Genesis 2:4-9

Recommended Resources:

Garden City | Book by John Mark Comer

Even Better Than Eden | Book by Nancy Guthrie

Ancient Cosmology | Podcast series by The Bible Project

The Mountain Garden and the Human Ideal | Podcast episode 20 in How To Read the Bible series by TBP

Commentary:

2:5- Genesis 2:5 paints a portrait of the unproductive dry land that is devoid of plant life and human life. That’s a problem when you realize that Days 3 and 6 already described the creation of plant and human life in chapter 1. And as this chapter continues, other differences appear including the creation of humanity before plants and animals. Discrepancies like this lead me and several others to believe that chapter 2 is not a continuation of chapter 1 but rather a retelling of chapter 1. Parallel couplets are extremely common in Hebrew poetry and even narrative throughout the Bible, so there is plenty of precedent for this argument. Chapter 2 then returns us to the state of tohu-vavohu (wild and waste) from Genesis 1:2, but now, the story is told from the perspective of an untamed wilderness rather than a chaotic sea.

“What is the difference between ‘shrub of the field’ (שיח השדה ) and ‘plant of the field’ (עשב השדה)?

• ‘Shrub’ ( שִׂ֣יחַ): non-edible shrubs, used mostly of uncultivated land, wilderness areas (see Genesis 21:15). In Job 30:4, 7, the scene involves starving people in desolate areas, eating plants that are hardly edible in order to survive. The shock of the scene is of people trying to eat and live off of ‘shrub.’

• ‘Plant’ (עֵ֥שֶׂב ): this refers to edible plants and vegetables. In Genesis 1:11, it is the growth from the dry land after it emerges from the sea, and in Genesis 1:29-30, these are the plants given to humans and animals as food (see also Genesis 9:3; Exodus 10:15).

The dual plant reference is a way of talking about any and all plant growth. Inedible or edible, none of it was growing in the land because of the lack of water. Two reasons are given for the lack of any kind of plants:

1. No rain (preview forward to the flood narrative)

2. No human to work the ground (preview forward to the human’s purpose in Eden in 2:15 and after the exile from Eden in 3:23)”

-From The Bible Project’s Adam to Noah Classroom Notes

Notably, the Bible never says that there was no rain before the Flood. People have often looked at this verse and assumed it says there was no rain pre-Flood. But the verse simply states that God had not yet caused it to rain. All it’s saying is there was no rain up until this point in the story. No statement is made regarding what happens after the point at which this verse took place. I think most of the faulty assumptions come from an Answers in Genesis-esque belief that the raqia (firmament) was a dome that held back the rains but was removed/destroyed at the time of the Flood. The problem with that view is that we’re told exactly what the raqia is in Genesis 1:8. It’s just another word for the skies above us. The sky was not removed at the Flood. At the risk of beating a dead horse, I find it worth bringing up again that we are dealing with an Ancient Near Eastern document using Ancient Near Eastern imagery. To the people of that time and culture, the sky was a big dome that kept water above them from crashing down. Sure, sometimes it leaked, but it still remains up there, even after a flood.

Furthermore, it’s worth noting that this particular word for causing to rain does not usually refer to normal occurrences of rain. It moreso refers to unique divinely-caused events like Genesis 7:4, Genesis 19:24, Exodus 9:23, and Exodus 16:4.

2:6- Contrary to popular belief, the word translated “mist” here actually means streams. The text does not say that a morning mist (It never says morning at all.) watered the earth in place of rain. It’s saying that streams/rivers bubbled up and watered the land.

2:7- Conservative Christians have often taken this verse to mean that God literally formed dust into the first human. That is a possibility, but it breaks down a bit when you realize the Bible talks about other humans being formed from dust even though they have human parents (cf Job 10:8-9, 33:4-6, Psalm 103:14, Isaiah 64:8). It’s possible that by saying humanity comes from dust, the Bible is using a word picture to emphasize the brevity and fragility of life.

“Being formed from dust is a statement about [human] essence and identity, not our substance. In this, Adam is an archetype… If we are all formed from dust, yet at the same time we are born of a mother through a normal birth process, we can see that being formed from dust, while true of each of us, is not a statement about each of our material origins. One can be born of a woman yet still be formed from dust; all of us are… ‘Formed from dust’ is not a statement of material origins for any of us, and there is no reason to think that it is a statement of Adam’s material origins. For Adam, as for all of us, that we are formed from dust makes a statement about our identity as mortals. Since it pertains to all of us, it is archetypal.” — John Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve, 76–77

I realize this concept can be disorienting to many people the first time they hear it. That’s ok. There is no pressure to accept any theological position immediately. It is important to remember that even if comments like this feel like taking away from Scripture, it is not taking away from Scripture to point out what Scripture actually says. It is good and holy to question, deconstruct, and reconstruct our own assumptions and interpretations that we’ve equated with Scripture. Questioning our standard interpretations of the Bible is not the same thing as questioning the Bible. While the Bible is inspired and without error, our interpretations of it are by no means guaranteed to be no matter how many times men in suits and ties may parrot the same opinions.

This passage also contains several similarities to other Ancient Near Eastern mythologies. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, the god Aruru formed the human Enkidu from clay in the image of the god Anu. “A significant difference, of course, is that humans in the biblical story are fully formed and distinct from the animals. Enkidu, however, appears to be more animal than man. ‘His whole body is covered with hair,’ and he ‘knows nothing about people or land.’ Instead, he eats, drinks and plays with the animals.

The more interesting parallels, however, occur shortly after Enkidu’s creation. A hunter, frustrated as Enkidu helps the animals evade his traps, uses a woman to seduce him. The translations differ on what to call her. Many, including Heidel, call her a prostitute, while Matthews uses ‘wise woman.’ By sleeping with Enkidu, she is to make him abhorrent to the animals.

She is spectacularly successful, as she and Enkidu have sex for six days and seven nights, and, indeed, after they are finished, the animals reject him. Enkidu has irrevocably changed; ‘he had intelligence, wide was his understanding.’

He returns to the woman, and she tells him, ‘Wise art thou, O Enkidu. Like a god art thou.’ She teaches him how to eat and drink like a human and, most importantly, clothes him.

This is strongly reminiscent of the familiar biblical text, in which the serpent tells Eve eating from the forbidden tree will make her like God (Gen. 3:5), and after she does so, she and Adam are ashamed of their nakedness and clothed by God.’

Blenkinsopp notes the stories have a number of similarities beyond simply the surface parallels: Adam and Enkidu not only both move from unashamed nakedness to a godlike understanding that leads them naturally to require clothing, but each does so through the initiative of a woman. -https://disorientedtheology.wordpress.com/smartypants-stuff/its-all-about-sex/

“As for the creation of mankind, there are diverse accounts in Egyptian literature, but a recurring conception is the making of man from clay. This has similarities to Gen 2:7, where man is made with the “dust” of the earth. The Hymn to Khnum depicts the deity at the potter’s wheel forming man, and Hekat the goddess gives the clay figure the breath of life in its nostrils. The Instruction of Amenemope reads, ‘Man is clay and straw, and God is his potter.’ In the Instruction for Merikare the deity Re made man: ‘He placed the breath of life in their nostrils. They who have issued from his body are his images.’ In Egyptian sources, unlike the Bible, there is little interest in the creation of the woman.” -K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary

Humanity is a combination of the earth, life-giving water (to make mud), and the breath of God. At our very first breath, we are already the linking of heaven and earth. -The Bible Project

2:8- Thus begins a theme of planting gardens in an attempt to return to Eden. The next use of this word “planted” is in Genesis 9:20 when Noah planted a vineyard. He tried to do the same thing God did, but he ended up doing the same thing Adam and Eve did. In Genesis 21:33, Abraham plants his own little garden paradise in the desert. Moses sang of God’s planting His people in His mountain in Exodus 15:17. The author of Ecclesiastes tried to find Eden peace in planting vineyards (Ecclesiastes 2:4-5). Israel ends up in the land of Babylon, famous for the hanging gardens. When Jesus passes His testing in the wilderness, Mark mentions that He spent time with animals while being served by angels. Out of a chaotic, untamed, testing wilderness, He sits at peace with animals and the spiritual realm. Sounds like Garden of Eden language. Consider as well where Jesus retreated to before His crucifixion—His favorite garden. And to wrap it all up, once you get to the New Jerusalem in Revelation 22, you see a river and the tree of life split into several other trees. We’re finally back at Eden rest with God in a garden city, the perfect mixing of heaven and earth.

East becomes a really important word in the Biblical narrative. It’s often going to be negative, like humanity going east of Eden, blocked by cherubim on the east side. Jonah travels east of Nineveh to watch it be destroyed. Israel is taken east into Babylonian captivity. But then, God also still works in the east as well. He set the star of Bethlehem in the eastern sky. His return is said to be in the eastern sky. Note though that all of this is relative to the central location of Jerusalem. It would be west if you’re living east of there. But since the writers were Jewish, they assume a geographical position from within Israel when they write. It’s like how we call their area of the world the Near East. Well, if you live in the Near East, it’s not east to you.

2:9- In this narrative, humanity comes before the creation of much of the plant life.

Pay attention to how the aesthetic purpose of the trees is mentioned before the sustenance purpose. God really values beauty. We can be quick to dismiss things that we don’t think serve a purpose. But God cares about beauty and art. The glory of creation that wows you is on purpose. Sometimes things can exist simply for pleasure. Not everything needs to have a greater purpose than just being pretty. That’s purpose in and of itself.

From a different angle though, we can note that it is this very quality of a certain tree that led to humanity’s downfall.

Let us observe regarding that tree that it is the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, not the Evil Tree of Knowledge. The tree itself was not evil. Next week we will discuss what exactly the tree was and what purpose it served.