And the Lord God took man, and put him into the paradise of pleasure, to dress it, and to keep it.

“For (the title) God, indeed, which always belonged to Him, it names at the very first: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth;" Genesis 1:1 and as long as He continued making, one after the other, those things of which He was to be the Lord, it merely mentions God. "And God said," "and God made," "and God saw;" but nowhere do we yet find the Lord. But when He completed the whole creation, and especially man himself, who was destined to understand His sovereignty in a way of special propriety, He then is designated Lord. Then also the Scripture added the name Lord: "And the Lord God, Deus Dominus, took the man, whom He had formed;" Genesis 2:15 "And the Lord God commanded Adam." Genesis 2:16 Thenceforth He, who was previously God only, is the Lord, from the time of His having something of which He might be the Lord. For to Himself He was always God, but to all things was He only then God, when He became also Lord.”

“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.”

“Although man was placed in paradise so as to work and guard it, that praiseworthy work was not toilsome. For the work in paradise is quite different from the work on the earth to which he was condemned after the sin. The addition "and to guard it" indicated the sort of work it was. For in the tranquility of the happy life, where there is no death, the only work is to guard what you possess.”

“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.”

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

“put the man into the garden of Eden to dress it--not only to give him a pleasant employment, but to place him on his probation, and as the title of this garden, the garden of the Lord (Gen 13:10; Eze 28:13), indicates, it was in fact a temple in which he worshipped God, and was daily employed in offering the sacrifices of thanksgiving and praise.”

“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.”