Back

Contents

Next

Transitioning from Global to Local

If you are familiar with the book of Genesis in general outline, you will be aware that, in the main, the geographic focus of Genesis becomes increasingly narrow, especially after the flood. We have seen some of that already. The last reference to the universe as a whole was in day four, when God made the stars. After that, the narrative is concerned with the earth alone. Now as we will see, we will transition from the earth as a whole to the Garden in Eden. This second chapter has been a source of much completely needless confusion. Because of this, chapter 2 has also been rather productive of heresies and has provided much fodder for creative but false interpretations in support of various Framework Hypotheses. Common to all of these Framework Hypotheses are detailed and intricate “explanations” that are far more complex than the simple narrative before us. One such false scheme is to treat Genesis 2:4–25 as a repetition or further explanation of Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:3 or vice versa. Sadly, all of these herculean endeavors are merely false guesses that contradict other clear teachings of Scripture. So let us proceed carefully and cautiously. Albert Einstein is credited with saying that everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. Because God gave the Scriptures to all of us, not merely the Einsteins, we should also seek clarity and simplicity.

“These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created” (v. 4a). You may recall that chapter 1 left us hanging a little bit. It spoke of the creation of mankind, but the details were scanty; there was no mention of Eve, for example. Chapter 2 contains many more details about God’s dealings with mankind, specifically with Adam and Eve. Further, the geography shrinks drastically, from the whole earth to the Garden in Eden. As any experienced writer will tell you, this calls for a smooth literary transition from one to the other. This is a title and part of the transition, as will become clear below.

In Hebrew, “these are the generations” is an idiom for “this is the history.” Sometimes, of course, the idiom is quite literal, as only a genealogy follows. But neither the English history nor genealogy quite capture all the nuances. We should look at other toledaw,⁴⁰ as they are sometimes called, in Genesis. These are recognizable by their form: These are the generations of X… or something very similar. To make an accurate evaluation of all eleven that appear in Genesis, one must examine rather large amounts of text, so that text will not be quoted here, except for the beginning of one as an example for discussion: “These are the generations of Shem. When Shem was 100 years old, he fathered Arpachshad two years after the flood. And Shem lived after he fathered Arpachshad 500 years and had other sons and daughters. When Arpachshad had lived 35 years, he fathered Shelah. And Arpachshad lived after he fathered Shelah 403 years and had other sons and daughters. When Shelah had lived 30 years, he fathered Eber” (Genesis 11:10–14). And this toledaw then continues for another eighteen verses about Shem’s descendants. Notice that the text is not mostly about Shem, but about his descendants. That is, the toledaw largely describes events that followed as a result of Shem. Followed as a result seems a strange way of describing the offspring of a parent, but it does accommodate the more general nature of a toledaw. The amount of following information about X itself can vary. Here is a short summary:

As you can see, usually a toledaw is largely, but not entirely, about what follows from X, not so much about X. To continue, here is the X of the toledaw now under consideration: “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” (v. 4b). So, in the case of Genesis 2:4a, the X is the creation described in chapter 1. The word made is not bawraw, but another Hebrew word, awsaw, which means to make, do, accomplish, and similar ideas; it is a broad word. (In fact, all occurrences of make, made, or done found in Genesis in the ESV so far are translated from awsaw.) Therefore, this use of yome would be best taken as referring to the entire six-day creation event, as is evident from the context. A reference back to Genesis 1:1 (alone) would have used created, not made. Thus, we conclude that Genesis 2:4 is a transition that prepares the reader for what follows the creation of the heavens and the earth (not necessarily all of the events of Genesis 1). We therefore also conclude that Genesis 2 is not some kind of restatement of Genesis 1. Finally, since this is a literary transition, we may expect references back to the events of chapter 1.

“That which has been is far off, and deep, very deep; who can find it out?” (Ecclesiastes 7:24). We have seen from the table above that a toledaw is usually a transition, not a sharp or well-defined break from previous events. We therefore seem to be left with the task of establishing the chronological relationship of the events of Genesis 2 to the events of Genesis 1. Scripture does not explicitly give us this information, and, depending on different interpretations of the text, one may come to different conclusions. In the narrative in Genesis 2, Adam is a principal character. Therefore, the events are taking place within the time frame of a human lifetime, not over the millions and billions of years required for Big-Bang cosmogony or evolution. For this reason, and because the chronology does not affect what happened, only when, the chronology question falls outside of the scope of the main purposes of this book and we will not attempt to definitively resolve it here. Nevertheless, considering that Genesis 2:7 refers to Adam’s creation, and so does Genesis 1:27, a reasonable option is to treat the events of Genesis 2:7–25 as occurring between Genesis 1:27 and the end of the sixth day, Genesis 1:30. This is consistent with the toledaw of Genesis 2:4 since the creation of the heavens and the earth and their contents is finished except for mankind and the Garden in Eden. This chronology will be examined in a bit more detail later.

Before going on with the literary transition, we must pause and consider the different meanings of ehrets, the fourth most commonly used Hebrew noun in the Old Testament; it is used more than 2,400 times. As you might guess, a word used that often will have multiple meanings. In the following passages, [ehrets] follows the English word that is translated from ehrets.

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth [ehrets]” (Genesis 1:1).

“God called the dry land Earth [ehrets], and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:10).

“Now the Lord said to Abram, ‘Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land [ehrets] that I will show you’” (Genesis 12:1).

“My lord, listen to me: a piece of land [ehrets] worth four hundred shekels of silver, what is that between you and me? Bury your dead” (Genesis 23:15).

“And Abner said again to Asahel, ‘Turn aside from following me. Why should I strike you to the ground [ehrets]? How then could I lift up my face to your brother Joab?’” (2 Samuel 2:22).

Earth and land are the two most common uses of ehrets. The first two chapters of Genesis contain many instances of ehrets, and translators must choose wisely between land and earth. Those who use other versions than the ESV 2011 may well find different translations of ehrets and may find it helpful to note these in their Bible for future reference. Also, there is a different Hebrew word that refers to dry ground, and another, adawmaw, that is usually used when referring to the soil.

The literary transition continues and also contains additional information:

“When no bush of the field was yet in the land [ehrets] and no small plant of the field [sawdeh: field or farm, or flat land such as a plain] had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land [ehrets], and there was no man to work the ground [adawmaw]”—(v. 5 ESV)—“and a mist was going up from the land [ehrets] and was watering the whole face of the ground [adawmaw]—” (v. 6 ESV).

“When no bush of the field was yet in the land [ehrets] and no small plant of the field [sawdeh: field or farm, or flat land such as a plain] had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land [ehrets], and there was no man to work the ground [adawmaw]”—(v. 5 ESV)—“and a mist was going up from the earth [ehrets] and was watering the whole face of the ground [adawmaw]—” (v. 6, earth underlined is the author’s suggestion of an alternate translation).

These two verses are also part of the literary transition; they set the stage for the present point in the narrative by describing the situation as it then existed—it is the result of what God did or did not do during day three. The choice in verse 5 of land for ehrets in two places tells us that the scene (location) is now the site of the future Garden in Eden. The ESV has done well in beginning this verse with When; combined with the yet, it indicates an indefinite amount of time that follows day three. Bush is well translated, but it may equally be translated shrub or plant, but small plant refers principally to grass or herbs, plants without woody stems. Some have suggested that the reference is to cultivated plants, but the text neither clearly supports nor clearly refutes that idea. This passage has some ambiguities in it and raises some questions. Before attempting answers, it is important to recall that God’s entire creation work is a set of miracles, so reasoning from natural laws must be done with caution.

In the account of day three in Genesis 1:11–12, God created lush vegetation on the earth, including fruit trees. Genesis 1:11 and 1:12 both use the same three distinctive Hebrew words that refer to plants. One means trees in that context, and the other two have a range of meanings. Of these, dehsheh may mean grass, sprout, greenery, vegetation, or herb. And the second word, ehseb, may mean herb, grass, or vegetation. This latter word is the one translated small plant here in verse 5, and these small plants, present on the earth from day three, are now missing from this site. Also missing are bushes/shrubs/plants, that is, larger tree-like plants. Given the range of somewhat overlapping meanings of these botanical words, we can hardly be precise, but clearly this site was relatively bare of vegetation compared with the earth in general. God gives two reasons for this: first, there had yet been no rain on the site, and second, there was no man to work the ground.

We should understand this site to be the site of the future Garden in Eden for at least three reasons. First, if the above description referred to the entire earth, it would contradict Genesis 1:11–12. Second, the site appears to be dependent on the work of man; one man could hardly work the entire earth. Third, verse 8, just two verses later, speaks directly about the Garden in Eden. It is for these reasons I have retained the translation of ehrets to land (instead of earth) in verse 5 above.

The word ade, here translated mist, only appears in one other place in Scripture, and its meaning is uncertain, other than the fact that it is water, since it waters, literally gives a drink to, plants. Now, there are actually places on earth, including the Middle East, where mist and dew are very significant agriculturally. So mist is not ruled out. But the context would also allow spring, water that originates in the earth and comes up to the surface. Beyond that, there could well have been some other natural mechanism, of which we have no concept, that did not survive the fall and flood. Also, in Genesis 2:10, we see that a river, possibly originating from the ade, flowed out of Eden to water the Garden in Eden, but it is unclear if this was the case prior to when God planted the Garden.

Some questions remain, and, as before, we must be willing to let God have His mysteries. Yet, if we can find at least plausible answers, it helps us understand and internalize the narrative’s teachings. Another important reason is that it lends credibility to our understanding of the narrative in contrast to the false teachings of Framework Hypotheses. Please notice that the issue is the credibility of our understanding, not of God’s narrative.

First, were plants being watered by this mist or spring (instead of rain) only at the future site of the Garden in Eden or was this a worldwide phenomenon? The text itself does not entirely unambiguously answer this question, but it does give us some significant evidence. First, verse 6 tells us this mist/spring system watered the whole face of the ground [adawmaw]. In the context of the Garden site alone, the whole seems superfluous, so we may understand the whole to refer to the ground over the entire earth. Second, rainbows were new at the time Noah got off the ark. “I have set my bow⁴¹ in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth” (Genesis 9:13).⁴² Also, there is no further mention in Scripture of rain until the flood of Noah, though this is weak evidence due to the limited detail seen in narratives in the early part of Genesis. Finally, if rain were a normal phenomenon at the time, there would be no reason for Scripture to make a point of telling us there existed the alternate system of the ade.

Some further evidence for a lack of rain on the earth is connected with the fact that there was no man to work the ground. Recall that the site is not described as being flat-out desert; there was some vegetation, and the variety of vegetation is normally limited in areas of low water availability. Since the site was yet undeveloped, perhaps there was not a fully developed “irrigation system,” for want of a better term, that would have watered a more diverse plant population, especially a system suited for the better trees yet to be planted, and there was no man to install or maintain such a system. This would not have been a problem had there been rain since rain normally covers wide areas. Therefore, we favor the translation of ehrets, not as land, but as earth, in verse six.

Now obviously, God did not make a mistake and overlook the site of the future Garden. So why did He leave it somewhat barren, and unlike the rest of the earth, with only a limited water supply? God is infinitely wise, and His creation processes will reflect that. Unlike a human manufacturing operation, there was no duplicated work, scrap, rework, or the like. So let us consider a homeowner who buys a newly built house and the contractor had replaced and leveled the topsoil, leaving the rest of the landscaping to the homeowner. Of course, there may be some trees left standing also. The homeowner wants to put a garden in this spot, a tool shed in that spot, and a flower bed in a third spot. Now, does a wise homeowner put sod everywhere on the now-bare topsoil, only to use a rototiller on the sod where the garden will be, put the shed on top of the sod there, and hoe up more sod for the flower bed? Or does he skip the sod where something else is to go? “And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed” (Genesis 2:8). So what do you think? During the first six days, could God have left the place of the future Garden in Eden relatively bare of other vegetation? This author’s educated guess is that God, knowing His future plans, left the site of the future Garden somewhat bare on day three, when He created vegetation generally. God would have purposefully kept some of the plants from day three that He wanted to end up in the finished Garden. For example, perhaps God kept out fruit trees from day three because He would later plant better fruit trees (verse 9), but may have left (for example) lumber trees from day three.

It is important to make a distinction here: the guess pertaining to why God left a more or less bare spot is very uncertain; to pretend to definitely know God’s mind would be presumptuous and arrogant. That part of the guess is only to show the reasonableness of the interpretation of verse 5 teaching that God planted the Garden in Eden on land that was relatively bare compared to the lush vegetation described in Genesis 1:11–12 (day three), and that Genesis 2:5–6 is not just a recapitulation of events from day three, as suggested by some Framework Hypothesis proponents.

It may be helpful to review the literary transition to this point. Genesis 2:4 is a toledaw that functions both as a title and a time marker showing that the narrative is transitioning from the creation of the heavens and the earth to something new. Verses 5 and 6 are a transition in space from the whole universe and earth to the site of the future Garden in Eden. So now we come to verse 7, the final verse of the transition; it picks up the action in the narrative at the time of Adam’s creation in Genesis 1:27. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27, italics added). The distinction in the number of the italicized pronouns (singular or plural) properly reflects the Hebrew. To be painfully precise then, the action of the narrative in Genesis 2:8 picks up at the semicolon in Genesis 1:27, at the creation of Adam. As above, since Scripture does not explicitly give us the timing between these two portions of the narrative, I leave this as an educated guess.

“then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature” (Genesis 2:7 ESV).

“And the Lord God had formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature” (Genesis 2:7 [author’s changes from the ESV underlined]).

Instead of creature, the Hebrew nehfesh could have been translated life or soul. In this context, all three meanings likely apply together.

The original ESV translation is not actually all that bad. But for the final part of this literary transition, the author’s changes seem smoother. Hebrew does not have the sophisticated system of tenses English has. A single verb form in Hebrew may cover many English past tenses, such as he did or he had done.⁴³ If the simple English past tense is retained, then Genesis 2:7 could be incorrectly read as a continuation of the events of day three in chapter 1 or even earlier. It could also imply that Genesis 2:7 refers to action that continues from “action” in Genesis 2:5–6. But use of the English past perfect (had formed) in Genesis 2:7 as part of the literary transition creates a clear reference back to Genesis 1:27 in time and restarts the action in the narrative from that point. It is also consistent with the view that Genesis 2:5–6 sets the stage in location. The Hebrew waw that is translated then in the ESV is most often translated and. In both of the translations above, the choice of the meaning of the waw fits the context created by the verb tense. This issue of English tenses will come up again, and for the same reason.

There is yet one more transition worthy of note. Assuming the timing discussed above, God’s instructions to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:28–30 most likely occurred after Genesis 2:25. It may well be that the reason these instructions are related in Genesis 1 instead of Genesis 2 is that the instructions in Genesis 1 have a worldwide scope. By contrast, the instructions in Genesis 2:16–17 pertain to the local Garden in Eden. However, in Genesis 2:23–24, Adam spoke as a prophet, and that prophecy has worldwide scope.

Now, I do not claim to have definitively resolved the questions raised by the transition from Genesis 1 to Genesis 2. I am a mere sinful human working with a small amount of information given by an eternal and almighty God. When by God’s grace in Christ we enter glory, all of us who expound on God’s Holy Word will recall, to one degree or another, what God said to Job: “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?” (Job 38:2). May the Holy Spirit guide you in your study of God’s Word, here and everywhere. You are more than welcome to form your own opinions. But given we have a simple narrative before us, it seems fitting that any alternate opinions should also be simple and straightforward and of a nature that would have made sense to the original audience. Alternatively, you can simply leave any of the uncertain details to God as one of His unrevealed mysteries, trusting in Him. Recall also that these discussions of timing do not affect what happened, but only when.

To summarize the small changes to the ESV translation I have made, here is the whole passage:

“These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the earth and was watering the whole face of the ground—and the Lord God had formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature” (Genesis 2:4–7, author’s changes from the ESV underlined).

And, thus ends the literary transition. The stage has been set and the action in the narrative now resumes.

40 This is actually a plural Hebrew word, so, for convenience, toledaw will appear here for both singular and plural uses, similar to the English deer.

41Proponents of sodomism are guilty of serious trademark violation. (I favor sodomism because it puts the spotlight on the sin and its approval, not who is tempted by what.)

42An alternate explanation for the appearance of rainbows could be changes in the atmosphere itself, though this seems unlikely.

43The verb yawtsar, formed is in the prefixed imperfect sequential form, common in narratives and used frequently in these first two chapters. This form is used to connect verbs to add a sense of connectedness and sequence to them, either in time or thought. Based on the overall context, this author chooses to treat the verb as being in thought sequence, in which case, the use of the English past perfect tense fits nicely. But if one assumes that the sequence is in time, then the verse makes little sense in the overall flow of the narrative.

Back

Contents

Next