Jennet al Ferdoos, the garden of paradise, from light, and the prophets and wise men ascend thither. Wilmet places it after the root farada, to separate, especially a person or place, for the purposes of devotion, but supposes it to be originally a Persian word, vox originis Persicae quam in sua lingua conservarunt Armeni. As it is a word of doubtful origin, its etymology is uncertain.”

“The abode, which God prepared for the first man, was a "garden in Eden," also called "the garden of Eden" (Gen 2:15; Gen 3:23-24; Joe 2:3), or Eden (Isa 51:3; Eze 28:13; Eze 31:9). Eden (עדן, i.e., delight) is the proper name of a particular district, the situation of which is described in Gen 2:10.; but it must not be confounded with the Eden of Assyria (Kg2 19:12, etc.) and Coelesyria (Amo 1:5), which is written with double seghol. The garden (lit., a place hedged round) was to the east, i.e., in the eastern portion, and is generally called Paradise from the Septuagint version, in which the word is rendered παράδεισος. This word, according to Spiegel, was derived from the Zendic pairi-daêza, a hedging round, and passed into the Hebrew in the form פּרדּס (Sol 4:13; Ecc 2:5; Neh 2:8), a park, probably through the commercial relations which Solomon established with distant countries. In the garden itself God caused all kinds of trees to grow out of the earth; and among them were tow, which were called "the tree of life" and "the tree of knowledge of good and evil," on account of their peculiar significance in relation to man (see Gen 2:16 and Gen 3:22). הדּעת, an infinitive, as Jer 22:16 shows, has the article here because the phrase ורע טוב דעת is regarded as one word, and in Jeremiah from the nature of the predicate.”

“Behold still another form of kindness out of regard for this creature. (109c) You see, since he wanted him to live in the garden, he ordered various trees to come forth from the earth, that could both delight him with their appearance and be pleasing to the taste. "Every tree." it says, "beautiful to behold" that is, in appearance "and good to eat;" in short, they had the ability to please him through their appearance and to provide much pleasure through their taste, and by their great abundance offered considerable good cheer to the one in a position to enjoy them. You see, it says, "Every tree," whatever name you give it, he made come forth. Do you recognize here a life free of any care? Do you see a wonderful existence? Like some an gel, in fact, man lived this way on earth, wearing a body, yet being fortunately rid of any bodily needs; like a king adorned with scepter and crown and wearing his purple robe, (109d) he revelled in this life of freedom and great affluence in the garden. "The tree of life in the middle of the garden," the text goes on to say, "and the tree for knowing good and evil." After teaching us that, according to the Lord's command, the earth produced every tree, lovely to behold and good to taste, it says next: "The tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree for knowing good and evil." The good Lord, you see, knowing as creator the harm that would in due time be likely to arise from this condition of great freedom, brought forth the tree of life in the middle of the garden, and the tree for knowing good and evil, since before long he would be imposing on him abstinence from the tree so that man might realize that he owed enjoyment of them to divine love and goodness, and that God was Lord (110a) and creator of his nature as of all visible things. Beforehand, therefore, he made mention of the tree, and next he tells us the names of the rivers and their division, so to say, and that from that source, which irrigated the garden, others led off in four directions and thus marked out the regions of the earth. Perhaps, however, those people who like to talk from their own wisdom do not concede again that these rivers are rivers, or these waters really waters, but propound some different interpretation to people ready to lend them their ears. Let us, however, I beg you, not be convinced by them, but block our ears against them; let us instead place our credence in Sacred Scripture and heed what is told us there; let it be our concern to lay its sound teachings in our soul and be scrupulously careful about them and about our life, (110b) so that our life may witness to the teachings and the teachings may declare the integrity of our life. After all, it will be of no avail for us to get teachings right if we neglect life; nor will we be able to gain any value for our salvation if we have life but neglect right teachings. It is necessary, you see, if we would wish to avoid hell and reach heaven, to be distinguished for both correctness of doctrine and attention to life. What good, after all, tell me, is a tree reaching to the sky and bearing leaves aplenty if it is devoid of fruit? So, too, with the Christian: correct doctrine is of no benefit unless one attends to the business of living. Accordingly Christ declared such people blessed: "Blessed is the one who does and teaches." [ Matt 5:19 ] I mean, far more dependable and trustworthy than the teaching of words is teaching in action. Such persons, (110c) in fact, even without uttering a word, or else without being seen, can teach others, in the one case by the silent witness of their appearance and in the other through the sense of hearing; they will enjoy God's goodwill in great measure, promoting as they do the glory of their Lord, not only through their own efforts but also through those who notice them. Such persons raise thanks and praise to the God of all on a thousand tongues and in many mouths; for it is not only those who know them, the witnesses of their life, that will admire them and their Lord, but strangers who hear about it from others, people living far away and distant foreigners, not only friends but foes as well, who will respect the eminence of their virtue. Such is its efficacy, you see, that it stops the mouths of adversaries and bridles their tongue. And just as people with poor sight (110d) flinch from looking at the sun's rays, likewise evil will never be able to confront virtue, but will yield ground, turn away, and admit defeat. Convinced then of this, let us hold fast to virtue, and pass our lives safely, taking care to avoid the slightest appearance of sin in word or deed. In this way, you see, we will never fall into the worst of sins if we avoid small ones; and with the passage of time we will be able under the influence of help from on high to attain the pinnacle of virtue, escape any future punishment, and gain eternal reward, through the grace and loving kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom with the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory, power and honor, now and forever, for ages of ages. Amen.”

“AND THE TREE OF LIFE IN THE MIDST OF THE GARDEN AND THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. Since Scripture says, And the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and does not say “in the garden,” and, moreover, since it says, But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, G-d hath said: ‘Ye shall not eat of it,’ and does not mention it or refer to it by another name, we must say, according to the simple meaning of Scripture, that it was a known place in the garden which was “in the midst” thereof. This is why Onkelos translated: “in the middle of the garden.” Thus according to Onkelos the tree of life and the tree of knowledge were both in the middle of the garden. And if so, we must say that in the middle of the garden there was the likeness of an enclosed garden-bed made which contained these two trees. This “middle” means near its middle for with respect to the exact middle, they have already said that no one knows the true central point except G-d alone. And the tree of life. This was a tree the fruit of which gave those who ate it long life. And the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The commentators have said that the fruit thereof caused those who ate it to have a desire for sexual intercourse, and therefore Adam and Eve covered their nakedness after they ate of it [the fruit]. They quote a similar expression [where “good and evil” refers to such desire], the saying of Barzilai the Gileadite: Can I distinguish between good and bad? — meaning that this sexual desire was already removed from him. But in my opinion this interpretation is not correct since the serpent said, And ye shall be as ‘Elohim,’ knowing good and evil. here means angels, who have no such desire (R’dak). And if you will say that the serpent lied to her, now [Scripture itself attests to the truth of his statement in the verse], And the Eternal G-d said, ‘Behold man has become like one of us knowing good and evil.’ And the Rabbis have already said: “Three stated the truth and perished from the world, and these are: the serpent, the spies, and Doeg the Edomite., was true. Now since sexual desire is not spoken of in connection with the angels, the expression knowing good and evil cannot refer to such desire. The proper interpretation appears to me to be that man’s original nature was such that he did whatever was proper for him to do naturally, just as the heavens and all their hosts do, “faithful workers whose work is truth, and who do not change from their prescribed course,” and in whose deeds there is no love or hatred. Now it was the fruit of this tree that gave rise to will and desire, that those who ate it should choose a thing or its opposite, for good or for evil. This is why it was called ‘etz hada’ath’ (the tree of the knowledge) of good and evil, for da’ath in our language is used to express will. Thus in the language of the Rabbis: “They have taught this only with regards to one sheda’ato (whose will) is to return;” and “his will is to clear” [the produce in the store-room in his house before Passover]., In that case too he must search for leaven which lies under the produce even more than 30 days before Passover. And in the language of Scripture, Eternal, what is man ‘vateida’ehu,’ meaning that “Thou shouldst desire and want him;” yedaticha beshem,. meaning “I have chosen thee of all people.” Similarly, Barzilai’s expression, Ha’eda (Can I distinguish) between good and bad, means that he lost the power of thought, no longer choosing a thing or loathing it, and he would eat without feeling taste and hear singing without enjoying it. Now at that time sexual intercourse between Adam and his wife was not a matter of desire; instead, at the time of begetting offspring they came together and propagated. Therefore all the limbs were, in their eyes, as the face and hands, and they were not ashamed of them. But after he ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, he possessed the power of choice; he could now willingly do evil or good to himself or to others. This, on the one hand, is a godlike attribute; but as far as man is concerned, it is bad because through it, he has a will and desire. It is possible that Scripture intended to allude to this matter when it said, That G-d made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions. The “uprightness” is that man should keep to one right path, and the “seeking out of many inventions” is man’s search for deeds which change according to his choice. Now when the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Adam concerning the tree, that he should not eat of its fruit, He did not inform him that it has this quality. He told him without any qualification, But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, that is to say, the one that is known by its central position, thou shalt not eat thereof. And this was what the woman said to the serpent. And the verse which states, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, mentions it to us by its true name.”

“And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food,.... That is, out of the ground of the garden of Eden; and this was done on the third day, when the whole earth brought forth grass, herbs, and trees: but a peculiar spot of ground was fixed on for man, and stocked with trees of all sorts for his use, not only to bear fruit, which would be suitable and agreeable food for him, but others also, which would yield him delight to look at; such as the tall cedars for their loftiness, spreading branches and green leaves, with many others; so that not only there were trees to gratify the senses of tasting and smelling, but that of sight; and such a sightly goodly tree to look at was the tree of knowledge, Gen 3:6. These trees may be an emblem of the saints, the trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, and made to grow by him through the influence of his Spirit and grace; and whom he plants in his gardens, the churches, and transplants into the heavenly paradise, and are often compared to palm trees, cedars, olive trees, pomegranates, &c. the tree of life also in the midst of the garden; set there as in the most excellent place, where it might be most conspicuous, and to be come at; for before Adam sinned, as there was no prohibition of his eating of it, so there was no obstruction to it; and as he had a grant to eat of it, with the other trees, it was designed for his use, to support and maintain his natural life, which would have been continued, had he persisted in his obedience and state of innocence, and very probably by means of this chiefly: hence the son of Sirach calls it the tree of immortality,"The knowledge of the commandments of the Lord is the doctrine of life: and they that do things that please him shall receive the fruit of the tree of immortality.'' (Sirach 19:19)and it might be also a sign, token, and symbol to him of his dependence on God; that he received his life from him; and that this was preserved by his blessing and providence, and not by his own power and skill; and that this would be continued, provided he transgressed not the divine law: and it seems to have a further respect, even to eternal life; by Christ; for though it might not be a symbol of that life to Adam in his state of innocence, yet it became so after his fall: hence Christ is sometimes signified by the tree of life, Pro 3:18 who is not only the author of natural and spiritual life, but the giver of eternal life; the promise of it is in him, and the blessing itself; he has made way for it by his obedience, sufferings, and death, and is the way unto it; it is in his gift, and he bestows it on all his people, and it will lie greatly in the enjoyment of him. The situation of this tree in the midst of the garden well agrees with him who is in the midst of his church and people, Rev 1:13 stands open, is in sight, and is accessible to them all now, who may come to him, and partake of the fruits and blessings of his grace, which are many, constant, and durable, Rev 22:2 and who will be seen and enjoyed by all, to all eternity: and the tree of knowledge of good and evil; so called, either with respect to God, who by it tried man, when he had made him, whether he would be good or evil; but this he foreknew: rather therefore with respect to man, not that the eating the fruit of it could really give him such knowledge, nor did he need it; for by the law of nature inscribed on his heart, he knew the difference between good and evil, and that what God commanded was good, and what he forbid was evil: but either it had its name from the virtue Satan ascribed to it, Gen 3:5 or from the sad event following on man's eating the fruit of it, whereby he became experimentally sensible of the difference between good and evil, between obedience and disobedience to the will of God; he found by sad experience what good he had lost, or might have enjoyed, and what evil he had brought on himself and his posterity, he might have avoided. What this tree was is not certain; there are various conjectures about it, and nothing else can be come at concerning it. Some take it to be the fig tree, as Jarchi, and some in Aben Ezra on Gen 3:6 because fig leaves were at hand, and immediately made use of on eating the fruit of it; some the vine, and particularly the black grape, as in the book of Zohar (d); others, as Baal Hatturim on Gen 1:29 the pome citron, or citron apple tree (e); others, the common apple, as the author of the old Nizzechon (f), and which is the vulgar notion; evil and an apple being called by the same Latin word "malum": in the Talmud (g), some say it was the vine, some the fig tree, and others wheat (h): the Mahometans say it was a tree, called by the Africans by the name of Musa (i). (d) In Exod. fol. 59. 4. & in Numb. fol. 53. 3. So in Bereshit Rabba, sect. 12. fol. 155. 2. (e) Vid. Caphtor Uperah, fol. 49. 1. & 60. 2. & 63. 2. (f) P. 147. Ed. Wagenseil. (g) T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 40. 1. & Sanhedrin, fol. 70. 1. 2. So in Tzeror Hammor, fol. 15. 2. Tikkune Zohar correct. 24. fol. 68. (h) Vid. Bartenora in Misn. Roshhashanah, c. 1. sect. 2. (i) Leo. African. Desriptio Africae, c. 9. p. 772.”

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

“Now is manifested the reason of the truth why the fourth day is called the Tetras, why we fast even to the ninth hour, or even to the evening, or why there should be a passing over even to the next day. Therefore this world of ours is composed of four elements-fire, water, heaven, earth. These four elements, therefore, form the quaternion of times or seasons. The sun, also, and the moon constitute throughout the space of the year four seasons-of spring, summer, autumn, winter; and these seasons make a quaternion. And to proceed further still from that principle, lo, there are four living creatures before God's throne, four Gospels, four rivers flowing in paradise; four generations of people from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to Moses, from Moses to Christ the Lord, the Son of God; and four living creatures, viz., a man, a calf, a lion, an eagle; and four rivers, the Pison, the Gihon. the Tigris, and the Euphrates. The man Christ Jesus, the originator of these things whereof we have above spoken, was taken prisoner by wicked hands, by a quaternion of soldiers. Therefore on account of His captivity by a quaternion, on account of the majesty of His works,-that the seasons also, wholesome to humanity, joyful for the harvests, tranquil for the tempests, may roll on,-therefore we make the fourth day a station or a supernumerary fast.”

“And a river went out of Eden to water the garden,.... Before man was created, as Aben Ezra observes, this river went out of Eden and watered it on every side; but what river is here meant, is hard to say. It is more generally thought to be the river Euphrates, when that and the Tigris met, and became one stream or river, and as such entered and passed through Eden; and as it was parted into four rivers afterwards, in two of which they retained their names: the learned Reland (k) thinks, this river is now lost; but the learned writer before referred to thinks, as has been observed, that it is the river Jordan; see note on Gen 2:8 and which, as Pliny (l) says, was a very pleasant river: and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads; after it had passed through Eden, and the garden in it, watering it, it divided into four parts or heads of water, or four chief principal rivers, hereafter mentioned; and which circumstance the above writer thinks makes it the more probable to be the river Jordan, which and with the four rivers are spoken of together by the son of Sirach, in the Apocrypha:"25 He filleth all things with his wisdom, as Phison and as Tigris in the time of the new fruits. 26 He maketh the understanding to abound like Euphrates, and as Jordan in the time of the harvest. 27 He maketh the doctrine of knowledge appear as the light, and as Geon in the time of vintage.'' (Sirach 24)of which in the following verses. This river may be an emblem of the everlasting love of God, that pure river of water of life, which springs from the throne of God, and of the Lamb, from divine sovereignty, and not from the faith, love, and obedience of man; that river, the streams whereof make glad the city of God, and which water the garden, the church, revive its plants, and make it fruitful and delightful; the four heads or branches of which are eternal election of God, particular redemption by Christ, regeneration and sanctification by the Spirit, and eternal life and happiness, as the free gift of God through Christ; see Psa 46:4. (k) Dissert. de Paradiso, p. 53. (l) Nat. Hist. l. 5. c. 15.”

“A river went out of Eden, etc. - It would astonish an ordinary reader, who should be obliged to consult different commentators and critics on the situation of the terrestrial Paradise, to see the vast variety of opinions by which they are divided. Some place it in the third heaven, others in the fourth; some within the orbit of the moon, others in the moon itself; some in the middle regions of the air, or beyond the earth's attraction; some on the earth, others under the earth, and others within the earth; some have fixed it at the north pole, others at the south; some in Tartary, some in China; some on the borders of the Ganges, some in the island of Ceylon; some in Armenia, others in Africa, under the equator; some in Mesopotamia, others in Syria, Persia, Arabia, Babylon, Assyria, and in Palestine; some have condescended to place it in Europe, and others have contended it either exists not, or is invisible, or is merely of a spiritual nature, and that the whole account is to be spiritually understood! That there was such a place once there is no reason to doubt; the description given by Moses is too particular and circumstantial to be capable of being understood in any spiritual or allegorical way. As well might we contend that the persons of Adam and Eve were allegorical, as that the place of their residence was such. The most probable account of its situation is that given by Hadrian Reland. He supposes it to have been in Armenia, near the sources of the great rivers Euphrates, Tigris, Phasis, and Araxes. He thinks Pison was the Phasis, a river of Colchis, emptying itself into the Euxine Sea, where there is a city called Chabala, the pronunciation of which is nearly the same with that of Havilah, or חוילה Chavilah, according to the Hebrew, the vau ו being changed in Greek to beta β. This country was famous for gold, whence the fable of the Golden Fleece, attempted to be carried away from that country by the heroes of Greece. The Gihon he thinks to be the Araxes, which runs into the Caspian Sea, both the words having the same signification, viz., a rapid motion. The land of Cush, washed by the river, he supposes to be the country of the Cussaei of the ancients. The Hiddekel all agree to be the Tigris, and the other river Phrat, or פרת Perath, to be the Euphrates. All these rivers rise in the same tract of mountainous country, though they do not arise from one head.”

“"And there was a river going out of Eden, to water the garden; and from thence it divided itself, and became four heads;" i.e., the stream took its rise in Eden, flowed through the garden to water it, and on leaving the garden was divided into four heads or beginnings of rivers, that is, into four arms or separate streams. For this meaning of ראשׁים see Eze 16:25; Lam 2:19. Of the four rivers whose names are given to show the geographical situation of paradise, the last two are unquestionably Tigris and Euphrates. Hiddekel occurs in Dan 10:4 as the Hebrew name for Tigris; in the inscriptions of Darius it is called Tigrâ (or the arrow, according to Strabo, Pliny, and Curtius), from the Zendic tighra, pointed, sharp, from which probably the meaning stormy (rapidus Tigris, Hor. Carm. 4, 14, 46) was derived. It flows before (קדמת), in front of, Assyria, not to the east of Assyria; for the province of Assyria, which must be intended here, was on the eastern side of the Tigris: moreover, neither the meaning, "to the east of," nor the identity of קדמת and מקדם has been, or can be, established from Gen 4:16; Sa1 13:5, or Eze 39:11, which are the only other passages in which the word occurs, as Ewald himself acknowledges. P'rath, which was not more minutely described because it was so generally known, is the Euphrates; in old Persian, Ufrâtu, according to Delitzsch, or the good and fertile stream; Ufrâtu, according to Spiegler, or the well-progressing stream. According to the present condition of the soil, the sources of the Euphrates and Tigris are not so closely connected that they could be regarded as the commencements of a common stream which has ceased to exist. The main sources of the Tigris, it is true, are only 2000 paces from the Euphrates, but they are to the north of Diarbekr, in a range of mountains which is skirted on three sides by the upper course of the Euphrates, and separates them from this river. We must also look in the same country, the highlands of Armenia, for the other two rivers, if the description of paradise actually rests upon an ancient tradition, and is to be regarded as something more than a mythical invention of the fancy. The name Phishon sounds like the Phasis of the ancients, with which Reland supposed it to be identical; and Chavilah like Cholchis, the well-known gold country of the ancients. But the Φάσις ὁ Κόλχος (Herod. 4, 37, 45) takes its rise in the Caucasus, and not in Armenia. A more probable conjecture, therefore, points to the Cyrus of the ancients, which rises in Armenia, flows northwards to a point not far from the eastern border of Colchis, and then turns eastward in Iberia, from which it flows in a south-easterly direction to the Caspian Sea. The expression, "which compasseth the whole land of Chavilah," would apply very well to the course of this river from the eastern border of Colchis; for סבב does not necessarily signify to surround, but to pass through with different turns, or to skirt in a semi-circular form, and Chavilah may have been larger than modern Colchis. It is not a valid objection to this explanation, that in every other place Chavilah is a district of Southern Arabia. The identity of this Chavilah with the Chavilah of the Joktanites (Gen 10:29; Gen 25:18; Sa1 15:7) or of the Cushites (Gen 10:7; Ch1 1:9) is disproved not only by the article used here, which distinguishes it from the other, but also by the description of it as land where gold, bdolach, and the shohamstone are found; a description neither requisite nor suitable in the case of the Arabian Chavilah, since there productions are not to be met with there. This characteristic evidently shows that the Chavilah mentioned here was entirely distinct from the other, and a land altogether unknown to the Iraelites. What we are to understand by הבּדלח is uncertain. There is no certain ground for the meaning "pearls," given in Saad. and the later Rabbins, and adopted by Bochart and others. The rendering βδέλλα or βδέλλιον, bdellium, a vegetable gum, of which Cioscorus says, οἱ δὲ μάδελκον οἱ δὲ βολχὸν καλχὸν, and Pliny, "alii brochon appellant, alii malacham, alii maldacon," is favoured by the similarity in the name; but, on the other side, there is the fact that Pliny describes this gum as nigrum and hadrobolon, and Dioscorus as ὑποπέλιον (blackish), which does not agree with Num 11:7, where the appearance of the white grains of the manna is compared to that of bdolach. - The stone shoham, according to most of the early versions, is probably the beryl, which is most likely the stone intended by the lxx (ὁ λίθος ὁ πράσινος, the leek-green stone), as Pliny, when speaking of beryls, describes those as probatissimi, qui viriditatem puri maris imitantur; but according to others it is the onyx or sardonyx (vid., Ges. s.v.). (Note: The two productions furnish no proof that the Phishon is to be sought for in India. The assertion that the name bdolach is Indian, is quite unfounded, for it cannot be proved that madâlaka in Sanscrit is a vegetable gum; nor has this been proved of madâra, which is possibly related to it (cf. Lassen's indische Althk. 1, 290 note). Moreover, Pliny speaks of Bactriana as the land "in qua Bdellium est nominatissimum," although he adds, "nascitur et in Arabia Indiaque, et Media ac Babylone;" and Isidorus says of the Bdella which comes from India, "Sordida est et nigra et majori gleba," which, again, does not agree with Num 11:7. - The Shoham-stone also is not necessarily associated with India; for although Pliny says of the beryls, "India eos gignit, raro alibi repertos," he also observes, "in nostro orbe aliquando circa Pontum inveniri putantur.") The Gihon (from גּוּח to break forth) is the Araxes, which rises in the neighbourhood of the Euphrates, flows from west to east, joins the Cyrus, and falls with it into the Caspian Sea. The name corresponds to the Arabic Jaihun, a name given by the Arabians and Persians to several large rivers. The land of Cush cannot, of course, be the later Cush, or Ethiopia, but must be connected with the Asiatic Κοσσαία, which reached to the Caucasus, and to which the Jews (of Shirwan) still give this name. But even though these four streams do not now spring from one source, but on the contrary their sources are separated by mountain ranges, this fact does not prove that the narrative before us is a myth. Along with or since the disappearance of paradise, that part of the earth may have undergone such changes that the precise locality can no longer be determined with certainty. (Note: That the continents of our globe have undergone great changes since the creation of the human race, is a truth sustained by the facts of natural history and the earliest national traditions, and admitted by the most celebrated naturalists. (See the collection of proofs made by Keerl.) These changes must not be all attributed to the flood; many may have occurred before and many after, like the catastrophe in which the Dead Sea originated, without being recorded in history as this has been. Still less must we interpret Gen 11:1 (compared with Gen 10:25), as Fabri and Keerl have done, as indicating a complete revolution of the globe, or a geogonic process, by which the continents of the old world were divided, and assumed their present physignomy.)”

“The name of the first is Pison,.... Not the river Nile in Egypt, as Jarchi, who thinks it is derived from "Pashah", which signifies to increase, expand, and diffuse, as that does at certain times, and spreads itself over the land of Egypt, or from "Pishten", linen, which grows there, Isa 19:9 nor the river Ganges in India, as Josephus (m), and others; for the country where it is afterwards said to run agrees with neither Egypt nor India: rather it seems to be the same river, which is the Phasis of Pliny (n), and Strabo (o), and the Physcus of Xenophon (p), and the Hyphasis of Philostorgius (q), a river in Armenia, and about Colchis; and which is sometimes called Pasitigris, being a branch of that river, and mixed with, or arising from channels, drawn from Tigris, Euphrates, and other waters (r). that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; this country had its name from Havilah, one of the sons of Cush, Gen 10:7 who very probably seated himself near his brother Seba, from whom came the Sabeans, who inhabited one part of Arabia; and Havilah, it is plain, was before Egypt, in the way to Assyria, and bordered upon the Ishmaelites, who inhabited Arabia Deserta, Gen 25:16. So that it seems to be a country in Arabia, near unto, or a part of Cush or Arabia Cusea, and near to Seba or Arabia Felix: and so Strabo, among the nations of the Arabians, and along with the Nabatheans, places the Chaulotaeans (s), who seem to be no other than the posterity of Havilah: according to the learned Reland (t), it is the same with Colchis, a part of Scythia, and Phasis is well known to be a river of Colchis; and which runs into Pontus, as appears from Pliny (u) and includes Scythia, as Justin (w) says; and then it must have its name from Havilah, the son of Joktan, Gen 10:29 and in either of these countries there was gold, and an abundance of it, and of the best, as follows:(After the global destruction of Noah's flood, it is doubtful that the location of these rivers could be determined with any degree of certainty today. Ed.) (m) Antiqu. l. 1. c. 1. sect. 3. (n) Nat. Hist. l. 6. c. 4. 17. (o) Geograph. l. 11. p. 343, 345, 364. (p) Cyr. Minor. l. 2. (q) Hist. Ecclesiast. l. 3. c. 10. (r) Curtius, l. 5. c. 3. Strabo. Geograph. l. 15. p. 501. (s) Ib. p. 528. (t) De Paradiso, p. 16, &c. (u) Ut supra. (Nat. Hist. l. 6. c. 4. 17.) (w) E Trogo, l. 2. c. 2.”

“And the gold of that land is good,.... Arabia was famous for gold: Diodorus Siculus (x) speaks of gold in Arabia, called "apyrus", which is not melted by fire out of small filings, as other; but as soon as dug is said to be pure gold, and that in the size of chestnuts, and of such a flaming colour, that the most precious stones are set in it by artificers for ornament: and in Colchis and Scythia, as Strabo (y) relates, there are rivers which produce gold; and from whence came the fable of the golden fleece, the Argonauts went to Colchis for: there is the bdellium, and the onyx stone; the first of these is either an aromatic gum; the tree, according to Pliny (z), is black, and is of the size of an olive tree, has the leaf of an oak, and its fruit is like capers; it is found in Arabia, India, Media, and Babylon; but the best, according to him, is in Bactriana, and, next to that, the bdellium of Arabia: or else it is a precious stone, and which the Jewish writers (a) commonly take to be crystal; and, according to Solinus (b), the best crystal is in Scythia. Bochart (c) would have it that the pearl is meant, because of its whiteness and roundness, for which the manna is compared to it, Num 11:7 and the rather because of the pearl fishery at Catipha, taking Havilah to be that part of Arabia which lies upon the Persian gulf. The latter, the onyx, is a precious stone, which has its name from its being of the colour of a man's nail; and, according to Pliny (d), the onyx marble is found in the mountains of Arabia, and the ancients thought it was nowhere else; and he speaks elsewhere of the Arabian onyx precious stone, and of the sardonyx, as in the same country (e); and some think that is here meant; though the word is sometimes by the Septuagint rendered the emerald; and the best of these, according to Solinus (f) and Pliny (g), were in Scythia. (After the global destruction of Noah's flood, it is doubtful that the location of these places could be determined with degree of certainty today. Ed.) (x) Bibliothec. l. 2. p. 133. (y) Geograph. l. 1. p. 31. & l. 11. p. 344. (z) Nat. Hist. l. 12. c. 9. (a) Jarchi in Numb. xi. 7. David de Pomis Tzemach David, fol. 8. 3. (b) Polyhistor. c. 25. (c) Hierozoic. par. 2. l. 5. c. 5. p. 675, &c. (d) Nat. Hist. l. 36. c. 7. (e) lb. l. 37. c. 6. (f) Polyhistor. ut supra. (c. 25) (g) Ut supra, (Nat. Hist. l. 36.) c. 5.”

“And the name of the second river is Gihon,.... There was one of this name in the land of Israel, which, or a branch of it, flowed near Jerusalem, Kg1 1:33 this Aben Ezra suggests is here meant, and which favours the notion of the above learned man, that the garden of Eden was in the land of Israel. Josephus (h) takes it to be the river Nile, as do many others; it seems to have been a branch of the river Euphrates or Tigris, on the eastern side, as Phison was on the west; and so Aben Ezra says it came from the south east. The learned Reland (i) will have it to be the river Araxes: it has its name, according to Jarchi, from the force it goes with, and the noise it makes. And it seems to have its name from which signifies to come forth with great force, as this river is said to do, when it pours itself into the Baltic sea. The same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia; either Ethiopia above Egypt; and this favours the notion of those who take Gihon to be the Nile: for Pausanias (k) says, that it was commonly reported that the Nile was Euphrates, which disappearing in a marsh, rose up above Ethiopia, and became the Nile, and so washed that country, and is thought to agree very well with the Mosaic account: or else that Cush or Ethiopia, which bordered on Midian, and was a part of Arabia, and may be called Arabia Chusea, often meant by Cush in Scripture. Reland (l) thinks the country of the Cossaeans or Cussaeans, a people bordering on Media, the country of Kuhestan, a province of Persia, is intended. (After the global destruction of Noah's flood, it is doubtful that the location of these rivers could be determined with any degree of certainty today. Ed.) (h) Antiqu, l. 1. c. 1. sect. 3. Philostorg. Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 10. p. 482. (i) De situ Paradisi, p. 32. (k) Corinthiaca sive, l. 2. p. 94. (l) Ut supra, (De situ Paradisi) p. 38.”

“The name of the third river is Hiddekel,.... A river which ran by Shushan in Persia, and retained its name in the times of Daniel, Dan 10:4 where it is called the great river; and it seems it bears the same name now among the Persians; at least it did an hundred and fifty years ago, when Rauwolff (m) travelled in those parts. The Targum of Jonathan here calls it Diglath, the same with the Diglito of Pliny (n); and according to him it is called Tigris, from its swiftness, either from the tiger, a swift creature, or from "to dart", in the Chaldee language; and so Curtius (o) says, that in the Persian language they call a dart "tigris": and with this agrees the word "Hiddekel", which in the Hebrew language signifies sharp and swift, as a polished arrow is; and Jarchi says it is so called, because its waters are sharp and swift: though this is contradicted by some modern travellers (p) who say it is a slower stream than the Euphrates, and is not only very crooked, and full of meanders, but also choked up with islands, and great banks of stone: that is it which goeth towards the east of Assyria: a country which had its name from Ashur, a son of Shem, Gen 10:11 it became a famous kingdom and monarchy, Nineveh was the metropolis of it, which was built on the river Tigris or Hiddekel; and, as before observed, it ran by Shushan in Persia; and so, as Diodorus Siculus (q) says, it passed through Media into Mesopotamia; and which very well agrees with its being, according to Moses, one of the rivers of Eden. Twelve miles up this river, from Mosul, near which Nineveh once stood, lies an island, called the island of Eden, in the heart of the Tigris, about ten English miles in circuit, and is said to be undoubtedly a part of paradise (r): and the fourth river is Euphrates: or "Phrat", as in the Hebrew tongue. Reland (s) seems rightly to judge, that the syllable "eu", prefixed to it, is the Persian "au" or "cu", which in that language signifies "water"; so that "Euphrates" is no other than "the water of Phrat", so called from the fruitfulness of it; for its waters, as Jarchi says, fructify, increase, and fatten the earth; and who rightly observes that these names, and so those of other rivers, and of the countries here mentioned, are named by a prolepsis or anticipation, these being the names they bore when Moses wrote; unless it may be thought to be the Hebrew "Hu, the, that Phrat"; and which the Greeks have made an "eu" of. (After the global destruction of Noah's flood, it is doubtful that the location of these rivers could be determined with any degree of certainty today. Ed.) (m) Travels, part. 2. c. 9. p. 159. ed. Ray. (n) Nat. Hist. l. 6. c. 27. (o) Hist. l. 4. c. 9. (p) De la Valle & Thevenot, apud Universal History, vol. 4. p. 248. (q) Bibliothec. l. 2. p. 99. (r) Cartwright's Preacher's Travels, p. 91. (s) Ut supra, (De Situ Paradisi) p. 45.”

“TODAY AGAIN, IF you don't mind, we will continue in the direction of yesterday's sermon, and apply ourselves to the task of drawing out from there the thread of spiritual teaching for your benefit. There is, you see, great force concealed in the words read just now; we need to go into them at great depth and study them all with precision so as to reap the benefit they offer. To make a comparison with people trying to discover gems in the sea: they submit to such toil and trouble and expose themselves to the buffeting of the waves in order to light upon the object of their search. Consequently, we should apply our minds much more diligently to the task of discovering what lies concealed below the surface of the words, and thus lay hold of these valuable gems. Don't be concerned, dearly beloved, to hear reference to depths. In this case, you see, there is no unruly surge of waves; instead, there is the grace of the Spirit shining upon our minds, making possible for us an effortless discovery of what we seek and rendering every difficulty light. So whereas, on the one hand, the discovery of those other gems brings to one who chances upon them a benefit that is not extraordinary, on the other hand, it often results in injury and proves to be the cause of countless shipwrecks: the searcher does not gain joy from the discovery to the same extent as he is afflicted by unpleasantness in his discovery on account of the glances he attracts to himself from envious onlookers, exciting the greedy to enmity against him. To this extent the discovery of that type of stone, far from simply bringing no advantage to one's life, also proves the occasion of numerous contests. It lays the groundwork for greed, you see, it stokes the furnace of cupidity and lays siege to the soul of those caught up in it. In the case of these spiritual stones of great value, on the contrary, no such problem is to be feared; instead, the wealth to be won from them is beyond telling, the pleasure from them is proof against defect and surpasses by a great margin all joy accruing to human beings from that other source. Listen to David's words on the subject: "Your sayings are more to be desired than gold and much precious metal." [ Ps 19:10 ] Do you see how he made open reference to those materials considered more valuable than others yet was not only dissatisfied with this comparison but added the word "much" and thence he clarified for us at that point the superiority involved: "More than gold," the text says, "and much precious metal." The reason that he made reference to these substances was not for the reason that the divine sayings are to be desired to that extent alone but because he recognized that only these substances enjoy the utmost preeminence in human estimation hence by referring to them he demonstrated the superiority intended and the ardor of the desire felt for the sayings of the Spirit. So that you may learn that it is the unfailing practice of Sacred Scripture to compare the benefit that comes from it with perceptible realities and thus demonstrate the superiority of the former, listen also to what follows. He went on, at any rate, to add: "And sweeter than honey and a honeycomb." In this case, too, the reference is not for the reason that they are sweeter only to that extent, or can provide only that kind of sweetness, but because he had nothing else among material things to compare to the sweetness of the divine sayings hence by referring to them he showed again their superiority and declared the sweetness of the spiritual teachings to be greater. You will find Christ, too, applying the same norm in the Gospels. When he was speaking to the disciples, remember, they were anxious to learn the meaning of the parable of the man sowing good seed in the field and his enemy throwing weeds in among the grain, so he explained to them the whole parable in detail, asking who was the man sowing the good seed, what was the field, what were the weeds and who scattered them, who were the harvesters and what was the harvest. When he had clarified all that for them, he then said, "Good people will be as brilliant as the sun in the kingdom of their Father" [ Matt 13:43 ] not for the reason that good people will have only that kind of brilliance, but to show that they will have much greater brilliance; he mentioned that kind because it is impossible to find a stronger image than that from among visible things. So when we hear something like that, let us not stop short at the literal level; instead, let us reason from the perceptible and visible realities to the superiority of spiritual realities in particular. Accordingly, if it is possible to discover the keener desire and the more heightened sweetness in this case (these sayings being, after all, divine and spiritual, and thus capable of prompting in the soul great spiritual joy), let us with great yearning and strong desire apply our ears to the words so that we may gain from them for ourselves true wealth and welcome many seeds that will germinate into right thinking about God, and thus make our way home. Let us, therefore, listen to what has been read today. Keep your mind ever attentive, however, I ask you, shake off all sloth and concerns for things of this life, and thus heed the words spoken l hey are, after all, divine laws brought down from heaven for our salvation. To make a comparison: when letters are read out from our emperor, there is complete silence, all din and tumult hushed, everyone standing with eager attention and desire to hear what it is the imperial letters convey; anyone making the slightest noise or interrupting the flow of the reading runs the greatest risk.' Much more in this present case is there need to stand in fear and trembling, maintain utter silence, and rid yourselves of confusion in your thinking so that you may be able to understand what is said, while the King of heaven may accept your responsiveness and deem you worthy of greater favors. Accordingly, let us see what blessed Moses teaches us to day also, telling us this as he does, not only by his own tongue but under the inspiration of the grace of the Spirit. He says: "The Lord God took the human being that he had formed." Right from the outset he has nicely put the two terms together: he didn't just say, "The Lord," and stop there, but added, "God," teaching us something that had escaped our notice and lain concealed in the text, so that we might realized that whether we hear "Lord" or "God" there is no difference in the names. This point, however, I am not making without reason: my purpose is that when you hear Paul saying, "There is one God the Father, from whom all things come, and one lord Jesus Christ, for whom all things exist," [ I Cor 8:6 ] you won't think there is a difference in the expressions, one referring to a greater and the other to a lesser. Hence Scripture employs these names interchangeably so that people inclined to controversy may have no encouragement to assail orthodoxy with a figment of their own imagination. That you may learn that Sacred Scripture says none of these things with distinction and discrimination in mind, notice precisely what emerges from this very sentence under consideration. "The Lord God took," it says. To whom does the heretic want this to refer? The Father alone. Very well, then. Listen to Paul's words: "There is one God the Father, from whom all things come, and one Lord Jesus Christ, for whom all things exist." Do you see how he applies the word "Lord" to the Son? So would they say the word "Lord" is greater than "God"? See how anomalous this is, and the extent of the blasphemy it provides a basis for. You see, whenever people are unwilling to take the consequences of following the norm of Sacred Scripture, wishing to make room for the vagaries of private reasoning, they upset their sense of balance and undermine the solid orthodoxy of dogmas with endless disputes and questioning. "The Lord God took the human being that he had formed," the text says, "and placed him in the garden of delights to till it and watch over it." See the extent of the providence he employs in regard to the human being he has created. I mean, after blessed Moses taught us yesterday that, to quote him, "God planted the garden and placed in it the human creature" in other words, he wanted him to have his dwelling place there and pass his days in enjoyment of the garden today he goes on to show us God's unspeakable love manifested in his regard. Taking up this theme he says: "The Lord God took the human being he had formed and placed him in the garden of delights." He did not simply say, "In the garden," but added, "of delights," so as to reveal to us the exceeding pleasure he enjoyed from living there. And after saying, "He placed him in the garden of delights," he said, "to till it and watch over it." A mark, this, of great solicitude. I mean, since life there was filled with every delight, was a pleasure to behold and a thrill to enjoy, he arranged accordingly that the human being should till the garden and watch over it lest he be unsettled by the exceeding indulgence ( "Idleness," Scripture says, remember, "has been the teacher of every evil" [ Sir 33:28 ] ). Well, why, do you ask, did the garden require attention by him? I'm not telling you that, but in fact God wanted him for a while to take some slight care that was appropriate in both watching and tilling. If, after all, he had been relieved of all need to work, he would have fallen a victim to great indulgence and at once have slipped into sloth; whereas in fact by performing some work that was painless and without difficulty he would be brought to a better frame of mind. That phrase, "to watch over it," is not added idly: it is an instance of considerateness in expression to the effect that he might be fully aware that he was subject to a master who had regaled him with such enjoyment, and along with that enjoyment entrusted him with its protection. God, you see, creates everything and arranges it for our salvation, and as well as that presents us with enjoyment and relaxation. If on account of his exceeding love he prepared those ineffable goods before creating us as he himself says, "Come, you blessed of my Father, take possession of the kingdom prepared for you before the foundation of the world" [ Matt 25:34 ] much more will he provide us with everything in this world in generous measure.”

“And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden,.... This is observed before in Gen 2:8 and is here repeated to introduce what follows; and is to be understood not of a corporeal assumption, by a divine power lifting him up from the place where he was, and carrying him into another; rather of a manuduction, or taking him by the hand and leading him thither; so Onkelos renders it, he "led" him, that is, he ordered and directed him thither: hence Jarchi paraphrases it, he took him with good words, and persuaded him to go thither: the place from whence he is supposed by some to be taken was near Damascus, where he is by them said to be created; or the place where the temple was afterwards built, as say the Jewish writers: the Targum of Jonathan is,"the Lord God took the man from the mount of Service, the place in which he was created, and caused him to dwell in the garden of Eden.''And elsewhere (t) it is said,"the holy blessed God loved the first Adam with an exceeding great love, for he created him out of a pure and holy place; and from what place did he take him? from the place of the house of the sanctuary, and brought him into his palace, as it is said, Gen 2:15 "and the Lord God took", &c.''though no more perhaps is intended by this expression, than that God spoke to him or impressed it on his mind, and inclined him to go, or stay there: to dress it, and to keep it; so that it seems man was not to live an idle life, in a state of innocence; but this could not be attended with toil and labour, with fatigue and trouble, with sorrow and sweat, as after his fall; but was rather for his recreation and pleasure; though what by nature was left to be improved by art, and what there was for Adam to do, is not easy to say: at present there needed no ploughing, nor sowing, nor planting, nor watering, since God had made every tree pleasant to the sight, good for food, to grow out of it; and a river ran through it to water it: hence in a Jewish tract (u), before referred to, it is said, that his work in the garden was nothing else but to study in the words of the law, and to keep or observe the way of the tree of life: and to this agree the Targums of Jonathan and of Jerusalem,"and he placed him in the garden of Eden, to serve in the law, and keep the commands of it.''And in another tract (w) it is said,"God brought Adam the law, Job 28:27 and "he put him in the garden of Eden"; that is, the garden of the law, "to dress it", to do the affirmative precepts of the law, "and to keep it", the negative precepts:''though Aben Ezra interprets this service of watering the garden, aud keeping wild beasts from entering into it. And indeed the word may be rendered to "till", as well as to dress, as it is in Gen 3:23 and by Ainsworth here; so Milton (x) expresses it; and some have thought Adam was to have planted and sowed, had he continued in the garden. (t) Pirke Eliezer, c. 2. fol. 72. 2. (u) Pirke Eliezer, c. 2. fol. 72. 2. (w) Tikkune Zohar, correct. 54. fol. 91. 2. (x) Paradise Lost, B. 8. l. 320.”

“After the preparation of the garden in Eden God placed the man there, to dress it and to keep it. ינּיחהוּ not merely expresses removal thither, but the fact that the man was placed there to lead a life of repose, not indeed in inactivity, but in fulfilment of the course assigned him, which was very different from the trouble and restlessness of the weary toil into which he was plunged by sin. In paradise he was to dress (colere) the garden; for the earth was meant to be tended and cultivated by man, so that without human culture, plants and even the different varieties of corn degenerate and grow wild. Cultivation therefore preserved (שׁמר to keep) the divine plantation, not merely from injury on the part of any evil power, either penetrating into, or already existing in the creation, but also from running wild through natural degeneracy. As nature was created for man, it was his vocation not only to ennoble it by his work, to make it subservient to himself, but also to raise it into the sphere of the spirit and further its glorification. This applied not merely to the soil beyond the limits of paradise, but to the garden itself, which, although the most perfect portion of the terrestrial creation, was nevertheless susceptible of development, and which was allotted to man, in order that by his care and culture he might make it into a transparent mirror of the glory of the Creator. - Here too the man was to commence his own spiritual development. To this end God had planted two trees in the midst of the garden of Eden; the one to train his spirit through the exercise of obedience to the word of God, the other to transform his earthly nature into the spiritual essence of eternal life. These trees received their names from their relation to man, that is to say, from the effect which the eating of their fruit was destined to produce upon human life and its development. The fruit of the tree of life conferred the power of eternal, immortal life; and the tree of knowledge was planted, to lead men to the knowledge of good and evil. The knowledge of good and evil was no mere experience of good and ill, but a moral element in that spiritual development, through which the man created in the image of God was to attain to the filling out of that nature, which had already been planned in the likeness of God. For not to know what good and evil are, is a sign of either the immaturity of infancy (Deu 1:39), or the imbecility of age (Sa2 19:35); whereas the power to distinguish good and evil is commended as the gift of a king (Kg1 3:9) and the wisdom of angels (Sa2 14:17), and in the highest sense is ascribed to God Himself (Gen 3:5, Gen 3:22). Why then did God prohibit man from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, with the threat that, as soon as he ate thereof, he would surely die? (The inf. abs. before the finite verb intensifies the latter: vid., Ewald, 312a). Are we to regard the tree as poisonous, and suppose that some fatal property resided in the fruit? A supposition which so completely ignores the ethical nature of sin is neither warranted by the antithesis, nor by what is said in Gen 3:22 of the tree of life, nor by the fact that the eating of the forbidden fruit was actually the cause of death. Even in the case of the tree of life, the power is not to be sought in the physical character of the fruit. No earthly fruit possesses the power to give immortality to the life which it helps to sustain. Life is not rooted in man's corporeal nature; it was in his spiritual nature that it had its origin, and from this it derives its stability and permanence also. It may, indeed, be brought to an end through the destruction of the body; but it cannot be exalted to perpetual duration, i.e., to immortality, through its preservation and sustenance. And this applies quite as much to the original nature of man, as to man after the fall. A body formed from earthly materials could not be essentially immortal: it would of necessity either be turned to earth, and fall into dust again, or be transformed by the spirit into the immortality of the soul. The power which transforms corporeality into immortality is spiritual in its nature, and could only be imparted to the earthly tree or its fruit through the word of God, through a special operation of the Spirit of God, an operation which we can only picture to ourselves as sacramental in its character, rendering earthly elements the receptacles and vehicles of celestial powers. God had given such a sacramental nature and significance to the two trees in the midst of the garden, that their fruit could and would produce supersensual, mental, and spiritual effects upon the nature of the first human pair. The tree of life was to impart the power of transformation into eternal life. The tree of knowledge was to lead man to the knowledge of good and evil; and, according to the divine intention, this was to be attained through his not eating of its fruit. This end was to be accomplished, not only by his discerning in the limit imposed by the prohibition the difference between that which accorded with the will of God and that which opposed it, but also by his coming eventually, through obedience to the prohibition, to recognise the fact that all that is opposed to the will of God is an evil to be avoided, and, through voluntary resistance to such evil, to the full development of the freedom of choice originally imparted to him into the actual freedom of a deliberate and self-conscious choice of good. By obedience to the divine will he would have attained to a godlike knowledge of good and evil, i.e., to one in accordance with his own likeness to God. He would have detected the evil in the approaching tempter; but instead of yielding to it, he would have resisted it, and thus have made good his own property acquired with consciousness and of his own free-will, and in this way by proper self-determination would gradually have advanced to the possession of the truest liberty. But as he failed to keep this divinely appointed way, and ate the forbidden fruit in opposition to the command of God, the power imparted by God to the fruit was manifested in a different way. He learned the difference between good and evil from his own guilty experience, and by receiving the evil into his own soul, fell a victim to the threatened death. Thus through his own fault the tree, which should have helped him to attain true freedom, brought nothing but the sham liberty of sin, and with it death, and that without any demoniacal power of destruction being conjured into the tree itself, or any fatal poison being hidden in its fruit.”

“For in the beginning of the world He gave to Adam himself and Eve a law, that they were not to eat of the fruit of the tree planted in the midst of paradise; but that, if they did contrariwise, by death they were to die. Which law had continued enough for them, had it been kept. For in this law given to Adam we recognise in embryo all the precepts which afterwards sprouted forth when given through Moses; that is, You shall love the Lord your God from your whole heart and out of your whole soul; You shall love your neighbour as yourself; You shall not kill; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; False witness you shall not utter; Honour your father and mother; and, That which is another's, shall you not covet. For the primordial law was given to Adam and Eve in paradise, as the womb of all the precepts of God. In short, if they had loved the Lord their God, they would not have contravened His precept; if they had habitually loved their neighbour—that is, themselves—they would not have believed the persuasion of the serpent, and thus would not have committed murder upon themselves, by falling from immortality, by contravening God's precept; from theft also they would have abstained, if they had not stealthily tasted of the fruit of the tree, nor had been anxious to skulk beneath a tree to escape the view of the Lord their God; nor would they have been made partners with the falsehood-asseverating devil, by believing him that they would be "like God;" and thus they would not have offended God either, as their Father, who had fashioned them from clay of the earth, as out of the womb of a mother; if they had not coveted another's, they would not have tasted of the unlawful fruit. Therefore, in this general and primordial law of God, the observance of which, in the case of the tree's fruit, He had sanctioned, we recognise enclosed all the precepts specially of the posterior Law, which germinated when disclosed at their proper times. For the subsequent superinduction of a law is the work of the same Being who had before premised a precept; since it is His province withal subsequently to train, who had before resolved to form, righteous creatures. [Answer to the Jews 2]”

“So he conferred such favors on this creature, first bringing him from nonbeing to being, then deeming it proper to shape his body from dust, and after that as the supreme gesture bestowing on him his incorporeal soul through the action of breathing, then bidding the garden be created and directing him to spend his life there, later, like a loving father who prevents his young child from being unsettled by great relaxation and freedom from care by devising some slight responsibility appropriate to the situation, the Lord God in like manner ordered the task of tilling and guarding for Adam so that along with all those delights, relaxation and freedom from care he might have, by way of a stabilizing influence, those two tasks to prevent him from overstepping the limit. So these things had already happened to the newly created being, whereas what happened in addition makes clear to us again the great and unsurpassed love for him, as well as the considerateness he displays on account of his own goodness. What in fact does Scripture say? "The Lord God instructed Adam." [ Gen 2:16 ] In this case also notice him once more following the same habit so that we might receive a precise statement of the teaching through the repetition of the terms, and no longer tolerate those people presuming to make distinctions in as signing the names ascribing one to the Father and the other to the Son. In fact, since both have the one essence, logically Sacred Scripture can be found applying the same name interchangeably to the Father in one place and to the Son in another. The text says, "The Lord God instructed Adam in these words." At this we very properly are astonished at God's loving kindness beyond all telling, which he reveals to us through this brief sentence. "He instructed," it says. Notice from the outset how much esteem he evidences for the human being. I mean, it didn't say, He commanded, or He ordered, but "He instructed." Just as one friend is said to instruct another about some pressing needs, God, too, in like manner conducts his relationship with Adam, just as if he wants to win him over through this attitude of esteem to obedience to his instructions. "The Lord God instructed Adam in these words: 'From all the trees in the garden you are to eat your fill, but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil do not eat. On the day that you eat from it you will truly die.'" [ Gen 2:16, Gen 2:17 ] No great difficulty in this instruction. Yet, dearly be loved, sloth is a terrible fault: just as it makes easy things seem hard to us, so enthusiasm and alertness render even hard things easy for us. I mean, what, I ask you, could be simpler than this instruction? What could be greater than the esteem shown here? Provision had been made for his spending life in the garden, for enjoying the beauty of visible things, for gladdening the eye from that experience, and gaining much pleasure from that enjoyment. Consider, after all, how great a thrill it was to see the trees groaning under the weight of their fruit, to see the variety of the flowers, the different kinds of plants, the leaves on the branches, and all the other things you would be likely to chance upon in a garden, especially a garden planted by God. On that account, you see, Sacred Scripture had said previously that "he produced from the earth every tree fair to behold and good to eat." [ Gen 2:9 ] So that we might know that, despite his enjoyment of such plenty, the human being trampled underfoot the instruction given him, out of his great intemperance and sloth. I mean, consider, I ask you, dearly beloved, the high degree of esteem he had lavished upon him, laying for him in the garden a table set apart for him to suit his tastes, in case you might think the same food was supplied for him as for the brute beasts: instead, passing his time in that garden like a king he could revel in its enjoyment, and like a master he had no occasion to mix with those ministering to him but had a life all to himself. "The Lord God instructed Adam in these words: 'From every tree in the garden you are to eat your fill; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil do not eat. On the day you eat from it you will truly die" as if to say to him, Surely it's not something harsh and burdensome I'm demanding of you ? While entrusting you with enjoyment of everything, only this one thing I'm instructing you not to touch; but I also decree a severe penalty so that fear of it may help you keep your balance and you may observe the direction given you by me. He did this in the manner of a kindly master entrusting his huge residence to someone and prescribing some humble coin to be given by him as a pledge for keeping the ownership intact for himself. Well, in quite the same way our loving I also lavished on the human being the enjoyment of everything in the garden, and bade him abstain from one tree only so as to be in a position to know that he is subject to the Lord, whom he should obey and to whose commands he should submit. Who could adequately admire the generosity of the common Lord of all? With what great kindness he regales the creature who has not yet anything to show for himself? I mean, he did not confine to half the garden the enjoyment he permitted, nor bid him abstain from most things and retain the enjoyment of the remainder. Instead, he wanted him to partake of everything in the garden and ordered him to abstain from the one tree only, showing through these things he had no other purpose in his actions than that he should be able to recognize the one responsible for such acts of kindness. Notice in this case as well as others God's goodness, how much regard he demonstrates also for the woman due to be formed from man. I mean, though she is yet to be created he gives instruction as though to two people in the words, "'Do not eat from it,'" and, "'On the day ye eat from it you will truly die,'" showing right from the outset that man and woman are one, as Paul also says, "The man is head of the woman." [ Eph 5:23 ] So he speaks as though to two people for this reason, that when later he has formed the woman from man, he may provide the latter with an excuse for acquainting her with God's instructions. I am aware that this question about the tree is commonly debated, and that many people inclined to speak in cautiously endeavor to shift the blame from human beings to God, presuming to ask, Why on earth did he give him the instruction in the knowledge that he would infringe it? and again, Why did he order the tree to be in the garden? and many other such queries. In case, however, at this stage be fore the right time for discussion of the Fall we should seem to be rushing into exegesis about such matters, we ought wait for blessed Moses' account so as to reach that passage by this means at the appropriate stage and raise with you in that regard whatever matters God's grace has communicated, and thus teach you, dear people, the true mind of Scripture. Thus, in your knowledge of the truth of the sacred writings you may both offer to the Lord due praise and also escape at the hands of the guiltless God a share in the sinner's guilt through neglect of him.”

“Observe here, I. God's authority over man, as a creature that had reason and freedom of will. The Lord God commanded the man, who stood now as a public person, the father and representative of all mankind, to receive law, as he had lately received a nature, for himself and all his. God commanded all the creatures, according to their capacity; the settled course of nature is a law, Psa 148:6; Psa 104:9. The brute-creatures have their respective instincts; but man was made capable of performing reasonable service, and therefore received, not only the command of a Creator, but the command of a Prince and Master. Though Adam was a very great man, a very good man, and a very happy man, yet the Lord God commanded him; and the command was no disparagement to his greatness, no reproach to his goodness, nor any diminution at all to his happiness. Let us acknowledge God's right to rule us, and our own obligations to be ruled by him; and never allow any will of our own in contradiction to, or competition with, the holy will of God. II. The particular act of this authority, in prescribing to him what he should do, and upon what terms he should stand with his Creator. Here is, 1. A confirmation of his present happiness to him, in that grant, Of every tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat. This was not only an allowance of liberty to him, in taking the delicious fruits of paradise, as a recompence for his care and pains in dressing and keeping it (Co1 9:7, Co1 9:10), but it was, withal, an assurance of life to him, immortal life, upon his obedience. For the tree of life being put in the midst of the garden (Gen 2:9), as the heart and soul of it, doubtless God had an eye to that especially in this grant; and therefore when, upon his revolt, this grant is recalled, no notice is taken of any tree of the garden as prohibited to him, except the tree of life (Gen 3:22), of which it is there said he might have eaten and lived for ever, that is, never died, nor ever lost his happiness. "Continue holy as thou art, in conformity to thy Creator's will, and thou shalt continue happy as thou art in the enjoyment of thy Creator's favour, either in this paradise or in a better." Thus, upon condition of perfect personal and perpetual obedience, Adam was sure of paradise to himself and his heirs for ever. 2. A trial of his obedience, upon pain of the forfeiture of all his happiness: "But of the other tree which stood very near the tree of life (for they are both said to be in the midst of the garden), and which was called the tree of knowledge, in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die;" as if he had said, "Know, Adam, that thou art now upon thy good behaviour, thou art put into paradise upon trial; be observant, be obedient, and thou art made for ever; otherwise thou wilt be as miserable as now thou art happy." Here, (1.) Adam is threatened with death in case of disobedience: Dying thou shalt die, denoting a sure and dreadful sentence, as, in the former part of this covenant, eating thou shalt eat, denotes a free and full grant. Observe [1.] Even Adam, in innocency, was awed with a threatening; fear is one of the handles of the soul, by which it is taken hold of and held. If he then needed this hedge, much more do we now. [2.] The penalty threatened is death: Thou shalt die, that is, "Thou shalt be debarred from the tree of life, and all the good that is signified by it, all the happiness thou hast, either in possession or prospect; and thou shalt become liable to death, and all the miseries that preface it and attend it." [3.] This was threatened as the immediate consequence of sin: In the day thou eatest, thou shalt die, that is, "Thou shalt become mortal and capable of dying; the grant of immortality shall be recalled, and that defence shall depart from thee. Thou shalt become obnoxious to death, like a condemned malefactor that is dead in the law" (only, because Adam was to be the root of mankind, he was reprieved); "nay, the harbingers and forerunners of death shall immediately seize thee, and thy life, thenceforward, shall be a dying life: and this, surely; it is a settled rule, the soul that sinneth, it shall die." (2.) Adam is tried with a positive law, not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Now it was very proper to make trial of his obedience by such a command as this, [1.] Because the reason of it is fetched purely from the will of the Law-maker. Adam had in his nature an aversion to that which was evil in itself, and therefore he is tried in a thing which was evil only because it was forbidden; and, being in a small thing, it was the more fit to prove his obedience by. [2.] Because the restraint of it is laid upon the desires of the flesh and of the mind, which, in the corrupt nature of man, are the two great fountains of sin. This prohibition checked both his appetite towards sensitive delights and his ambitions of curious knowledge, that his body might be ruled by his soul and his soul by his God. Thus easy, thus happy, was man in a state of innocency, having all that heart could wish to make him so. How good was God to him! How many favours did he load him with! How easy were the laws he gave him! How kind the covenant he made with him! Yet man, being in honour, understood not his own interest, but soon became as the beasts that perish.”

“The law, however, which you find fault with, and wrest into a subject of contention, was imposed on man by Goodness, aiming at his happiness, that he might cleave to God, and so not show himself an abject creature rather than a free one, nor reduce himself to the level of the other animals, his subjects, which were free from God, and exempt from all tedious subjection; but might, as the sole human being, boast that he alone was worthy of receiving laws from God; and as a rational being, capable of intelligence and knowledge, be restrained within the bounds of rational liberty, subject to Him who had subjected all things unto him. To secure the observance of this law, Goodness likewise took counsel by help of this sanction: "In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." For it was a most benignant act of His thus to point out the issues of transgression, lest ignorance of the danger should encourage a neglect of obedience. Now, since it was given as a reason previous to the imposition of the law, it also amounted to a motive for subsequently observing it, that a penalty was annexed to its transgression; a penalty, indeed, which He who proposed it was still unwilling that it should be incurred. Learn then the goodness of our God amidst these things and up to this point; learn it from His excellent works, from His kindly blessings, from His indulgent bounties, from His gracious providences, from His laws and warnings, so good and merciful.”

“Adam and Eve, so long as they lived in simplicity, and so long as the faith which was in them had not been made gross through corporeal passions, immediately they heard the command of God they received it, and kept it. For God said to Adam, "Thou shalt not eat; and if thou eatest, thou shalt die; but if thou keepest the command I will give thee everlasting life." And by faith Adam received the command, and kept it, and in his simplicity he did not judge the command. Now when the counsel of the Enemy came and found simplicity, it taught craft and cunning, and sowed in that one simple thought, another thought which was its opposite, in order that he who was one man, and was wholly and entirely sincere in his simplicity, might be divided into two thoughts—the willing and the unwilling, the judging and the being judged, and the being in doubt whether he would do the command or not—and the counsel which the Enemy brought to that childlike and simple man made him to be a judge of God's command to him. Now Adam did not prosper in his judgment because it had destroyed his simplicity, for he stupidly thought it meet to listen to an enemy rather than to a friend, and to one who killed rather than to one who could make alive, and to one who taught wickednesses rather than to one who had been to them a teacher of good things. So long as they existed in their simplicity they hearkened unto the voice of God, but as soon as they wished to act cunningly they became receptacles of the counsel of the Calumniator; for cunning is at the side of Satan, and simplicity is with those who belong to Christ.”

“THOU SHALT NOT EAT OF IT. He admonishes him against eating the fruit, for the tree itself is not edible. And so it says further on: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden. Similarly, And eat ye every one of his vine, and every one of his fig tree [means “of the fruit of his vine and of the fruit of his fig-tree].” Likewise, In toil shalt thou eat it means “eat its fruit.” IN THE DAY THOU EATEST THEREOF THOU SHALT SURELY DIE. At the time you eat of it, you will be condemned to die. Similarly, we find: On the day thou goest out, and walkest abroad any whither, thou shalt surely die.. This does not mean that he [Shimi] is to die immediately on that day; nor does it refer to his mere knowledge thereof, namely that he is to know that he will die eventually for all the living know that they shall die. But it does mean that at the time he [Shimi] goes forth from Jerusalem, he is liable to death at the hand of the king, and he will slay him when he pleases. [Similarly, in the verses:] But they shall not go in to see the holy things as they are being covered, lest they die; And they shall not bear sin for it, and die thereby. Their intent is [not that those who transgress against these prohibitions will die immediately], but only that they will be liable to death and will die on account of this sin of theirs. Now in the opinion of men versed in the sciences of nature, man was destined to die from the beginning of his formation, on account of his being a composite [of the four elements, and everything that is composite must revert to its original components]. But now He decreed that if he will sin he will die on account of his sin, like those who are liable to death at the hands of Heaven for such sins as a non-priest eating the Heave-offering, or a priest who has drunk wine or who does not wear the [required number of priestly] garments when performing the Service in the Sanctuary, and other cases. There the intent is that they will die prematurely on account of their sin. This is why in stating the punishment [after Adam ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge] He said, Till thou return to the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return, by your nature. In the beginning before he sinned, Adam also ate of the fruit of the tree and of the seeds of the earth; and if so, there was bound to be depletion in his body, and he was subject to the cause of existence and destruction. [Thus the opinion of the men of science.] But in the opinion of our Rabbis, if Adam had not sinned he would have never died, since the higher soul bestows life forever, and the Will of G-d which is in him at the time of his formation would always cleave to him and he would exist forever, as I have explained in the verse, And G-d saw that it was good. Know that composition indicates destruction only in the opinion of those wanting in faith, who hold that creation came by necessity. But in the opinion of men of faith who say that the world was created by the simple Will of G-d, its existence will also continue forever as long as it is His desire. This is clear truth. That being so, In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die means that then you will be condemned to die since you will no longer exist forever by My Will. And the matter of eating [from the other trees] was to Adam at first only a source of enjoyment. And it is possible that the fruits of the garden of Eden were absorbed in his limbs as the Manna, and they sustain those that eat them. But when He decreed upon him, And thou shalt eat the herb of the field and with the sweat of his face he shall eat bread of the earth,, Verse 19. this [the food] became a cause for decomposition since he is dust, and dust he eats, and unto dust he shall return.”

“But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil,.... Of the name of this tree, and the reasons of it; see Gill on Gen 2:9. thou shalt not eat of it; not that this tree had any efficacy in it to increase knowledge, and improve in science and understanding, as Satan suggested God knew; and therefore forbid the eating of it out of envy to man, which the divine Being is capable of; or that there was anything hurtful in it to the bodies of men, if they had eaten of it; or that it was unlawful and evil of itself, if it had not been expressly prohibited: but it was, previous to this injunction, a quite indifferent thing whether man ate of it or not; and therefore was pitched upon as a trial of man's obedience to God, under whose government he was, and whom it was fit he should obey in all things; and since he had a grant of all the trees of the garden but this, it was the greater aggravation of his offence that he should not abstain from it: for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die; or "in dying, die" (z); which denotes the certainty of it, as our version expresses it; and may have regard to more deaths than one; not only a corporeal one, which in some sense immediately took place, man became at once a mortal creature, who otherwise continuing in a state of innocence, and by eating of the tree of life, he was allowed to do, would have lived an immortal life; of the eating of which tree, by sinning he was debarred, his natural life not now to be continued long, at least not for ever; he was immediately arraigned, tried, and condemned to death, was found guilty of it, and became obnoxious to it, and death at once began to work in him; sin sowed the seeds of it in his body, and a train of miseries, afflictions, and diseases, began to appear, which at length issued in death. Moreover, a spiritual or moral death immediately ensued; he lost his original righteousness, in which he was created; the image of God in him was deformed; the powers and faculties of his soul were corrupted, and he became dead in sins and trespasses; the consequence of which, had it not been for the interposition of a surety and Saviour, who engaged to make satisfaction to law and justice, must have been eternal death, or an everlasting separation from God, to him and all his posterity; for the wages of sin is death, even death eternal, Rom 6:23. So the Jews (a) interpret this of death, both in this world and in the world to come. (z) Pagninus, Montanus, &c. (a) Tikkune Zohar, correct. 24. fol. 68. 1. correct. 54. fol. 90. 2. correct. 66. fol. 100. 1.”

“Of the tree of the knowledge - thou shalt not eat - This is the first positive precept God gave to man; and it was given as a test of obedience, and a proof of his being in a dependent, probationary state. It was necessary that, while constituted lord of this lower world, he should know that he was only God's vicegerent, and must be accountable to him for the use of his mental and corporeal powers, and for the use he made of the different creatures put under his care. The man from whose mind the strong impression of this dependence and responsibility is erased, necessarily loses sight of his origin and end, and is capable of any species of wickedness. As God is sovereign, he has a right to give to his creatures what commands he thinks proper. An intelligent creature, without a law to regulate his conduct, is an absurdity; this would destroy at once the idea of his dependency and accountableness. Man must ever feel God as his sovereign, and act under his authority, which he cannot do unless he have a rule of conduct. This rule God gives: and it is no matter of what kind it is, as long as obedience to it is not beyond the powers of the creature who is to obey. God says: There is a certain fruit-bearing tree; thou shalt not eat of its fruit; but of all the other fruits, and they are all that are necessary, for thee, thou mayest freely, liberally eat. Had he not an absolute right to say so? And was not man bound to obey? Thou shalt surely die - מות תמות moth tamuth; Literally, a death thou shalt die; or, dying thou shalt die. Thou shalt not only die spiritually, by losing the life of God, but from that moment thou shalt become mortal, and shalt continue in a dying state till thou die. This we find literally accomplished; every moment of man's life may be considered as an act of dying, till soul and body are separated. Other meanings have been given of this passage, but they are in general either fanciful or incorrect.”

“The death of the soul, and become obnoxious to that of the body; thou shalt become a mortal and lose all the privileges of innocence. Though Adam lived 930 years after this, he was dying daily; he carried along with him the seeds of death, as we do, from our very conception. He had leave to eat of any fruit in this delicious garden, one only excepted, and this one prohibition makes him more eager to taste of that tree than of all the rest. So we struggle constantly to attain what is forbidden, and covet what is denied, cupimusque negata. God laid this easy command upon Adam, to give him an opportunity of shewing his ready obedience, and to assert his own absolute dominion over him. Eve was already formed, and was apprised of this positive command, (Chap. iii. 3.) and therefore, transgressing, is justly punished with her husband. True obedience does not inquire why a thing is commanded, but submits without demur. Would a parent be satisfied with his child, if he should refuse to obey, because he could not discern the propriety of the restraint? If he should forbid him to touch some delicious fruits which he had reserved for strangers, and the child were to eat them, excusing himself very impertinently and blasphemously, with those much abused words of our Saviour, It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles a man, &c. would not even a Protestant parent be enraged and seize the rod, though he could not but see that he was thus condemning his own conduct, in disregarding, on the very same plea, the fasts and days of abstinence, prescribed by the Church and by God’s authority? All meats are good, as that fruit most certainly was which Adam was forbidden to eat; though some have foolishly surmised that it was poisonous; but, the crime of disobedience draws on punishment. (Haydock) — Even when the sin is remitted, as it was to Adam, the penalty is not of course released, as some have pretended. This also clearly appears in baptized infants, who suffer the penalties due to original sin, as much as those who have not been admitted to the laver of regeneration. (St. Augustine; Worthington; Tirinus, &c.) — If on this occasion, Eve had alone transgressed, as she was not the head, her sin would have hurt only herself. But with Adam, the representative of all his posterity, God made a sort of compact, (Osee vi. 7.) giving him to understand, that if he continued faithful, his children should be born in the state of innocence like himself, happy and immortal, to be translated in due time to a happier Paradise, &c. but if he should refuse to obey, his sin should be communicated to all his race, who should be, by nature, children of wrath. — (St. Augustine, City of God xvi. 27; Ven. Bede in Luc. 11; &c.) — (Haydock) (Calmet)”

“(17) Why God says, "It is not good for man to be alone; let us make him a help meet for him?" [Gen 2:18] By these words God intimates that there is to be a communion, not with all men, but with those who are willing to be assisted and in their turn to assist others, even though they may scarcely have any power to do so; since love consists not more in utility than in the harmonious concord of trustworthy and steadfast manners; so that every one who joins in a communion of love may be entitled to utter the expression of Pythagoras, "A friend is another I." (18) Why, when God had already said, "Let us make a help for man," he creates beasts and cattle? [Gen 2:19] Perhaps some gluttons and insatiably greedy persons may say that God did this because beasts and flying things were, as it were, necessary food for man, and his meetest helper; for that the eating of meat assists the belly so as to conduce to the health and vigour of the body. But I should think that by reason of the evil implanted in them by nature animals of all kinds, whether terrestrial or flying in the air, were in this age hostile to and contrary to man; but that in the case of the first man, as one adorned with every imaginable virtue, they were, as it were, allies, and a reinforcement in war, and familiar friends, as being tame and domestic by nature, and this was the sole principle of their familiarity with man, for this it was fit that servants should dwell with their lord.”

“The moment has arrived at long last, however, it would seem, for us to proceed with the theme of the reading. "The Lord God said," the text goes on, "'It is not good for the human being to be alone.'" [ Gen 2:18 ] See how once again it said in the same way as previously, "The Lord God," so that we should rivet the words on our minds and not think the fruit of our human reasoning to be superior to Sacred Scripture. "The Lord God said," it says, "'It is not good for the human being to be alone.'" Notice how the good God does not stop short, but adds kindness to kindness, and, in an abundance of riches, wants to clothe this rational being in every degree of esteem, and along with this esteem to regale him with a life of ease. The text says, remember, "The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the human being to be alone. Let us make him a helpmate like himself.'" Notice here again the expression, "'Let us make.'" In other words, just as he said at the beginning in the case of the formation of the human being, "'Let us make a human being in our image and likeness,'" so now, too, on the point of forming woman he employs the same expression, saying, "'Let us make.'" To whom does he address it? Not to any created power, but to the one begotten of him, Wonderful Counsellor, Figure of Authority, Prince of Peace, his only begotten Son. [ Isa 9:6 ] So that Adam may learn that the being in process of being formed is meant to enjoy equality of esteem with him, accordingly just as he said in the man's case, "'Let us make,'" so he now says also, "'Let us make him a helpmate like himself.'" Both expressions, helpmate and like himself have much significance.”

“IT IS NOT GOOD THAT THE MAN SHOULD BE ALONE. It does not appear likely that man was created to be alone in the world and not beget children since all created beings — male and female of all flesh — were created to raise seed. The herb and trees also have their seed in them. But it is possible to say that it was in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbi who says: “Adam was created with two faces [i.e., male and female persons combined],” and they were so made that there should be in them an impulse causing the organs of generation to produce a generative force from male to female, or you may say “seed,” in accordance with the known controversy concerning pregnancy, Thazria concerning the opinion of the doctors and the Greek philosophers. and the second face was a help to the first in the procreative process. And the Holy One, blessed be He, saw that it is good that “the help” stand facing him, and that he should see and be separated from it or joined to it at his will. This is the meaning of what He said in the verse, I will make him a helper opposite him. The meaning of the expression, it is not good, is that it cannot be said of man that “it is good” when he is alone for he will not be able to so exist. In the work of creation, “the good” means existence, as I have explained on the text, And G-d saw that it was good.”

“Here we have, I. An instance of the Creator's care of man and his fatherly concern for his comfort, Gen 2:18. Though God had let him know that he was a subject, by giving him a command, (Gen 2:16, Gen 2:17), yet here he lets him know also, for his encouragement in his obedience, that he was a friend, and a favourite, and one whose satisfaction he was tender of. Observe, 1. How God graciously pitied his solitude: It is not good that man, this man, should be alone. Though there was an upper world of angels and a lower world of brutes, and he between them, yet there being none of the same nature and rank of beings with himself, none that he could converse familiarly with, he might be truly said to be alone. Now he that made him knew both him and what was good for him, better than he did himself, and he said, "It is not good that he should continue thus alone." (1.) It is not for his comfort; for man is a sociable creature. It is a pleasure to him to exchange knowledge and affection with those of his own kind, to inform and to be informed, to love and to be beloved. What God here says of the first man Solomon says of all men (Ecc 4:9, etc.), that two are better than one, and woe to him that is alone. If there were but one man in the world, what a melancholy man must he needs be! Perfect solitude would turn a paradise into a desert, and a palace into a dungeon. Those therefore are foolish who are selfish and would be place alone in the earth. (2.) It is not for the increase and continuance of his kind. God could have made a world of men at first, to replenish the earth, as he replenished heaven with a world of angels: but the place would have been too strait for the designed number of men to live together at once; therefore God saw fit to make up that number by a succession of generations, which, as God had formed man, must be from two, and those male and female; one will be ever one. 2. How God graciously resolved to provide society for him. The result of this reasoning concerning him was this kind resolution, I will make a help-meet for him; a help like him (so some read it), one of the same nature and the same rank of beings; a help near him (so others), one to cohabit with him, and to be always at hand; a help before him (so others), one that he should look upon with pleasure and delight. Note hence, (1.) In our best state in this world we have need of one another's help; for we are members one of another, and the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee, Co1 12:21. We must therefore be glad to receive help from others, and give help to others, as there is occasion. (2.) It is God only who perfectly knows our wants, and is perfectly able to supply them all, Phi 4:19. In him alone our help is, and from him are all our helpers. (3.) A suitable wife is a help-meet, and is from the Lord. The relation is then likely to be comfortable when meetness directs and determines the choice, and mutual helpfulness is the constant care and endeavour, Co1 7:33, Co1 7:34. (4.) Family-society, if it is agreeable, is a redress sufficient for the grievance of solitude. He that has a good God, a good heart, and a good wife, to converse with, and yet complains he wants conversation, would not have been easy and content in paradise; for Adam himself had no more: yet, even before Eve was created, we do not find that he complained of being alone, knowing that he was not alone, for the Father was with him. Those that are most satisfied in God and his favour are in the best way, and in the best frame, to receive the good things of this life, and shall be sure of them, as far as Infinite Wisdom sees good. II. An instance of the creatures' subjection to man, and his dominion over them (Gen 2:19, Gen 2:20): Every beast of the field and every fowl of the air God brought to Adam, either by the ministry of angels, or by a special instinct, directing them to come to man as their master, teaching the ox betimes to know his owner. Thus God gave man livery and seisin of the fair estate he had granted him, and put him in possession of his dominion over the creatures. God brought them to him, that he might name them, and so might give, 1. A proof of his knowledge, as a creature endued with the faculties both of reason and speech, and so taught more than the beasts of the earth and made wiser than the fowls of the heaven, Job 35:11. And, 2. A proof of his power. It is an act of authority to impose names (Dan 1:7), and of subjection to receive them. The inferior creatures did now, as it were, do homage to their prince at his inauguration, and swear fealty and allegiance to him. If Adam had continued faithful to his God, we may suppose the creatures themselves would so well have known and remembered the names Adam now gave them as to have come at his call, at any time, and answered to their names. God gave names to the day and night, to the firmament, to the earth, and to the sea; and he calleth the stars by their names, to show that he is the supreme Lord of these. But he gave Adam leave to name the beasts and fowls, as their subordinate lord; for, having made him in his own image, he thus put some of his honour upon him. III. An instance of the creatures' insufficiency to be a happiness for man: But (among them all) for Adam there was not found a help meet for him. Some make these to be the words of Adam himself; observing all the creatures come to him by couples to be named, he thus intimates his desire to his Maker: - "Lord, these have all helps meet for them; but what shall I do? Here is never a one for me." It is rather God's judgment upon the review. He brought them all together, to see if there were ever a suitable match for Adam in any of the numerous families of the inferior creatures; but there was none. Observe here, 1. The dignity and excellency of the human nature. On earth there was not its like, nor its peer to be found among all visible creatures; they were all looked over, but it could not be matched among them all. 2. The vanity of this world and the things of it; put them all together, and they will not make a help-meet for man. They will not suit the nature of his soul, nor supply its needs, nor satisfy its just desires, nor run parallel with its never-failing duration. God creates a new thing to be a help-meet for man - not so much the woman as the seed of the woman.”

“And the Lord God said,.... Not at the same time he gave the above direction and instruction to man, how to behave according to his will, but before that, even at the time of the formation of Adam and which he said either to him, or with himself: it was a purpose or determination in his own mind, and may be rendered, as it is by many, he "had said" (b), on the sixth day, on which man was created: it is not good that man should be alone; not pleasant and comfortable to himself, nor agreeable to his nature, being a social creature; nor useful to his species, not being able to propagate it; nor so much for the glory of his Creator: I will made him an help meet for him; one to help him in all the affairs of life, not only for the propagation of his species, but to provide things useful and comfortable for him; to dress his food, and take care of the affairs of the family; one "like himself" (c), in nature, temper, and disposition, in form and shape; or one "as before him" (d), that would be pleasing to his sight, and with whom he might delightfully converse, and be in all respects agreeable to him, and entirely answerable to his case and circumstances, his wants and wishes. (b) "dixerat", Vatablus, Drusius, Junius & Tremellius, Piscator. (c) "simile sibi", V. L. Sam. Syr. (d) "Tanquam coram eo", Montanus.”

“Creation of the Woman. - As the creation of the man is introduced in Gen 1:26-27, with a divine decree, so here that of the woman is preceded by the divine declaration, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him כּנגדּו עזר, a help of his like: "i.e., a helping being, in which, as soon as he sees it, he may recognise himself" (Delitzsch). Of such a help the man stood in need, in order that he might fulfil his calling, not only to perpetuate and multiply his race, but to cultivate and govern the earth. To indicate this, the general word כנגדו עזר is chosen, in which there is an allusion to the relation of the sexes. To call out this want, God brought the larger quadrupeds and birds to the man, "to see what he would call them (לו lit., each one); and whatsoever the man might call every living being should be its name." The time when this took place must have been the sixth day, on which, according to Gen 1:27, the man and woman were created: and there is no difficulty in this, since it would not have required much time to bring the animals to Adam to see what he would call them, as the animals of paradise are all we have to think of; and the deep sleep into which God caused the man to fall, till he had formed the woman from his rib, need not have continued long. In Gen 1:27 the creation of the woman is linked with that of the man; but here the order of sequence is given, because the creation of the woman formed a chronological incident in the history of the human race, which commences with the creation of Adam. The circumstance that in Gen 2:19 the formation of the beasts and birds is connected with the creation of Adam by the imperf. c. ו consec., constitutes to objection to the plan of creation given in Gen 1. The arrangement may be explained on the supposition, that the writer, who was about to describe the relation of man to the beasts, went back to their creation, in the simple method of the early Semitic historians, and placed this first instead of making it subordinate; so that our modern style of expressing the same thought would be simply this: "God brought to Adam the beasts which He had formed." (Note: A striking example of this style of narrative we find in Kg1 7:13. First of all, the building and completion of the temple are noticed several times in 1 Kings 6, and the last time in connection with the year and month (Kg1 6:9, Kg1 6:14, Kg1 6:37-38); after that, the fact is stated, that the royal palace was thirteen years in building; and then the writer proceeds thus: "And king Solomon sent and fetched Hiram from Tyre...and he came to king Solomon, and did all his work; and made the two pillars," etc. Now, if we were to understand the historical preterite with consec., here, as giving the order of sequence, Solomon would be made to send for the Tyrian artist, thirteen years after the temple was finished, to come and prepare the pillars for the porch, and all the vessels needed for the temple. But the writer merely expresses in Semitic style the simple thought, that "Hiram, whom Solomon fetched from Tyre, made the vessels," etc. Another instance we find in Jdg 2:6.) Moreover, the allusion is not to the creation of all the beasts, but simply to that of the beasts living in the field (game and tame cattle), and of the fowls of the air-to beasts, therefore, which had been formed like man from the earth, and thus stood in a closer relation to him than water animals or reptiles. For God brought the animals to Adam, to show him the creatures which were formed to serve him, that He might see what he would call them. Calling or naming presupposes acquaintance. Adam is to become acquainted with the creatures, to learn their relation to him, and by giving them names to prove himself their lord. God does not order him to name them; but by bringing the beasts He gives him an opportunity of developing that intellectual capacity which constitutes his superiority to the animal world. "The man sees the animals, and thinks of what they are and how they look; and these thoughts, in themselves already inward words, take the form involuntarily of audible names, which he utters to the beasts, and by which he places the impersonal creatures in the first spiritual relation to himself, the personal being" (Delitzsch). Language, as W. v. Humboldt says, is "the organ of the inner being, or rather the inner being itself as it gradually attains to inward knowledge and expression." It is merely thought cast into articulate sounds or words. The thoughts of Adam with regard to the animals, to which he gave expression in the names that he gave them, we are not to regard as the mere results of reflection, or of abstraction from merely outward peculiarities which affected the senses; but as a deep and direct mental insight into the nature of the animals, which penetrated far deeper than such knowledge as is the simple result of reflecting and abstracting thought. The naming of the animals, therefore, led to this result, that there was not found a help meet for man. Before the creation of the woman we must regard the man (Adam) as being "neither male, in the sense of complete sexual distinction, nor androgynous as though both sexes were combined in the one individual created at the first, but as created in anticipation of the future, with a preponderant tendency, a male in simple potentiality, out of which state he passed, the moment the woman stood by his side, when the mere potentia became an actual antithesis" (Ziegler). Then God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man (Gen 2:21). תּרדּמּה, a deep sleep, in which all consciousness of the outer world and of one's own existence vanishes. Sleep is an essential element in the nature of man as ordained by God, and is quite as necessary for man as the interchange of day and night for all nature besides. But this deep sleep was different from natural sleep, and God caused it to fall upon the man by day, that He might create the woman out of him. "Everything out of which something new is to spring, sinks first of all into such a sleep" (Ziegler). צלע means the side, and, as a portion of the human body, the rib. The correctness of this meaning, which is given by all the ancient versions, is evident from the words, "God took one of his צלעות," which show that the man had several of them. "And closed up flesh in the place thereof;" i.e., closed the gap which had been made, with flesh which He put in the place of the rib. The woman was created, not of dust of the earth, but from a rib of Adam, because she was formed for an inseparable unity and fellowship of life with the man, and the mode of her creation was to lay the actual foundation for the moral ordinance of marriage. As the moral idea of the unity of the human race required that man should not be created as a genus or plurality, (Note: Natural science can only demonstrate the unity of the human race, not the descent of all men from one pair, though many naturalists question and deny even the former, but without any warrant from anthropological facts. For every thorough investigation leads to the conclusion arrived at by the latest inquirer in this department, Th. Waitz, that not only are there no facts in natural history which preclude the unity of the various races of men, and fewer difficulties in the way of this assumption than in that of the opposite theory of specific diversities; but even in mental respects there are no specific differences within the limits of the race. Delitzsch has given an admirable summary of the proofs of unity. "That the races of men," he says, "are not species of one genus, but varieties of one species, is confirmed by the agreement in the physiological and pathological phenomena in them all, by the similarity in the anatomical structure, in the fundamental powers and traits of the mind, in the limits to the duration of life, in the normal temperature of the body and the average rate of pulsation, in the duration of pregnancy, and in the unrestricted fruitfulness of marriages between the various races.") so the moral relation of the two persons establishing the unity of the race required that man should be created first, and then the woman from the body of the man. By this the priority and superiority of the man, and the dependence of the woman upon the man, are established as an ordinance of divine creation. This ordinance of God forms the root of that tender love with which the man loves the woman as himself, and by which marriage becomes a type of the fellowship of love and life, which exists between the Lord and His Church (Eph 5:32). If the fact that the woman was formed from a rib, and not from any other part of the man, is significant; all that we can find in this is, that the woman was made to stand as a helpmate by the side of the man, not that there was any allusion to conjugal love as founded in the heart; for the text does not speak of the rib as one which was next the heart. The word בּנה is worthy of note: from the rib of the man God builds the female, through whom the human race is to be built up by the male (Gen 16:2; Gen 30:3).”

“Why was it that, while all the irrational animals were created by God, male and female at the same time, man alone was not created with the female, but remained quite solitary until the female was made later on? To this enquirer I shall reply that since all the animals were created by God without either the gift of reason, or the capacity of knowing anything, while all the angels, the instant they were created, were rational and knew the Maker of all things from those things which had been produced, one by one, that is, in the six days, it was necessary that man who had been created by God possessed of reason, and as the bond uniting all the creation, should himself be taught to know the Creator of all; but since, as he was not the first but the last of all to be produced, he could neither from the things made before him, nor from himself know God, it was God's pleasure to produce the female not along with him, but afterwards out of him, that he might thereby know that he who had taken out from him a being like himself was his Creator. Wherefore also he threw him into a trance and a deep sleep, in order that by taking his rib from him without trouble and pain as in sleep, he might by the grace of God gain a perception of what had occurred, and celebrate the praises of his Maker, confessing and saying: This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh—she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. As then the angels had been created rational, and from the works produced in the six days had been taught to know him who was the cause of them, so of necessity man also was taught through the female, and learned that God was the Maker both of himself and of the universe; but especially as he had beforehand heard God say: Let us make a helpmeet for him.”

“(20) Why did God bring every animal to man, that he might give them their names? [Gen 2:19] He has here explained a great source of perplexity to the students of philosophy, admonishing them that names proceed from having been given, and not from nature; for a natural nomenclature is with peculiar fitness assigned to each creature when a man of wisdom and pre-eminent knowledge appears; and, in fact, the office of assigning the names to animals is one which particularly belongs to the mind of the wise man alone, and indeed to the first man born out of the earth, since it was fitting that the first of the human race, and the sovereign of all the animals born out of the earth, should have the dignity assigned to him. For inasmuch as he was the first person to see the animals, and as he was the first person who deserved to govern them all as their chief, so also it was fitting that he should be their first namer and the inventor of their names, since it would have been inconsistent and mad to leave them without any names, or to allow them to receive names from any one born at a later period, which would have been an insult to and a derogation from the honour and glory due to the first born. But we may also adopt this idea, that the giving of names to the different animals was so easily arranged that the very moment that Adam gave the name the animal itself also heard it; being influenced by the name thus given to it as by a familiar indication closely connected with it. (21) Why does Moses say, "He brought the animals to Adam, that he might see what he would call them," when God can never entertain a doubt? [Gen 2:19] It is in truth inconsistent with the nature of God to doubt; therefore it does not appear that he was in doubt on this occasion, but that since he had given intellect to man as being the first man born out of the earth and endowed with a great desire for virtue, by which he was made thoroughly wise as if he had been endowed with wisdom by nature, so as to consider all things like the proper Ruler and Lord of all, God now caused him to be influenced to display the proper performance of his task, and saw what was really the most excellent point of his mind. Besides this, by this statement he evidently indicates the perfect free-will existing in us, refuting those who affirm that everything exists by a certain necessity. Or else because it belonged to man to employ the animals, therefore he also gave him authority to give them names. (22) What is the meaning of the expression, "And whatever he called each living thing, that was the name thereof?" [Gen 2:19] We must consider that Adam gave names not only to all living creatures, but also to plants, and to everything else which is inanimate, beginning with the more excellent class; for the living creature is superior to that which has not life. Therefore the scripture considers the mention of the better part sufficient, indicating by this mention to all who are not utterly devoid of sense, that he in fact gave names to everything, since it was easy to fix names to things without life, which were never likely to change their place, and which had no passions of the soul to exercise, but the giving of proper appellations to living creatures was a more difficult task on account of the motions of their bodies and the various impulses of their souls, in accordance with the imagination and the variety of the outward senses, and the different agitations of the mind from which the effects of their works proceed. Therefore the mind could give names to the more difficult classes of living creatures. And on this account it was a very proper expression to employ, that he gave them names as being easy to name, because they were near.”

“I do not want him to be alone, Scripture is saying, but to have some support from company, and not this only but a helpmate suited to him should be produced, hinting at woman. Hence he said, "'Let us make him a helpmate,'" and added, "'like himself,'" so that when shortly you saw wild beasts produced and all the birds of heaven, you would not think reference was made to them. I mean, even if many of the brute beasts helped him in his labors, there was still nothing equivalent to a woman possessed as she was of reason. Hence he said, "'a helpmate like himself,'" and added, "Further, God formed from the earth all the wild beasts of the field and all the birds of heaven; he led them to Adam to see what he would call them, and each name Adam gave a living being, that was its name." [ Gen 2:19 ] It is not idly and to no (116c) purpose that this happens, but on account of what was due to take place shortly afterwards. In his foreknowledge of it, God shows us the great intelligence with which he endowed the being created by him, so that when the event occurs of the transgression of the instruction given by God, you won't think the human being sinned through ignorance but will be in a position to know that it was a sin of sloth. I mean, the fact of his being lavishly endowed with intelligence, learn from what happens now. The text says: "He led them to Adam to see what he would call them." He does this out of a desire to provide us with a demonstration of Adam's great intelligence. And further, "The name Adam gave," the text says, "was its name." This happens, not that we may merely learn of his intelligence but that a symbol of his dominion may be provided through the imposition of the names. You see, (116d) with human beings also this normally constitutes a symbol of dominion when they buy slaves, to change their names. Hence God provides that Adam, too, as their master should give names to the brute beasts. I mean, dearly beloved, don't pass the expression idly by; consider, instead, I ask you, the extent of his intelligence demonstrated by his giving names to such species of winged creatures, reptiles, wild beasts, beasts of burden and the other brute beasts, the tame and the wild, those that inhabit the deeps, those that spring from the earth to all these he gave names that indicated his dominion and that were appropriate to each species as the text says, "Each name Adam gave was its name." Do you see the unrivaled authority? Do you see his lordly dominance? Consider in addition to other factors this event, that lions, panthers, snakes, scorpions, serpents, and (117a) all the other animals fiercer than those, carne in complete subjection to him as to a master and accepted the names, while Adam had no fear of these wild beasts. So let no one call in question what is created by the Lord nor sharpen the tongue against the Creator, rather against his own head -- and say those stupid words, Why were the wild beasts produced? I mean, the imposition of names shows us precisely that all animals, tame included, acknowledged their servitude and the human dominion; after all, those names that he imposed on them remain up to the present time. In this way God determined that we might retain a constant reminder of the esteem which the human being from the outset received from the Lord of all and might at tribute responsibility for its removal to the person who (117b) by sin put an abrupt end to his authority. "Adam gave names to all the cattle," the text goes on, "all the birds of heaven, and all the beasts of the earth." [ Gen 2:20 ] Notice already in this case, I ask you, dearly beloved, his independence of decision and the eminence of his understanding, and don't say he didn't know right from wrong. I mean, the being that has the ability to put the right names on cattle, and birds, and beasts without getting the sequence mixed up, not giving to wild beasts the names suited to the tame ones nor allotting to the tame animals what belonged to the wild ones, but giving them all their right names how could he not be full of intelligence and understanding? Consider finally from this passage how great the force of that breathing, and the intelligence of that incorporeal soul (117c) which the Lord had granted him in constituting such a remarkable rational being of two elements, and intertwining the incorporeal element of the soul with the body, like an excellent craftsman related to his instrument. So, whenever you ponder the extent of this being's intelligence, marvel at the Creator's power. After all, if the visible beauty of heaven prompts a well-disposed onlooker to praise of its creator, much more readily will this rational being, the human person, be able to reason from the manner of its own formation, the eminence of esteem and greatness of gifts accorded it, and thus come to celebrate unceasingly the provider of such ineffable kindnesses and give praise to the Lord for his power. I had in mind to go on to what follows in the text; but in case (117d) we should impair the recollection of what has been said already by an excess of words, it behooves us to conclude the flow of instruction at this point. After all, it is not simply the object of our concern to say a lot of things heedlessly; rather, we speak with this aim in view, that you will keep them constantly riveted in your mind so as not merely to have knowledge yourselves of the contents of the Holy Scriptures, but also become teachers of others, capable of admonishing them. So let each of you, I beseech you, go away from here, in the company of your neighbor reawaken the memory of what has been said, offer him what comes from your own heart and listen to what has been remembered by him. So, recalling everything spoken here, and keeping it in your memory in this way, make your way home, ruminating on these divine teachings; hence you may give all your attention to these matters and occupy your mind with them, and so be able to overcome with ease troublesome passions and escape the devil's wiles. You see, (118a) whenever that evil spirit spies a soul wrapt in the things of God, constantly contemplating them and going over them in mind, he doesn't dare approach; instead, he makes off at speed, repelled by the force of the Spirit as though by some fire. So, in order that we may gain the fullest benefit our selves, may be able to overcome that creature and win grace from God more abundantly, let us occupy our minds with these matters. In this way, you see, everything in our charge will be simplified for us, difficult things will become easy, what seemed threatening will reach a useful conclusion, and nothing on this earth will be able to distress us. I mean, if we concern ourselves with the things of God, he will concern himself with ours, and in complete safety we will navigate the ocean of this life, (118b) and under the guidance of that mighty pilot, the God of all, put into the harbor of his love, to whom be glory and power, now and forever, for unending ages of ages. Amen.”

“And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air,.... Or "had formed them" (e) on the fifth and sixth days; and these were formed two and two, male and female, in order to continue their species; whereas man was made single, and had no companion of the same nature with him: and while in these circumstances, God brought them unto Adam; or "to the man" (f); either by the ministry of angels, or by a kind of instinct or impulse, which brought them to him of their own accord, as to the lord and proprietor of them, who, as soon as he was made, had the dominion of all the creatures given him; just as the creatures at the flood went in unto Noah in the ark; and as then, so now, all creatures, fowl and cattle, came, all but the fishes of the sea: and this was done to see what he would call them; what names he would give to them; which as it was a trial of the wisdom of man, so a token of his dominion over the creatures, it being an instance of great knowledge of them to give them apt and suitable names, so as to distinguish one from another, and point at something in them that was natural to them, and made them different from each other; for this does not suppose any want of knowledge in God, as if he did this to know what man would do, he knew what names man would give them before he did; but that it might appear he had made one superior to them all in wisdom and power, and for his pleasure, use, and service; and therefore brings them to him, to put them into his hands, and give him authority over them; and being his own, to call them by what names he pleased: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof; it was always afterwards called by it, by him and his posterity, until the confusion of languages, and then every nation called them as they thought proper, everyone in their own language: and as there is a good deal of reason to believe, that the Hebrew language was the first and original language; or however that eastern language, of which the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic, are so many dialects; it was this that he spoke, and in it gave names to the creatures suitable to their nature, or agreeable to some property or other observed in them: and Bochart (g) has given us many instances of creatures in the Hebrew tongue, whose names answer to some character or another in them: some think this was done by inspiration; and Plato says, that it seemed to him that that nature was superior to human, that gave names to things; and that this was not the work of vain and foolish man, but the first names were appointed by the gods (h); and so Cicero (i) asks, who was the first, which with Pythagoras was the highest wisdom, who imposed names on all things? (e) "finxerat", Drusius. (f) "ad ipsum hominem", Pagninus, Montanus. (g) Hierozoic. par. 1. l. 1. c. 9. p. 59, &c. (h) In Cratylo, apud Euseb. Praepar. Evangel. l. 11. c. 6. p. 515. (i) Tusculan. Quaest. l. 1.”

“I AM VERY GRATIFIED by you for the fact that yesterday you received with great enthusiasm the exhortation we gave and, far from being upset at the length of the discourse, you followed it to the very end in such a way that your desire for listening reached great heights and continued at that level. Hence the sound hopes communicated to us that you would translate our advice into practice. I mean, the person who listens with such relish would clearly be prepared for practice of good works; and in a particular way your attendance today would provide a proof of your health of soul. You see, just as hunger is a sign of bodily well-being, so love for divine sayings proves to be the surest sign of the soul's health. So, when the fruit of your zeal shows the outcome of your attention, well then, let us in turn pay to you, dear people, the reward we promised yesterday, I mean the reward of this spiritual teaching, which has the capacity both to increase my own resources while I am paying it and to render you its recipients wealthy. All spiritual goods are like this, after all something that can't be said for material things. In the latter case, in other words, the one who pays reduces his own substance and makes the recipient better off, whereas in the former case, on the contrary, things are different: the one who pays increases his own wealth by so doing and the resources of the recipients become greater. So, since we are well disposed for kindness and you are ready to receive this spiritual wealth, keep the recesses of your mind in a state of readiness. Come now, let us fulfill our promise; let us take up again the thread of the reading from blessed Moses, and discharge our debt to you at this point. We need, therefore, to give an open explanation of the words read yesterday with a view to exploring precisely the richness of thought concealed in the words and proposing it to you, my dear people. In other words, listen now to the words of Sacred Scripture: "For Adam, however, there proved to be no helpmate of his kind." What is the force of this brief phrase, "For Adam, however"? Why did he add the particle? I mean, would it not have been enough to say, For Adam? Let us not be heedless in our anxiety to explore these matters, acting out of great curiosity; instead, let us act so as to interpret everything precisely and instruct you not to pass by even a brief phrase or a single syllable contained in the Holy Scriptures. After all, they are not simply words, but words of the Holy Spirit, and hence the treasure to be found in even a single syllable is great. So attend carefully, I beseech you: let everyone give an alert attention, I ask you, no one sluggish, no one drowsy; let no one be distracted in thinking of out side concerns, or bring here the worries of daily life and stay wrapt in them. Instead, consider the dignity of this spiritual gathering and the fact that we are listening to God speaking to us through the tongue of the inspired authors. Give your attention in this way and keep your mind alert lest any of the seeds sown by us will fall on rock, or by the roadside, or among thistles; instead, let the whole batch of seeds be sown on good ground, I mean the field of your mind and thus be in a position to yield you a generous crop and multiply the amount sown by us. Let us see, now at long last, what is the conjunctive force of this particle. "For Adam, however," the text says, "there proved to be no helpmate of his kind." Notice, I remind you, the precision of Sacred Scripture. After saying, "For Adam, however, there proved to be no helpmate," it did not stop there but added, "of his kind," clarifying for us by the addition the reason why it formed the conjunction with the particle. I would think the sharper ones among you would probably by now be in a position to apply yourselves to predicting what is about to be said. Since, however, we must keep our instruction addressed to you all alike and make our words clear to everybody, come now, let us teach you why he spoke in that way. But wait just a moment: you remember in what was mentioned before that after Sacred. Scripture said, "Let us make him a helpmate like himself," it immediately taught us about the creation of wild beasts, reptiles and all the irrational animals, saying as it did, "Further, God formed from the earth all the wild beasts of the field and all the birds of heaven; he led them to Adam to see what he would call them." Like their master he imposed names on them and to each species he assigned its own name, wild beasts, birds, and all irrational animals according to the intelligence granted him, so that we at this stage might be in a position to know that all those creatures, despite the ministering role they play and the assistance they give human beings in their labors, are nonetheless irrational and in great measure inferior to them just in case we might think it was about them God said, "Let us make a help mate for him." You see, although they are helpful and make a very useful contribution to the service of human beings, they are nonetheless irrational. The fact that they are helpful, after all, emerges from experience. I mean, some are suited to bearing loads for us, while others to working the soil: an ox draws the plough, cuts furrows, and provides for us much other assistance in farming; likewise an ass makes itself very useful in bearing loads; and many other of the irrational animals service our bodily needs. Sheep, after all, meet our needs from their wool for making clothes, and again in similar fashion goats provide a service for us from their coat, their milk and other things related to our living. So in case you think it was in reference to them it was said above, "Let us make him a helpmate," it now begins its statement with the words, "For Adam, however, there proved to be no helpmate of his kind," as if blessed Moses were teaching us in saying these words that, while all these animals were created and received from Adam the assignment of names, nevertheless none of them proved to be adequate for helping him. Accordingly he wants to teach us about the formation of the being about to be brought forth and the fact that this being due for creation is the one he was speaking about. "Let us make him a helpmate like himself," meaning of his kind, with the same properties as himself, of equal esteem, in no way inferior to him. Hence his words, "For Adam, however, there proved to be no helpmate of his kind," by which this blessed author shows us that what ever usefulness these irrational animals bring to our service, the help provided for Adam by woman is different and immeasurably superior.”

“BUT FOR ADAM THERE WAS NOT FOUND A HELP MEET FOR HIM. Rashi comments: “When He brought them, He brought them before him as male and female. Thereupon Adam said, ‘All of them have a mate, and I have no mate!’ Immediately, the Eternal G-d caused a deep sleep to fall upon him.” Rashi explained it well for by Scripture’s bringing the verses concerning “the calling of names” into the matter of “the help” that G-d gave Adam, it proves that this interpretation mentioned above is correct. “The calling of names,” in the opinion of the commentators, is to be understood in its plain sense, namely, that everyone should have a name for himself so that they be known and recognized in their progeny by the names Adam would call them, names which would be valid forever. Now when the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to make “the help” for Adam He brought all species before him since He had to bring them before him in pairs so that he should also give a name to the females of the species; for in some [species, both male and female] are called by one name, and in others they differ, such as bull and cow, tayish (he-goat) and eiz (she-goat), sheep and ewe, and others. When Adam saw them mating with each other, he had a desire for them, but as he found among them no help for himself, he was saddened and fell asleep. G-d then caused a deep sleep to fall upon him so that he should not feel the removal of a rib from his body. In my opinion, however, “the calling of the names” is identical with “the help” [as I explained in the above verse], and the purport thereof is as follows: the Holy One, blessed be He, brought before Adam all the beasts of the field and all the fowl of the heavens, and he, recognizing their nature, called them names, that is, names appropriate to them. By the names it was made clear who is fit to be the help for another, meaning, fit to procreate with one another. Even if we are to believe that names are merely a matter of consensus and not of nature, [i.e., that they do not reflect the essence of the object bearing the name], we can say that “the calling of the names” means the division of the species as — male and female — they passed before Adam and he contemplated their nature as to which of them would be a help to each other in procreation so that they should beget offspring. Thus he called the large creatures by one name and the beasts by another so they would not beget offspring from one another, and so on for all species. And among them all he did not find a natural help for himself so that it could be called by his name for “the calling of the names” signifies the division of the species and the separation of their powers from each other, as I have explained above. Now it does not mean that it was in Adam’s power to find a help for himself among them since they were all created with natures [different from that of man]. But it means that if Adam was to find satisfaction with one of the species and he would choose it for his help, the Holy One, blessed be He, would adapt its nature to him, as He did with the rib, and He would not have found it necessary to build “a new structure.” — this teaches us that He built Eve after the fashion of a store-house.” (Eruvin 18a.) This is the meaning of the verse, And whatsoever the man would call every living creature, that was its name; that is to say, that was to be its name, for the Holy One, blessed be He, would so preserve it along the lines which I have explained. In my opinion it is correct to say that it was His will, blessed be He, not to take Adam’s rib from him to make him a wife until he himself would know that among the created beings there is no help suitable for him and until he would crave to have a help suitable for him like her. This was why it was necessary to take one of his ribs from him. This is the meaning of the verse, But for Adam there was not found a help meet for him; that is to say, but for the name Adam (man), he found no help suited to be opposite him and to be called by his name so that he should beget children from that “help”. We need not resort here, therefore, to the words of the commentators who say that the name “Adam” comes here in place of the reflexive pronoun [“himself.” The verse would thus read: “But for himself] he found no help meet for him,” just as, Ye wives of Lemech, [which should read, “my wives”]; And Jephthah, and Samuel, [which should read, “and Jephthah and myself”]. This is the meaning of Adam’s saying: This is now bone of my bones; that is to say, “This time I have found a help for me which I did not find till now among the other species, for she is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh, and is fit to be actually called by my name for we shall propagate together.” In the word zoth (this, this time) there is a secret; it will be made known from our words in the section Vezoth habracha, if my Rock will bless me, enabling me reach thereto. This is why Adam repeats, because ‘zoth’ (this) was taken out of man. [Delve into it] and understand.”

“And Adam gave names to all cattle - Two things God appears to have had in view by causing man to name all the cattle, etc. 1. To show him with what comprehensive powers of mind his Maker had endued him; and 2. To show him that no creature yet formed could make him a suitable companion. And that this twofold purpose was answered we shall shortly see; for, 1. Adam gave names; but how? From an intimate knowledge of the nature and properties of each creature. Here we see the perfection of his knowledge; for it is well known that the names affixed to the different animals in Scripture always express some prominent feature and essential characteristic of the creatures to which they are applied. Had he not possessed an intuitive knowledge of the grand and distinguishing properties of those animals, he never could have given them such names. This one circumstance is a strong proof of the original perfection and excellence of man, while in a state of innocence; nor need we wonder at the account. Adam was the work of an infinitely wise and perfect Being, and the effect must resemble the cause that produced it. 2. Adam was convinced that none of these creatures could be a suitable companion for him, and that therefore he must continue in the state that was not good, or be a farther debtor to the bounty of his Maker; for among all the animals which he had named there was not found a help meet for him. Hence we read,”

“(25) What the rib is which God took from the man whom he had formed out of the earth, and which he made into a woman? [Gen 2:21-22] The letter of this statement is plain enough; for it is expressed according to a symbol of the part, a half of the whole, each party, the man and the woman, being as sections of nature co-equal for the production of that genus which is called man. But with respect to the mind, man is understood in a symbolical manner, and his one rib is virtue, proceeding from the senses; but woman, who is the sensation of counsel, will be more variable. But some think that the rib means valour and vigour, on which account men call a boxer who as strong loins eminently strong. Therefore, the lawgiver relates that the woman was formed out of the rib of the man, indicating by that expression, that one half of the body of the man is woman. And this is testified to by the formation of the body, by the way in which it is put together, by its motions and vigour, by the force of the soul, and its strength; for all things are regarded as in a twofold light; since, as the formation of the man is more perfect, and, if one may so say, more double than the formation of the woman, so also it required half the time, that is to say forty days; when, for the imperfect, and, if I may so call it, half section of the man, that is to say the woman, there was need of a double allowance, that is to say, of eighty days, so that the doubling of the time required for the nature of the man might be changed, in order to the formation of the peculiar properties of the woman; for that body, and that soul, the nature of which is in a twofold ratio, the body and soul, that is, of the man, require but half of the delineation and formation: but that body of which the nature and construction is in the ratio of one half, namely, that of the woman, her formation and delineation is in a twofold ratio... (27) Why, as other animals and as man also was made, the woman was not also made out of the earth, but out of the rib of the man? (#Ge 2:21). This was so ordained in the first place, in order that the woman might not be of equal dignity with the man. In the second place, that she might not be of equal age with him, but younger; since those who marry wives more advanced in years than themselves deserve blame, as having overturned the law of nature. Thirdly, the design of God was, that the husband should take care of his wife, as of a necessary part of himself; but that the woman should requite him in turn with service, as a portion of the universe. In the fourth place, he admonishes man by this enigmatical intimation, that he should take care of his wife as of his daughter; and he admonishes the woman that she should honour her husband as her father. And very rightly, since the woman changes her habitation, passing from her own offspring to her husband. On which account, it is altogether right and proper that he who has received should take upon himself the liability in respect of what has been given; and that she who has been removed should worthily give the same honour to her husband which she has previously given to her parents; for the husband receives his wife from her parents, as a deposit which is entrusted to him; and the woman receives her husband from the law.”

“It is certain that, from the very beginning of his nature, man was impressed with these instincts (of sleep). (Genesis 2:21). If you receive your instruction from God, (you will find) that the fountain of the human race, Adam, had a taste of drowsiness before having a draught of repose; slept before he laboured, or even before he ate, nay, even before he spoke; in order that men may see that sleep is a natural feature and function, and one which has actually precedence over all the natural faculties. From this primary instance also we are led to trace even then the image of death in sleep. For as Adam was a figure of Christ, Adam's sleep shadowed out the death of Christ, who was to sleep a mortal slumber, that from the wound inflicted on His side might, in like manner (as Eve was formed), be typified the church, the true mother of the living. This is why sleep is so salutary, so rational, and is actually formed into the model of that death which is general and common to the race of man. God, indeed, has willed (and it may be said in passing that He has, generally, in His dispensations brought nothing to pass without such types and shadows) to set before us, in a manner more fully and completely than Plato's example, by daily recurrence the outlines of man's state, especially concerning the beginning and the termination thereof; thus stretching out the hand to help our faith more readily by types and parables, not in words only, but also in things. [Treatise on the Soul 43]”

“So, now that all the animals were created and had received their names from the first man, the loving Lord made it his concern to create a helpmate for him of his kind; having arranged everything with this creature of his in mind and for his sake brought forth all this visible creation, after all the other beings he creates also woman. Notice how he teaches us precisely the process of her creation too. I mean, after teaching us that he wanted to produce for man a helpmate like him by saying previously, "Let us make him a helpmate like him self," and then adding, "There proved to be no help mate of his own kind," accordingly he set about the formation of this creature of similar properties to him, and the text says, "God caused drowsiness to come upon Adam, and he slept. God took one of Adam's ribs and closed up the flesh in its place. The Lord God fashioned the rib he had taken from Adam into a woman and brought her to Adam." [ Gen 2:21, Gen 2:22 ] There is great force in these words, surpassing all human reasoning. I mean, it is not possible to comprehend their grandeur in any other way than by viewing everything with the eyes of faith. "God caused drowsiness to come upon Adam," the text says, "and he slept." Notice the precision of the teaching. This blessed author has stipulated both things, or rather the Holy Spirit through his tongue, teaching us the sequence of what happened. "God caused drowsiness to come upon Adam," the text says, "and he slept." It wasn't simply drowsiness that came upon him nor normal sleep; instead, the wise and skillful creator of our nature was about to remove one of Adam's ribs. Lest the experience cause him pain and afterwards he be badly disposed towards the creature formed him from His rib, and through memory of the pain bear a grudge against this being at its formation, God induced in him this kind of sleep: He caused a drowsiness to come upon him and bid him be weighed down as though by some heavy weight. His purpose was that, far from allowing man to suffer any sense of what was happening, he should, like some excellent craftsman, do away with mere appearances, supply for any deficiencies and in his own loving kindness create what had thus been taken from man. The text says, remember, "God caused drowsiness to come upon Adam, and he slept. God took one of Adam's ribs and closed up the flesh in its place" so that after the release of sleep he could not feel the loss he was suffering. You see, even if he was unaware at the time of the removal, nevertheless afterwards he would be likely to realize what had happened. So lest he cause him pain in removing it, or the loss of it cause him any distress later, he thus provided for both eventualities by making the removal painless and supplying for the loss without letting him feel anything of what had happened. So, the text says, the lord God took the rib and fashioned it into a woman. A remarkable expression, defying our reasoning with its extraordinary boldness. After all, every thing done by the lord has this character: forming the human being from dust is no less remarkable than this. Notice the considerateness of Sacred Scripture in the words employed with out limitations in mind: "God took one of his ribs," the text says. Don't take the words in human fashion; rather, interpret the concreteness of the expressions from the viewpoint of human limitations. You see, if he had not used these words, how would we have been able to gain knowledge of these mysteries which defy description? Let us therefore not remain at the level of the words alone, but let us understand everything in a manner proper to God because applied to God. That phrase, "He took," after all, and other such are spoken with our limitations in mind. Now consider how here again he follows the same practice as in the case of Adam. I mean, just as in that case he said once, a second time and in fact frequently, "The Lord God took the human being that he had formed" and again, "The Lord God instructed Adam," and further, "The Lord God said, "let us make him a helpmate like himself," so here too it says, "The Lord God fashioned the rib he had taken from Adam into a woman," and previously, "The Lord God caused drowsiness to come upon Adam." So that your might know that there is no difference between Father and Son in these expressions; instead, on account of both of them having the one essence, Sacred Scripture applies the names indiscriminately. See at any rate how, in the case of the formation of woman as well, it followed the same practice, saying, "The Lord God fashioned the rib he had taken from Adam into a woman." What would be said in this case by those heretics who are always intent on calling everything into question and who hold the opinion that the origin of the Creator of all has been comprehended? What words can express the full sense of this? What kind of mind can grasp it? He took one rib, the text says and how from this single rib did he fashion the collect being yet why do I say, how from this single thing did he fashion the being? Tell me, how did the removal happen? How was it he felt nothing of the removal? You can tell me none of these things; only the one who did the creating knows. So if we don't comprehend these things we are familiar with and what has to do with the formation of the being of the same race as ourselves, how much madness and folly does it betray to meddle in what concerns the Creator and to allege that those matters have been comprehended which not even incorporeal and divine powers have knowledge of, but rather continue without ceasing to praise in fear and trembling? "The Lord God," the text says, "fashioned the rib he had taken from Adam into a woman." See the precision of Scripture. I mean, it no longer said, He formed, but "He fashioned," since he took part of what was already formed and, so to say, made up for what was lacking. Hence it says, "He fashioned:" he didn't perform further shaping, but took some small part of the shaping already done, fashioned this part and made a complete being. How great the power of God, the master craftsman, making a likeness of those limbs from that tiny part, creating such wonderful senses, and preparing a creature complete, entire and perfect, capable both of speaking and of providing much comfort to man by a sharing of her being. For it was for the consolation of this man that this woman was created. Hence Paul also said, "Man was not created for woman, but woman for man." [ I Cor 11:9 ] Do you see how everything is made for him? I mean, after the act of creation, after the brute beasts were brought forth, some suited for eating and some capable of assisting with man's service the human being that had been formed stood in need of someone to talk to and able to offer him much comfort by a sharing of her being. So, from man's rib God creates this rational being, and in his inventive wisdom he makes it complete and perfect, like man in every detail rational, capable of rendering him what would be of assistance in times of need and the pressing necessities of life. It was God, you see, who was arranging everything in his wisdom and creative power. After all, we for our part, even though unable with the limitations of our reasoning to comprehend the way things happen, nevertheless believe that everything yields to his will and that whatever he directs is in fact brought forth. "The Lord God." The text says, "fashioned the rib he had taken from Adam into a woman, and led her to Adam," showing that it was for him that he had made her. He led her to Adam, it says. that is, since among all the other creatures there proved to be no helpmate of his kind (so the text says), lo, the promise I made (having guaranteed as I did to provide you with a helpmate of your kind) I kept by giving you one.”

“Here we have, I. The making of the woman, to be a help-meet for Adam. This was done upon the sixth day, as was also the placing of Adam in paradise, though it is here mentioned after an account of the seventh day's rest; but what was said in general (Gen 1:27), that God made man male and female, is more distinctly related here. Observe, 1. That Adam was first formed, then Eve (Ti1 2:13), and she was made of the man, and for the man (Co1 11:8, Co1 11:9), all which are urged there as reasons for the humility, modesty, silence, and submissiveness, of that sex in general, and particularly the subjection and reverence which wives owe to their own husbands. Yet man being made last of the creatures, as the best and most excellent of all, Eve's being made after Adam, and out of him, puts an honour upon that sex, as the glory of the man, Co1 11:7. If man is the head, she is the crown, a crown to her husband, the crown of the visible creation. The man was dust refined, but the woman was dust double-refined, one remove further from the earth. 2. That Adam slept while his wife was in making, that no room might be left to imagine that he had herein directed the Spirit of the Lord, or been his counsellor, Isa 40:13. He had been made sensible of his want of a meet help; but, God having undertaken to provide him one, he does not afflict himself with any care about it, but lies down and sleeps sweetly, as one that had cast all his care on God, with a cheerful resignation of himself and all his affairs to his Maker's will and wisdom. Jehovah-jireh, let the Lord provide when and whom he pleases. If we graciously rest in God, God will graciously work for us and work all for good. 3. That God caused a sleep to fall on Adam, and made it a deep sleep, that so the opening of his side might be no grievance to him; while he knows no sin, God will take care he shall feel no pain. When God, by his providence, does that to his people which is grievous to flesh and blood, he not only consults their happiness in the issue, but by his grace he can so quiet and compose their spirits as to make them easy under the sharpest operations. 4. That the woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved. Adam lost a rib, and without any diminution to his strength or comeliness (for, doubtless, the flesh was closed without a scar); but in lieu thereof he had a help meet for him, which abundantly made up his loss: what God takes away from his people he will, one way or other, restore with advantage. In this (as in many other things) Adam was a figure of him that was to come; for out of the side of Christ, the second Adam, his spouse the church was formed, when he slept the sleep, the deep sleep, of death upon the cross, in order to which his side was opened, and there came out blood and water, blood to purchase his church and water to purify it to himself. See Eph 5:25, Eph 5:26. II. The marriage of the woman to Adam. Marriage is honourable, but this surely was the most honourable marriage that ever was, in which God himself had all along an immediate hand. Marriages (they say) are made in heaven: we are sure this was, for the man, the woman, the match, were all God's own work; he, by his power, made them both, and now, by his ordinance, made them one. This was a marriage made in perfect innocency, and so was never any marriage since, 1. God, as her Father, brought the woman to the man, as his second self, and a help-meet for him. When he had made her, he did not leave her to her own disposal; no, she was his child, and she must not marry without his consent. Those are likely to settle to their comfort who by faith and prayer, and a humble dependence upon providence, put themselves under a divine conduct. That wife that is of God's making by special grace, and of God's bringing by special providence, is likely to prove a help-meet for a man. 2. From God, as his Father, Adam received her (Gen 2:23): "This is now bone of my bone. Now I have what I wanted, and which all the creatures could not furnish me with, a help meet for me." God's gifts to us are to be received with a humble thankful acknowledgment of his wisdom in suiting them to us, and his favour in bestowing them on us. Probably it was revealed to Adam in a vision, when he was asleep, that this lovely creature, now presented to him, was a piece of himself, and was to be his companion and the wife of his covenant. Hence some have fetched an argument to prove that glorified saints in the heavenly paradise shall know one another. Further, in token of his acceptance of her, he gave her a name, not peculiar to her, but common to her sex: She shall be called woman, Isha, a she-man, differing from man in sex only, not in nature - made of man, and joined to man. III. The institution of the ordinance of marriage, and the settling of the law of it, Gen 2:24. The sabbath and marriage were two ordinances instituted in innocency, the former for the preservation of the church, the latter for the preservation of the world of mankind. It appears (by Mat 19:4, Mat 19:5) that it was God himself who said here, "A man must leave all his relations, to cleave to his wife;" but whether he spoke it by Moses, the penman, or by Adam (who spoke, Gen 2:23), is uncertain. It should seem, they are the words of Adam, in God's name, laying down this law to all his posterity. 1. See here how great the virtue of a divine ordinance is; the bonds of it are stronger even than those of nature. To whom can we be more firmly bound than the fathers that begat us and the mothers that bore us? Yet the son must quit them, to be joined to his wife, and the daughter forget them, to cleave to her husband, Psa 45:10, Psa 45:11. 2. See how necessary it is that children should take their parents' consent along with them in their marriage, and how unjust those are to their parents, as well as undutiful, who marry without it; for they rob them of their right to them, and interest in them, and alienate it to another, fraudulently and unnaturally. 3. See what need there is both of prudence and prayer in the choice of this relation, which is so near and so lasting. That had need be well done which is to be done for life. 4. See how firm the bond of marriage is, not to be divided and weakened by having many wives (Mal 2:15) nor to be broken or cut off by divorce, for any cause but fornication, or voluntary desertion. 5. See how dear the affection ought to be between husband and wife, such as there is to our own bodies, Eph 5:28. These two are one flesh; let them then be one soul. IV. An evidence of the purity and innocency of that state wherein our first parents were created, Gen 2:25. They were both naked. They needed no clothes for defense against cold nor heat, for neither could be injurious to them. They needed none for ornament. Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Nay, they needed none for decency; they were naked, and had no reason to be ashamed. They knew not what shame was, so the Chaldee reads it. Blushing is now the colour of virtue, but it was not then the colour of innocency. Those that had no sin in their conscience might well have no shame in their faces, though they had no clothes to their backs.”

“And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept,.... This was not a common and natural sleep that Adam fell into, occasioned by any weariness of the animal spirits, in viewing the creatures as they passed by him, and in examining them, and giving them suitable and proper names; but it was supernatural, and from the Lord, his power and providence, who caused it to fall upon him: it was not a drowsiness, nor a slumber, but a sound sleep: his senses were so locked up by it, that he perceived not anything that was done to him; and it seems to have been on purpose, that he might feel no pain, while the operation was made upon him, as well as that it might appear that he had no hand in the formation of the woman; and that he might be the more surprised at the sight of her, just awaking out of sleep, to see so lovely an object, so much like himself, and made out of himself, and in so short a time as while he was taking a comfortable nap: and he took one of his ribs; with the flesh along with it: men have commonly, as anatomists (k) observe, twelve ribs on a side; it seems by this, that Adam had thirteen. The Targum of Jonathan is,"and he took one of his ribs; that is, the thirteenth rib of his right side:''but our English poet (l) takes it to be one of the left side, and also a supernumerary one (m). God made an opening in him, and took it out, without putting him to any pain, and without any sensation of it: in what manner this was done we need not inquire; the power of God was sufficient to perform it; Adam was asleep when it was done, and saw it not, and the manner of the operation is not declared: and closed up the flesh instead thereof: so that there was no opening left, nor any wound made, or a scar appeared, or any loss sustained, but what was made up by an increase of flesh, or by closing up the flesh; and that being hardened like another rib, and so answered the same purpose. (Adam probably had the same number of ribs as we do today. Otherwise the genetic code for creation of an extra rib would cause at least some people today to have thirteen ribs. I know of no such case. Also, we know that acquired characteristics cannot be passed on to the next generation. A man who loses both legs in an accident, usually has children who have two legs. Ed.) (k) Bartholini Anatomia, l. 4. c. 17. p. 516. Vid. Scheuchzer. Physica Sacra, vol. 1. tab. 27. p. 28. (l) Who stooping opened my left side, and took From thence a rib.--- Milton's Paradise Lost, B. 8. l. 465. (m) Ib. B. 10. l. 887.”

“And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he woman,.... It is commonly observed, and pertinently enough, that the woman was not made from the superior part of man, that she might not be thought to be above him, and have power over him; nor from any inferior part, as being below him, and to be trampled on by him; but out of his side, and from one of his ribs, that she might appear to be equal to him; and from a part near his heart, and under his arms, to show that she should be affectionately loved by him, and be always under his care and protection: and she was not "created" as things were, out of nothing, nor "formed" as Adam was, out of the dust of the earth, being in the same form as man; but "made" out of refined and quickened dust, or the flesh and bones of man, and so in her make and constitution fine and lovely; or "built" (n), as the word signifies, which is used, because she is the foundation of the house or family, and the means of building it up: or rather to denote the singular care and art used, and fit proportion observed in the make of her: and brought her unto the man: from the place where the rib had been carried, and she was made of it; or he brought her, as the parent of her, at whose dispose she was, and presented her to Adam as his spouse, to be taken into a conjugal relation with him, and to be loved and cherished by him; which, as it affords a rule and example to be followed by parents and children, the one to dispose of their children in marriage, and the other to have the consent of their parents in it; as well as it is a recommendation of marriage, as agreeable to the divine will, and to be esteemed honourable, being of God: so it was a type of the marriage of Christ, the second Adam, between him and his church, which sprung from him, from his side; and is of the same nature with him, and was presented by his divine Father to him, who gave her to him; and he received her to himself as his spouse and bride; see Eph 5:29. (n) "et aedificavit", Pagninus, Montanus, Vatablus, Piscator, &c.”

“"He led her to Adam," the text says, remember. "Now there is someone, bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh." [ Gen 2:23 ] Notice here, I ask you, dearly beloved, how along with this ineffable intelligence bestowed on him by God, which he demonstrated to us by the imposition of names he gave to all those species of brute beasts, he was endowed also with the prophetic grace. I mean, the reason why this blessed author taught us in the preceding passages that Adam was overcome by drowsiness and sleep so as to have no sense at all of what happened was that when you come to know that on seeing the woman he describes her creation precisely, you may have no doubt that he is saying this under the influence of the prophetic grace and the inspiration of instruction by the Holy Spirit. You see, when God led her to him, he said, without knowledge of anything that had happened, "Now there is someone bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh." Yet some other translator renders it "This once" instead of "Now", to indicate that this happened only on this occasion, and there will be no repetition of the formation of woman. Now, it is saying, woman has been made from man whereas later it will not be like this; instead, man will come from woman or rather, not from woman but from the cooperation of the two, as Paul also says, "Man is not from woman, but woman from man; and man was not created for woman, but woman for man." [ I Cor 11:8-9 ] True, he is saying, but these words indicate that woman was made from man. Still, wait a while and you will see his precise teaching in what follows. He goes on, in fact: "Yet man is not independent of woman nor woman of man," teaching us that in the course of things the human being's composition will derive from both man and woman through their intercourse. Hence Adam, too, said, "Now there is someone, bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh." Then, in order that you may come to realize the precision of his prophecy, and how what he had said has been conspicuous for its brilliance up to the present time and to its fulfillment, listen also to what follows: "She shall be called woman," it says, "because she was taken from her husband. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother, and will cling to his wife and the two will come to be one flesh." [ Gen 2:23-24 ] Do you see how he opened everything up to us, clarifying each detail precisely for us through his own prophecy: "She shall be called woman," it says, "because she was taken from her husband." Again he hints to us of the removal of his rib; then, to indicate what was about to happen, the text says, "For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother, and will cling to his wife and the two will come to be one flesh." Where, tell me, did these things come from for him to utter? From what source did he gain knowledge of future events and the fact that the race of human beings should grow into a vast number? Whence, after all, did he come to know that there would be intercourse between man and woman? I mean, the consummation of that intercourse occurred after the Fall; up till that time they were living like angels in paradise and so they were not burning with desire, not assaulted by other passions, not subject to the needs of nature, but on the contrary were created incorruptible and immortal, and on that account at any rate they had no need to wear clothes.”

“Hence we are justified in concluding that the ecstasy in which Adam was caught up when God cast him into a sleep was given to him so that his mind in that state might participate with the host of angels and, entering into the sanctuary of God, understand what was finally to come. When he awoke, he was like one filled with the spirit of prophecy, and seeing his wife brought before him, he immediately opened his mouth and proclaimed the great mystery that St. Paul teaches: "This now is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she has been taken out of man. And for this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall be the two in one flesh." These were the words of the first man according to the testimony of Scripture, but in the Gospel our Lord declared that God spoke them. For he says, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh' "? From this we should understand, therefore, that because of the ecstasy that Adam had just experienced he was able to say this as a prophet under divine guidance.”

“Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, etc. - There is a very delicate and expressive meaning in the original which does not appear in our version. When the different genera of creatures were brought to Adam, that he might assign them their proper names, it is probable that they passed in pairs before him, and as they passed received their names. To this circumstance the words in this place seem to refer. Instead of this now is זאת הפאם zoth happaam, we should render more literally this turn, this creature, which now passes or appears before me, is flesh of my flesh, etc. The creatures that had passed already before him were not suitable to him, and therefore it was said, For Adam there was not a help meet found, Gen 2:20; but when the woman came, formed out of himself, he felt all that attraction which consanguinity could produce, and at the same time saw that she was in her person and in her mind every way suitable to be his companion. See Parkhurst, sub voce. She shall be called Woman - A literal version of the Hebrew would appear strange, and yet a literal version is the only proper one. איש ish signifies man, and the word used to express what we term woman is the same with a feminine termination, אשה ishshah, and literally means she-man. Most of the ancient versions have felt the force of the term, and have endeavored to express it as literally as possible. The intelligent reader will not regret to see some of them here. The Vulgate Latin renders the Hebrew virago, which is a feminine form of vir, a man. Symmachus uses ανδρις, andris, a female form of ανηρ, aner, a man. Our own term is equally proper when understood. Woman has been defined by many as compounded of wo and man, as if called man's wo because she tempted him to eat the forbidden fruit; but this is no meaning of the original word, nor could it be intended, as the transgression was not then committed. The truth is, our term is a proper and literal translation of the original, and we may thank the discernment of our Anglo-Saxon ancestors for giving it. The Anglo-Saxon word, of which woman is a contraction, means the man with the womb. A very appropriate version of the Hebrew אשה ishshah, rendered by terms which signify she-man, in the versions already specified. Hence we see the propriety of Adam's observation: This creature is flesh of my flesh, and bone of my bones; therefore shall she be called Womb-Man, or female man, because she was taken out of man. See Verstegan. Others derive it from the Anglo-Saxon words for man's wife or she-man. Either may be proper, the first seems the most likely.”

“The design of God in the creation of the woman is perceived by Adam, as soon as he awakes, when the woman is brought to him by God. Without a revelation from God, he discovers in the woman "bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh." The words, "this is now (הפּעם lit., this time) bone of my bones," etc., are expressive of joyous astonishment at the suitable helpmate, whose relation to himself he describes in the words, "she shall be called Woman, for she is taken out of man." אשּׁה is well rendered by Luther, "Mnnin" (a female man), like the old Latin vira from vir. The words which follow, "therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall become one flesh," are not to be regarded as Adam's, first on account of the על־כּן, which is always used in Genesis, with the exception of Gen 20:6; Gen 42:21, to introduce remarks of the writer, either of an archaeological or of a historical character, and secondly, because, even if Adam on seeing the woman had given prophetic utterance to his perception of the mystery of marriage, he could not with propriety have spoken of father and mother. They are the words of Moses, written to bring out the truth embodied in the fact recorded as a divinely appointed result, to exhibit marriage as the deepest corporeal and spiritual unity of man and woman, and to hold up monogamy before the eyes of the people of Israel as the form of marriage ordained by God. But as the words of Moses, they are the utterance of divine revelation; and Christ could quote them, therefore, as the word of God (Mat 19:5). By the leaving of father and mother, which applies to the woman as well as to the man, the conjugal union is shown to be a spiritual oneness, a vital communion of heart as well as of body, in which it finds its consummation. This union is of a totally different nature from that of parents and children; hence marriage between parents and children is entirely opposed to the ordinance of God. Marriage itself, notwithstanding the fact that it demands the leaving of father and mother, is a holy appointment of God; hence celibacy is not a higher or holier state, and the relation of the sexes for a pure and holy man is a pure and holy relation. This is shown in Gen 2:25 : "They were both naked ערוּמּים, with dagesh in the מ, is an abbreviated form of עירמּים Gen 3:7, from עוּר to strip), the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." Their bodies were sanctified by the spirit, which animated them. Shame entered first with sin, which destroyed the normal relation of the spirit to the body, exciting tendencies and lusts which warred against the soul, and turning the sacred ordinance of God into sensual impulses and the lust of the flesh.”

“There were more ribs in Adam, and hands that knew no weariness in God; but not more wives in the eye of God. And accordingly the man of God, Adam, and the woman of God, Eve, discharging mutually (the duties of) one marriage, sanctioned for mankind a type by (the considerations of) the authoritative precedent of their origin and the primal will of God. Finally, "there shall be," said He, "two in one flesh," not three nor four. On any other hypothesis, there would no longer be "one flesh," nor "two (joined) into one flesh." These will be so, if the conjunction and the growing together in unity take place once for all. If, however, (it take place) a second time, or oftener, immediately (the flesh) ceases to be "one," and there will not be "two (joined) into one flesh," but plainly one rib (divided) into more. But when the apostle interprets, "The two shall be (joined) into one flesh" of the Church and Christ, according to the spiritual nuptials of the Church and Christ (for Christ is one, and one is His Church), we are bound to recognise a duplication and additional enforcement for us of the law of unity of marriage, not only in accordance with the foundation of our race, but in accordance with the sacrament of Christ. From one marriage do we derive our origin in each case; carnally in Adam, spiritually in Christ. The two births combine in laying down one prescriptive rule of monogamy. In regard of each of the two, is he degenerate who transgresses the limit of monogamy. Plurality of marriage began with an accursed man. Lamech was the first who, by marrying himself to two women, caused three to be (joined) "into one flesh." [Exortation to Chastity 5]”

“For when the soul hath intercourse with the body, this intercourse is adultery and fornication; but if the body be united unto the soul in one agreement, and be raised above from below in a right union, it is the intercourse which is according unto the law, which is implanted naturally in the person of each one of us by the Creator. For behold the connection which men have with women according to nature was ordained by the command of the Creator at the beginning, and when it taketh place according to the will of the Creator, it is called lawful connection; but if it be performed in any other way it is called adultery and fornication, and as in a mystery this parable is depicted in reference unto the soul and body. For if the soul hath intercourse with the body it is fornication, but if the body hath intercourse with the soul, it is an union according to the law, and towards this meaning also inclineth the words of the Book which saith, "A man shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave unto his wife." Now it doth not say concerning the woman that she shall leave her parents, and cleave unto the man, although according to the custom of the world women do actually leave their natural parents, and cleave unto their husbands, and it appeareth that, according to custom, the opposite of the words of the Book are done in nature; so therefore that which is said of the man is a parable which is based on the body, which shall leave everything in which it hath gratification, and shall be united unto the soul. For if the Book had said, "A woman shall leave her parents, and cleave unto a man," it would have taught that the soul should have intercourse with the body, but now that it hath spoken concerning the man, "He shall leave his parents and be united unto his wife," the words indicate to us a mystery of doctrine, and exhort the body to deny itself its pleasures, and to hate its lusts, and to have connection with the soul in all good things.”

“THEREFORE SHALL A MAN LEAVE HIS FATHER AND HIS MOTHER, AND SHALL CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE. The Divine Spirit says this, thus prohibiting immoral relationships to “the sons of Noah.” AND THEY SHALL BE ONE FLESH. The child is created by both parents, and there in the child, their flesh is united into one. Thus the words of Rashi. But there is no point to this since in beast and cattle too, their flesh is united into one in their offspring. The correct interpretation appears to me to be that in cattle and beast the males have no attachment to their females. Rather, the male mates with any female he finds, and then they go their separate ways. It is for this reason that Scripture states that because the female of man was bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh, he therefore cleaves to her and she nestles in his bosom as his own flesh, and he desires to be with her always. And just as it was with Adam, so was his nature transmitted to his offspring, that the males among them should cleave to their women, leaving their fathers and their mothers, and considering their wives as if they are one flesh with them. A similar sense is found in the verses: For he is our brother, our flesh; to any that is near of his flesh. Those who are close members of the family are called sh’eir basar (near of flesh). Thus man will leave “the flesh” of his father and his mother and their kin and will see that his wife is nearer to him than they.”

“Therefore shall a man leave his father, and his mother,.... These are thought by some to be the words of Moses, inferring from the above fact, what ought to be among men; and by others, the words of Adam under divine inspiration, as the father of mankind instructing his sons what to do, and foretelling what would be done in all succeeding ages: though they rather seem to be the words of God himself, by whom marriage was now instituted; and who here gives direction about it, and declares the case and circumstance of man upon it, and how he would and should behave: and thus our Lord Jesus Christ, quoting these words, makes them to be the words of him that made man, male and female, and supplies and prefaces them thus, and said, "for this cause", &c. Mat 19:5 so Jarchi paraphrases them,"the Holy Ghost said so:''not that a man upon his marriage is to drop his affections to his parents, or be remiss in his obedience to them, honour of them, and esteem for then, or to neglect the care of them, if they stand in need of his assistance; but that he should depart from his father's house, and no more dwell with him, or bed and board in his house; but having taken a wife to himself, should provide an habitation for him and her to dwell together: so all the three Targums interpret it, of quitting "the house of his father, and his mother's bed": and shall cleave unto his wife; with a cordial affection, taking care of her, nourishing and cherishing her, providing all things comfortable for her, continuing to live with her, and not depart from her as long as they live: the phrase is expressive of the near union by marriage between man and wife; they are, as it were, glued together, and make but one; which is more fully and strongly expressed in the next clause: and they shall be one flesh; that is, "they two", the man and his wife, as it is supplied and interpreted by Christ, Mat 19:5 and so here in the Targum of Jonathan, and in the Septuagint and Samaritan versions: the union between them is so close, as if they were but one person, one soul, one body; and which is to be observed against polygamy, unlawful divorces, and all uncleanness, fornication, and adultery: only one man and one woman, being joined in lawful wedlock, have a right of copulation with each other, in order to produce a legitimate offspring, partaking of the same one flesh, as children do of their parents, without being able to distinguish the flesh of the one from the other, they partake of: and from hence it appears to be a fabulous notion, that Cecrops, the first king of Athens, was the first institutor of matrimony and joiner of one man to one woman; whence he was said to be "biformis" (p), and was called unless, as some (q) have thought, that he and Moses were one and the same who delivered out the first institution of marriage, which is this. (p) Justin. e Trogo, l. 2. c. 6. (q) Vid. Saldeni Otia Theolog. Exercitat. 1. sect. 14. p. 13, 14.”

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother - There shall be, by the order of God, a more intimate connection formed between the man and woman, than can subsist even between parents and children. And they shall be one flesh - These words may be understood in a twofold sense. 1. These two shall be one flesh, shall be considered as one body, having no separate or independent rights, privileges, cares, concerns, etc., each being equally interested in all things that concern the marriage state. 2. These two shall be for the production of one flesh; from their union a posterity shall spring, as exactly resembling themselves as they do each other. Our Lord quotes these words, Mat 19:5, with some variation from this text: They Twain shall be one flesh. So in Mar 10:8. St. Paul quotes in the same way, Co1 6:16, and in Eph 5:31. The Vulgate Latin, the Septuagint, the Syriac, the Arabic, and the Samaritan, all read the word Two. That this is the genuine reading I have no doubt. The word שניהם sheneyhem, they two or both of them, was, I suppose, omitted at first from the Hebrew text, by mistake, because it occurs three words after in the following verse, or more probably it originally occurred in Gen 2:24, and not in Gen 2:25; and a copyist having found that he had written it twice, in correcting his copy, struck out the word in Gen 2:24 instead of Gen 2:25. But of what consequence is it? In the controversy concerning polygamy, it has been made of very great consequence. Without the word, some have contended a man may have as many wives as he chooses, as the terms are indefinite, They shall be, etc., but with the word, marriage is restricted. A man can have in legal wedlock but One wife at the same time. We have here the first institution of marriage, and we see in it several particulars worthy of our most serious regard. 1. God pronounces the state of celibacy to be a bad state, or, if the reader please, not a good one; and the Lord God said, It is not good for man to be alone. This is God's judgment. Councils, and fathers, and doctors, and synods, have given a different judgment; but on such a subject they are worthy of no attention. The word of God abideth for ever. 2. God made the woman for the man, and thus he has shown us that every son of Adam should be united to a daughter of Eve to the end of the world. See on Co1 7:3 (note). God made the woman out of the man, to intimate that the closest union, and the most affectionate attachment, should subsist in the matrimonial connection, so that the man should ever consider and treat the woman as a part of himself: and as no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and supports it, so should a man deal with his wife; and on the other hand the woman should consider that the man was not made for her, but that she was made for the man, and derived, under God, her being from him; therefore the wife should see that she reverence her husband, Eph 5:33. Gen 2:23, Gen 2:24 contain the very words of the marriage ceremony: This is flesh of my flesh, and bone of my bone, therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. How happy must such a state be where God's institution is properly regarded, where the parties are married, as the apostle expresses it, in the Lord; where each, by acts of the tenderest kindness, lives only to prevent the wishes and contribute in every possible way to the comfort and happiness of the other! Marriage might still be what it was in its original institution, pure and suitable; and in its first exercise, affectionate and happy; but how few such marriages are there to be found! Passion, turbulent and irregular, not religion; custom, founded by these irregularities, not reason; worldly prospects, originating and ending in selfishness and earthly affections, not in spiritual ends, are the grand producing causes of the great majority of matrimonial alliances. How then can such turbid and bitter fountains send forth pure and sweet waters? See the ancient allegory of Cupid and Psyche, by which marriage is so happily illustrated, explained in the notes on Mat 19:4-6.”

“I WOULD LIKE TODAY, dearly Beloved, to open up for you spiritual treasure, which though distributed is never fully exhausted, which though bringing riches to everyone is in no way diminished but even increased. You see, just as in the case of material treasure people able to collect even a tiny nugget acquire for themselves great wealth, so too in the case of Sacred Scripture you can find in even a brief phrase great power of thought and wealth beyond telling. Such, after all, is the nature of this treasure: it enriches those receiving it without itself ever failing, rising as it does from the source which is the Holy Spirit. It remains for you, however, to keep careful guard on what is entrusted to you and preserve the memory of it untarnished so that you may with ease follow what is said, provided we make our contribution zealously. Grace, you see, is ready at hand and looks only for people welcoming it with generosity. Let us listen today also to what is read so that we may come to know of God's unspeakable love for humanity and the extent of the considerateness he employs with our salvation in mind. "They were both naked, Adam and his wife, without feeling shame." Consider, I ask you, the transcendence of their blessed condition, how they were superior to all bodily concerns, how they lived on earth as if they were in heaven, and though in fact possessing a body they did not feel the limitations of their bodies. After all, they had no need of shelter or habitation, clothing or anything of that kind. It was not idly or to no purpose that Sacred Scripture indicated this to us; it was that we might learn of this carefree condition of theirs their trouble free life and angelic condition, as you might say, and that we might attribute it completely to their indifference when later we see them bereft of all these advantages and, as it were, reduced to the utmost indigence after the great abundance of their wealth.”

“And they were both naked, the man and his wife,.... Were as they were created, having no clothes on them, and standing in need of none, to shelter them from the heat or cold, being in a temperate climate; or to conceal any parts of their bodies from the sight of others, there being none of the creatures to guard against on that account: and were not ashamed; having nothing in them, or on them, or about them, that caused shame; nothing sinful, defective, scandalous or blameworthy; no sin in their nature, no guilt on their consciences, or wickedness in their hands or actions; and particularly they were not ashamed of their being naked, no more than children are to see each other naked, or we are to behold them: besides, they were not only alone, and none to behold them; but their being naked was no disgrace to them, but was agreeably to their nature; and they were not sensible that there was any necessity or occasion to cover themselves, nor would they have had any, had they continued in their innocent state: moreover, there was not the least reason to be ashamed to appear in such a manner, since they were but one flesh. The Jerusalem Targum is,"they knew not what shame was,''not being conscious of any sin, which sooner or later produces shame. Thus Plato (r) describes the first men, who, he says, were produced out of the earth; and for whom the fertile ground and trees brought forth fruit of all kind in abundance of themselves, without any agriculture; that these were , "naked and without any covering"; and so Diodories Siculus (s) says, the first of men were naked and without clothing. The word here used sometimes signifies wise and cunning; it is rendered "subtle" first verse of the next chapter: and here the Targum of Jonathan is,"they were both wise, Adam and his wife, but they continued not in their glory;''the next thing we hear of is their fall. (r) Politico, apud Euseb. Praepar. Evangel. l. 12. c. 13. p. 588. (s) Bibliothec. l. 1. p. 8. Next: Genesis Chapter 3”

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

“Not ashamed, because they had not perverted the work of God. Inordinate concupiscence is the effect of sin. (Haydock) Bible Text & Cross-references: God resteth on the seventh day, and blesseth it. The earthly paradise, in which God placeth man. He commandeth him not to eat of the tree of knowledge. And formeth a woman of his rib. 1 So the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the furniture of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made: *and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done. 3 And he blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. 4 These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth: 5 And every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth. 6 But a spring rose out the earth, watering all the surface of the earth. 7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life; and man became a living soul.* 8 And the Lord God had planted a paradise of pleasure from the beginning: wherein he placed man whom he had formed. 9 And the Lord God brought forth of the ground all manner of trees, fair to behold, and pleasant to eat of: the tree of life also in the midst of paradise: and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 10 And a river went out of the place of pleasure to water paradise, which from thence is divided into four heads. 11 *The name of the one is Phison: that is, it which compasseth all the land of Hevilath, where gold groweth. 12 And the gold of that land is very good: there is found bdellium, and the onyx stone. 13 And the name of the second river is Gehon: the same is it that compasseth all the land of Ethiopia. 14 And the name of the third river is Tigris: the same passeth along by the Assyrians. And the fourth river is Euphrates. 15 And the Lord God took man, and put him into the paradise of pleasure, to dress it, and to keep it. 16 And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat. 17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death. 18 And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself. 19 And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: *for whatsoever Adam called any living creature, the same is its name. 20 And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself. 21 Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. 22 And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam. 23 And Adam said: *This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man. 24 *Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife:** and they shall be two in one flesh. 25 And they were both naked: to wit, Adam and his wife: and were not ashamed.”