Genesis 2

 •  24 min. read  •  grade level: 8
 
It is not the fact of man's being a living soul that is the distinctive point, but the manner of it. The statement, " Thou shalt surely die " (v. 17), certainly implies that, had he not, he should not have died-death entered by sin-the power of the breath of God would have sustained life, but it would have been life here, in relationship with this world. All that follows is government, and consequence as to this- outside the place into which God had brought man, in probation, in blessing. Afterward, in this state, the question is raised of obtaining life there by obeying, as he had lost it by disobeying, but this, also, in the sphere in which it all took place-the earth.
Then, indeed, God gives life (as in fact from the beginning He had done, in view of redemption) in connection with another world.
Real, moral separation from God, sin, and what it was, is known only spiritually; though conscience, knowledge of good and evil, is in all, though away from Him.
NOTE.-Hence whenever a man seeks eternal life (even if he has it) he is under law.
God has given it to us in His Son, though we do seek it in a certain sense, as we have it not yet externally in its own sphere; we have it, but not formally, in another world. Hence in Rom. 2 (where the great eternal, unchangeable principles of good and evil are maintained, paramount to all dispensational dealings) those who go right, though eternal life be given as the result (apodosei will render), yet they seek glory, honor, and incorruptibility; we are called, as Peter says, by glory and virtue-nor does he speak of being sinners merely-that they were, but contentious, and not obeying the truth, and having pleasure in unrighteousness; yet the judgment is universal on every soul of man working evil.
If eternal life be given as John unfolds it, that does not weaken the judgment of right and wrong, which even made it necessary; only there is the atonement of full efficacy when life is given. Eternal life, though really given, and our life, is yet surely looked at in resurrection blessedness; yet while its nature could be fully happy alone there, it is equally true that its nature, which will be happy there, is already in us, and that nature is the principal thing, because it enjoys God, and this even true as to the millennium.
Eternal life will not be satisfied, though blessed then, because the Prince of Life and Peace is there, and the power and contradiction, and temptation of Satan gone; nor do I suppose they will die; still, if life be there, there is the seeking for glory, honor and incorruption; and the sight of Christ—the perfect display of it—sustains this.
There is not the kind of desire we have, because the eternal life, nature, is enclosed in this tabernacle, in which we groan in conflict and temptation, and they enjoy, under a present Christ, the full effect of holy and righteous power; but if groaning after it be not there, holy desires I doubt not will, but this will be in communion with Christ. The thing displayed is government, which will be celebrated, but there will be within, what will characterize saints, that they still wait a better or fuller accomplishment of their relationship with God; only they wait in peace, fully glorifying Christ there.
In this chapter God forms man dust from the " ground," i.e., he had his form first of all without life, and then breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. God Himself was the source of life to him, " for we also are his offspring." He was Ha-adam (Man) from ha-adamah (the ground), and then got life from God; it was thus Adam became a living soul. That man, and man only, had life from God, not simply by will as an angel might, but communicated from God and in a body, is evident, but only as life—existence. As to animals, they are formed from the ground, but they are brought to Adam to name as the paramount lord; it is their relation to Adam here, not their nature; all refers to Adam's place before God. Alive, through the breath of God in his nostrils; responsible, in the garden he had been placed in to enjoy; lord of the animals by God's authority; and God, interested in his estate, gives him a helpmeet taken out of himself, made for him, not a human being with him.
In the first chapter it was the animal's place with God as Creator, and Adam before Him; the second chapter is not repetition, nor is it another contradictory report as alleged—one is creation, and every creature's place in it or over it; the other the whole moral place of man when God, the Lord God, set him up as such.
- 4. The right division is here; the term " God," and then " Lord God " alone shows it.
The first chapter of Genesis should be clearly to the end of chapter 2: 3; this is complete, with Elohim. God created, and God rested, and sanctified the seventh day. The serpent speaks of Elohim, as such, in contrast with His creature; but Jehovah Elohim is in communication with Adam and Eve.
So Eve and Cain refer to " Jehovah," nor is it here " Jehovah Elohim," but simple " Jehovah "; only Eve in giving birth to Seth says " Elohim," so the following history of Seth's family is " Elohim." All this is simply historical, not the mind of one knowing Jehovah and His ways, showing what they were.
" Jehovah " I apprehend is simple relationship; " Jehovah Elohim " relationship, and moral dealing connected with God in His moral character as such. So in chapter 6 " Jehovah " said (v. 3) " My spirit "; that was directly His ways with men. But " Elohim " saw (v. 5) God, such as He is as God—this was the great historical fact; (vv. 6-8) his relationship to man—" Jehovah "; (v. 9) historical again to the end, the Creator deals with creation; chapter 7 " Jehovah " deals with Noah, but I should begin chapter 8 at chapter 7: 17, thence to chapter 8: 19; verses 20, 22 are specific relationship according to the estimate of the writer; chapter 9 history, again " Elohim "; then clearly all is with the Creator, and the earth, so on till we have " Jehovah Elohim " of Shem. Nimrod was a hunter " before Jehovah," it is morally viewed, not merely before God—" before God " would not have the same thought; exceeding great, but " before the Lord " is another thing; he was morally viewed and judged. Then in Babel we get dearly moral responsibility and relationship, and so on with Abraham, though there in electing grace. I think judgment is associated with " Jehovah," it is, however, mainly relationship.
NOTE.—Chapter 4 is in connection with chapters 2 and 3, i.e., on the ground of " Jehovah's " dealings—chapter 5 on the natural ground of " Elohim " again—man's history on the earth—" Jehovah's " previous dealings, as such, are referred to at the end—chapter 6 commences " Jehovah's " dealings again.
It is to be remarked that Sodom, as Nimrod, is before the " Lord." The typical victory of Abraham gives Jehovah a new name, One above all gods, whose heaven and earth are, and that in possession.
NOTE.—Though " Jehovah Elohim " is used in the history of Eden, both the Serpent and Eve say only " Elohim." Passing over Enos, whatever the force of that may be, we get Noah building an altar to " Jehovah "; I suppose a name religiously known from Enos—there the blessing is, note, from " Jehovah," God of Shem, while Japhet's being enlarged is only " Elohim." The next is chapter 12, Abraham built an altar to “Jehovah," and called on the name of “Jehovah"; chapter 14: 22, we have more; chapter 15: 2 is " Adonai Jehovah," if I recollect. Sarai calls Him “Jehovah" in chapter 16. The revelation of the name of relationship is in chapter 17, but it is not “Jehovah” in chapter 18, but that was appearing as a man—it was altogether fitting. The angels and Lot say “Jehovah." In chapter 22 “Elohim” all through till Abraham calls it “Jehovah" Jireh.
5. V'a-dam a-yin " And man was not "; it was the state of things.
7. N' sha-mah (breath) seems to me the act of respiration, souffle; ruakh (spirit) (chap. 7: 22, etc.), the existence of respiration as life, spirit or life in us. God breathed into man's nostrils a nish-math khay-yim (breath of life), it is not there ruakh. Thus we have, in the Flood, all in whom was
the nish-math ruakh khay-yim (breath of the spirit of life)—this spirit of life itself—ne-phesh khay-yah, a living soul, is all that constitutes individuality—personality—what taken together constitutes I—a person without reference to the body, though in it and living in it, and hence, if used for a dead body,
as being the apparent person. The ru-akh is the power of life which is exercised in us in breathing, the thing that acts, and in us lives, by breath. Man became a ne-phesh khay-yah (soul of life) by God's breathing the nish-math khay-yim into the formed and organized dust, and so there was a ru-akh which was life, and in the body maintained by breathing.
God did not breathe a ru-akh, nor did man become n'sha-mah, or even ru-akh, but a ne-phesh. Ru-akh being the power of life, this word ru-akh is used of Him; it is the active power of God. As to the rest, I have remarked.
As far as I see without a concordance we have only ne-phesh khay-yah (soul of life), then ru-akh khay-yim (breath of life), or nish-math ru-akh khay-yim (breath of the spirit of life). The ru-akh khay-yim (breath of life) made man a ne-phesh khay-yah (a soul of life). The ru-akh khay-yim (breath of life) was in flesh, but no being was ru-akh khay-yim (breath of life), man was (became) ne-phesh khay-yah (a soul of life). Then, moreover, arises the question, is ne-phesh khay-yah (soul of life) said of any but man? It is said, Gen. 1:20, 2120And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:20‑21), of what the waters brought forth, and verse 24 of what the earth.
Whatever I suppose had ru-akh khay-yim (breath of life) was ne-phesh khay-yah (a soul of life). Indeed ne-phesh is itself breath or breathing And this form of life, animal life (I suppose animal the same derivating) man clearly has. But the difference is immense of his becoming so by Elohim's breathing into his nostrils, so that we you gar kai genos esmen.
The object of Genesis z is not the Beschaffenheit (constitution). God formed the beasts of or from the ground; so Adam, dust from the ground, not a man from the ground, but dust, and then breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and thus from this breathing in of God he became a living personality—the offspring of God in His existence. Hence God says (chap. 3: 19) " and to dust shalt thou return," but that in no way affected that which was breathed into the dust, or spring in man from that divine breathing. And, as I have remarked, whatever divine intimation there may be in chapter 2: 17 or chapter 3: 3, in the execution of judgment, there was only reference to this world, not to the soul; all that was behind. Thus, " He drove out the man," was removal from God's presence, and his place before God; but, externally, it was only exclusion from Paradise.
The whole question of the soul's relationship to God and a judgment after death is untouched here, though, as a spiritual person, I may see separation from God to be eternal ruin. Gradually the instinct of man's soul was lit up by the declarations of the Spirit in the Old Testament, particularly the Psalms, but there was no revelation of life and incorruptibility till the Gospel; they were not brought to light. The Pharisees were right—they had concluded it from the Old Testament, and the Sadducees did not know the Scriptures and the power of God. But the Lord Himself draws it from " I am the God of Abraham," etc., and it is added, " for all live unto him "; death is only death as to this world and man's place there. This revelation has so much the more clearness that the original sentence was limited to that; all still lived to God. So of eternal judgment, it was part of Jewish faith, as in Heb. 6, but formed no part of the original revelation. Wrath of God from heaven on men was revealed when the Gospel came in, for it met it.
The deep moral effect is justly pressed—He drove out the man—that the God of love, the Creator, should do; that cannot be too deeply estimated. It is rightly felt as judgment, when I know what God and a soul and divine favor means, but the doctrine of soul and life, etc., is not entered on in the passage.
So in Ezekiel, though " the soul that sinneth it shall die," it is still dealing with a living man, responsible on the earth; it may be used as a warning and threat, but its application is life on the earth in the land of Israel.
In 1 Cor. 15 we have exactly the same statement as to the first man. He is ek ges, choikos, and we see here that it applies to man as here in the body. It is mortal—sown in corruption—flesh—corruptible, i.e., it is the body—man alive on earth in a corruptible mortal body. It is the body which is always designated thus.
In speaking of blood it is always the life of the flesh, not of man, but of all flesh, though of man as flesh, i.e., in his animal nature. Indeed, in Gen. 9 it is carefully distinguished.
For v'naph'sho—with, or for the life of it, compare Lev. 17:1414For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off. (Leviticus 17:14), twice, and Gen. 9:44But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. (Genesis 9:4); from the last it is evident, I think, that the expression means in its state of living existence, flesh; v'naph'sho, is not to be eaten; and that state—of flesh ruined—lies in its blood. Thus, Lev. 17:1414For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off. (Leviticus 17:14), becomes plain, " the life of all flesh," i.e., the subject life in flesh. The fact is simply stated at the end of the verse: ne'phesh kol-ba-sar' da-mo hu—" the life of all flesh is its blood "; i.e., the abstract principle—flesh's life—is the blood. The beginning of the verse merely adds that it is in its state of living existence. Gen. 9:44But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. (Genesis 9:4), comes in to show that the term means with the life in it—flesh, with the life in it—or its state of living existence—which is the blood.
This makes it, I think, quite plain, and it is important too.
7. To go back to this verse; it is evident that it is the nature, the Beschaffenheit (constitution) of man, what he is really, and, at the end of the chapter, the woman's relationship with him in creation; it would have been quite out of place to have introduced her having the breath of life from God; it is not even said she had a living soul. In chapter 1: 24 we have what the beast is, how he was created, the way he existed as a living thing; as this verse does of Adam, how he did. In chapter 1: 26 it is not said even that man was a living soul; his distinct place in creation is pointed out.
As regards Eve not having the breath of God breathed into her nostrils, it is not the subject of this chapter, but her relationship to ha-ish (the man); otherwise she is included in the ha-a-dam, who is made in the likeness of God. They were called ha-a-dam in the day they were created, and she is fully aware of the prohibition to eat the forbidden fruit as alike applicable to both (vv. 16, 17). No doubt this speaks primarily of Adam by reason of verse 18; but it is not the less certain that it is ha-a-dam, the race, that is contemplated—chap. 3: 3 gives the command to Eve as to Adam, ha-a-dam had it; verse 18 begins a history by itself, so verses 7 and 8 are both distinct elements in the account. Adam is looked at as ha-adam—as the head of the race, but chapter 5 shows Eve was included, " Let us make Adam," but so God created ha-a-dam, male and female. This (chap. 1) is Adam's creature place, from Elohim—chapter 2: 8, his relative place with Jehovah, including Eve, verse 18 et seq; his relative place to Eve; chapter 3: 20, hers to all that followed. Chapter 5: I, 2, both in respect of the whole race.
7, 25. All this is the sixth day.
8. This is a constituted place of present blessing and trial. He was not created in Eden, but of dust, and the breath of life breathed into him, that is all; the garden is formed, and he is placed there under such and such conditions. The whole scene is one of relationships, and the footing on which the man stood in every respect.
15 et seq: blessing, responsibility, purpose of union, conferred intelligent dominion; then his partner, but his own position was with God first. And though the woman was first in transgression, yet the Lord says " Thou," and speaks to Adam of the disobedience; for temptation never justifies departure from God.
19, 20. This implies a kind of knowledge given of God, which man has not now. Nature, as such, was much more, and otherwise the domain of man.
20. The first Adam is ha-a-dam, the second time simple l'a-dam (to man); that is, the first is man as such in his place, before God, put by Him in the place of authority, of which naming in Scripture is the constant sign. All was thus placed under his authority from God; this put him in his place with God as to this. God brought to him every beast, etc. But he, though in this place, with all authority from God (Psa. 8) found, in all that had been brought before him, no associate, no help k'neg-do (as before him), none to answer to what he was, and be before him as such. Adam, let him be ever so much ha-adam—the man—in this place of authority, found no companion for Adam. Ma-tza (found), if not referred to ha-a-dam, must be referred to God, as bringing all this before him; the immediate antecedent is ha-a-dam, otherwise it must be referred back to vay-ya-ve (and he brought), verse 19.
21. This is after he is in Eden and dominion over creation, but the purpose (v. 18) expressed, before Adam in lordship is conscious of suited relationship in contrast with creation, and of the quality and source of Eve, when he receives her. In Christ there is necessarily more in His divine purpose of love—as man' it is so also with Him; but He consequently takes her before the exercise of his lordship, but not before His title to it as exalted, see Eph. 1:2222And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, (Ephesians 1:22).
23. NOTE.—Adam had the knowledge and consciousness of the manner of the formation of his wife, though it were done in a deep sleep—zoth (this) seems all through in contrast as well as hap-pa-am (the time), with the beasts. He gives her a name as well as them, but a name which in the most intimate way connects her with himself. If she was k'neg-do (as before him), it was that she was me-ish (from man). Yet it was in some sense the side on which he was connected with the animals. The hap-pa-am shows this clearly, as indeed zoth, though there is contrast, and this is important as being in creation itself, yet now called to walk together in the grace of life and in spirit; in k'neg-do there is neither male nor female, so truly is it a new creation. But here he gives her a name, as to the others, and Elohim brought her to the man; but then, spiritual things apart, he needed the help, it was not good he should be alone. She was not brought merely to know what he would call her; the identity too with himself, or derivation from himself, was his first thought. The cause of her name was in this. Still it was only one flesh. How thoroughly true and expressive is Paul's statement, " The man was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression," and " the woman was made for the man, not the man for the woman." In the creation she is put e'-zer k'neg-do (a help as before him). In the fall all passes with her, and Adam is I-shah, her man. But in Christ all is new, there is neither male nor female.
- 24, 25. These are, I apprehend, the remarks of the inspired writer.
I have noticed it in a measure, but the passage from chapter 1: 25, 26 is very remarkable and distinct; the day's work ends, so to speak, as to mere creatures of God's hand, with " God saw that it was good." Then comes His mind, God said " let us."
Query, What is man? He is first God's image—represents Him, and presents Him; that it might be rightly so, He created him in His likeness, but the point, as we see in verse 27, was His image. The beasts were l'min-ah (to its kind), but man kid mu the nu (according to our likeness); Adam begat a son in his own likeness, after his image, conversely.
Man is the image and glory of God—stands out before God, as one that characteristically represents Him, showing His power and mind, and yet only representing and presenting Him. Hence Christ, in the highest sense, is the Image of the invisible God; he refers to God entirely, yet represents Him as a Viceroy. Besides this, Christ is God manifest, and so only fully presents Him; but we ought to present Christ, but that is another thing.
K' (as) or kath (according to) is not exactly " in," verse 26. We read of the likeness of the appearance of a man; the likeness of four living creatures—of their faces; the likeness was k' (as) coals of fire (Ezek. 1:1313As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like burning coals of fire, and like the appearance of lamps: it went up and down among the living creatures; and the fire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightning. (Ezekiel 1:13)). Seth was in Adam's likeness, the same thing man is according to the way God is seen and known, he is not the same, but answers to what God is and is set forth as him in whom God represents Himself. The conscious center of reflective power, though dependent on God, or not really representing Him, but so void of evil that it might be so, and his consciousness towards God abide, that he might consciously be in the place which was His image. The Viceroy has the King's power, not his own, or he is not one, but has the King's power, i.e. not in efficiency necessarily, but in title, and place towards those below him—" have dominion and power " is another thing.
But the peculiar place of man is most remarkable, he must be very miserable or very happy. No doubt, now, it is necessarily so, more than in Adam, because the knowledge of good and evil, and of God through the death of Christ is come in. But there was real likeness—no evil in man—though no holiness and righteousness and intercourse with God, free. A mind—I do not mean reasoning—having capacity for it, in communicated thoughts and feelings, as we know from his history in the garden—that which God could appeal to (not mere conscience), as competent to receive, and enter into, and return, as impressed, His thoughts; and so Adam even when guilty can, though wickedly, still about that which God is cognizant of. This is an immense point.
In " Adam, where art thou? " we have natural relationship recognized; " the woman thou gavest me," though thoroughly wretched, and wicked, yet deals with God, as the object of, and cognizant of His doings. And so does man now, though presumptuously, and wickedly. So God with Cain; he is able to understand God's moral reasoning. Now this was rightly so, less conscience before the Fall; he would own God, know goodness, know power, feel His goodness, know his place, know the beast's, know Eve's; have God's mind in respect of Himself, and His ways in creation; was competent, as looking to Him, to act naturally from him in his created place. All this was a great matter; in all this he stood alone. But the "image" was the place, the "likeness," glorious as it was, was needed for it; the " how " is not stated here, it is the fact that is stated.
Yet of course the word means, generally, something, but if I say " That man is very like his father," it is the fact, without saying what all the points of resemblance are though, of course, there are such, but the fact strikes, when I may not yet see what it is in distinctly. And the fact here, as it is like God, is the important thing. I have no doubt it was in simply answering to the mind of God a very different thing from reasoning to draw a conclusion, which is the proof of ignorance, and the opposite to what God does.
We can easily understand that, if God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, there must have been in kind, and capacity of being, what answered to God's nature, but in responsibility personally. It was as a creature—"let us make," so God created, but in making He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Hence in his living soul there was necessary association with God, or, as a sinner, exclusion with a natural capacity of enjoying the sense of it hidden for a time. It is not here a question of what the affections towards God were, but of the natural capacity; so Elohim speaks to them, which He did to none else, even when He blessed them, besides much else.
The angels are never said to be created in the image and likeness of God, as man is; I suppose they have the knowledge of good and evil, and so in creature righteousness and holiness, are so far more what God is. This, man had by the Fall, " the man is become as one of us, knowing good and evil "; this, therefore, was not the image or likeness.