Formation of man.

A. M. 1. B. C. 4004.

sense.

Or, a mist which went up from, &c.Chap. iii. 19, 23; Psa. ciii. 14;

A. M. 1. B. C. 4004.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his " nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden

n

k Heb. Eccles.

here. What it signifies see on Exod. xxxiv. 5, 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 Lord is a contraction of the Anglo-Saxon hlafond, Hlaford, afterwards written Lovend, Loverd, and lastly Lord, from hlaƑ, bread; hence our word loaf, and Ford, 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 honourable name of lords, i. e., the dispensers of bread. There are about three of the ancient nobility who still keep up this honourable custom, from which the very name of their nobility is derived. We have already seen, chap. i. 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! John vi. 33, 48, 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 endeavoured to render this derivation contemptible; but this has little weight with me. I have traced it through the most accredited writers in Sarony and on Saxon affairs, and I am satisfied that this and this only, is its proper etymology and derivation. Verse 5. Every plant of the field before it was in the earth] It appears that God created every thing, not only perfect as it respects its nature, but also in a state of maturity, so that every vegetable production appeared at once in full growth; and this was necessary that man, when he came into being, might find every thing ready for his use.

Verse 6. There went up a mist] This passage appears to have greatly embarrassed many commentators. The plain meaning seems to be this, that the aqueous vapours, ascending from the earth, and becoming condensed in the colder regions of the atmosphere, fell back upon the earth in the form of dews, and by this means an equal portion of moisture was distributed to the roots of plants, &c. As Moses had said, ver 5, that the Lord had not caused it to rain upon the earth, he probably designed to teach us, in verse 6, how rain is produced, viz., by the condensation of the aqueous vapours, which are generally through the heat of the sun and other causes raised to a considerable height in the atmosphere, where, meeting with cold air, the watery particles which were before so small and light that they could float in the air, becoming condensed, i. e., many drops being driven into one, become too heavy to be any longer suspended, and then, through their own gravity, fall down in the form which we term rain.

Verse 7. God formed man of the dust] In the most distinct manner God shows us that man is a compound being, having a body and soul distinctly, and separately created; the body out of the dust of the earth, the soul immediately breathed from God himself. Does not this strongly mark that the soul and body are not the same thing? The body derives its origin from the earth, or as y aphar implies, the dust; hence because it is earthly it is decomposable and perishable. Of the soul it is said, God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; `n nowɔ nishmath chaiyim, the breath of LIVES, i. e., animal and intellectual. While this breath of God expanded the lungs and set them in play, his inspiration gave both spirit and understanding.

Verse 8. A garden eastward in Eden] Though the word y Eden signifies pleasure or delight, it is certainly the name of a place. See chap. iv. 16; 2 Kings xix. 12; Isa. xxxvii. 12; Ezek. xxvii. 23; Amos i. 5. And such places probably received their name from their fertility, pleasant situation, &c. In this light the Septuagint have viewed it, as they render the passage thus: Εφύτευσεν ὁ Θεος παράδεισον 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 y Eden; and hence the origin of sacred gardens

The tree of life, and

A. M. 1. B. C. 4004.

formed.

r

A. M. 1. B. C.

S

t

9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; "the tree of life

4 Chap. iii. 24. Chap. iv. 16; 2 Kings xix. 12; Ezek. xxvii. 23.- — Ver. 15.—t Ezek. xxxi. 8.

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 ung will is 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 Persica quam in sua lingua

conservarunt Armeni. As it is a word of doubtful origin, its etymology is uncertain.

Verse 9. Every tree that is pleasant to the sight, &c. 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, colour, or fragrance, delights the senses, such as flowering shrubs, &c.

And good for food] All fruit-bearing trees, whether of the pulpy fruits, as apples, &c., or of the kernel or nut kind, such as dates, and nuts of different sorts, together with all esculent vegetables.

The tree of life] chaiyim; of lives, or lifegiving 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 chap. iii. 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 vigour; and that there are some aliments 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. 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 could the acquisition of such a faculty be a sin? Or to be done and what should be performed. But how 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 teach him this moral lesson, that there were some exercise this faculty in man that it should constantly things fit and others unfit to be done, and that in reference to this point the tree constant teacher and monitor.

itself should be both a

would not have increased this moral faculty, but the The eating of its fruit already possessed. There is certainly nothing unreaprohibition was intended to exercise the faculty he sonable in this explanation, and viewed in this light

the passage loses much of its obscurity. Vitringa, in his dissertation De arbore prudentiæ in Paradiso, ejusque mysterio, strongly contends for this interpretation. See more on chap. iii. 6.

Verse 10. A river went out of Eden, &c.] 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 rivers of Paradise.

W

A. M. 1. B. C. 4004.

gold;

onyx stone.

man, and put him into the garden

of Eden to dress it, and to keep it.

16 And the LORD God commanded the man,

mayest freely eat;

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 nn Chavilah, according to the Hebrew, the vau 1 being changed in Greek to beta B. 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 Cussi of the ancients. The Hiddekel all agree to be the Tigris, and the other river Phrat, or 5 Perath, to be the Euphrates. All these rivers rise in the same tract of mountainous country, though they do not arise from one head.

Verse 12. There is bdellium ( bedolach) and the onyx stone, D 18 eben hashshoham.] Bochart thinks that the bedolach or bdellium means the pearloyster; and shoham is generally understood to mean the onyx, or species of agate, a precious stone which has its name from ovvž, a man's nail, to the colour of which it nearly approaches. It is impossible to say what is the precise meaning of the original words; and at this distance of time and place it is of little consequence.

Verse 15. 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

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof 1 thou shalt surely die.

18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.

1

Chap. iii. 1, 3, 11, 17.- Chap. iii. 3, 19; Rom. vi. 23; 1 Cor. xv. 56; James i. 15; 1 John v. 16. Heb. dying thou shalt die. Ch. iii. 12; 1 Cor. xi. 9; 1 Tim. ii. 13.— Heb. as before him.

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.

Verse 17. 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 fruitbearing 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?

; moth tamuth מות תמות

Thou shalt surely die.] 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.

Verse 18. It is not good that the man should be

Adam gives names to the cattle.

n

A. M. 1. B. C. 4004.

19 m And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and " brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And Adam P gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him.

m Chap. i. 20, 24. Psa. viii. 6; see chap. vi. 20.—o Or, the man.-P Heb. called.—9 Chap. xv. 12; 1 Sam. xxvi. 12. r Heb. builded.

alone] 1 lebaddo; only himself. I will make him a help meet for him; y ezer kenegdo, a help, a counterpart of himself, one formed from him, and a perfect resemblance of his person. If the word be rendered scrupulously literally, it signifies one like, or as himself, standing opposite to or before him. And this implies that the woman was to be a perfect resemblance of the man, possessing neither inferiority nor superiority, but being in all things like and equal to himself. As man was made a social creature, it was not proper that he should be alone; for to be alone, i. e. without a matrimonial companion, was not good. Hence we find that celibacy in general is a thing that is not good, whether it be on the side of the man or of the woman. Men may, in opposition to the declaration of God, call this a state of excellence and a state of perfection; but let them remember that the word of God says the reverse.

Verse 19. Out of the ground, &c.] Concerning the formation of the different kinds of animals, see the preceding chapter.

Verse 20. And Adam gave names to all cattle] Two things God appears to have had in view by causing man to name all the cattle, &c. 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 there

21

q

The institution of marriage.

B. C. 4004

And the LORD God caused A. M. 1. a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof:

22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and s brought her unto the man.

8

fore 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,

Verse 21. The Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, &c.] This was neither swoon nor ecstasy. but what our translation very properly terms a deep sleep.

And he took one of his ribs] It is immaterial whether we render y tsela a rib, or a part of his side, for it may mean either: some part of man was to be used on the occasion, whether bone or flesh it matters not; though it is likely, from verse 23, that a part of both was taken; for Adam, knowing how the woman was formed, said, This is flesh of my flesh, and bone of my bone. God could have formed the woman out of the dust of the earth, as he had formed the man; but had he done so, she must have appeared in his eyes as a distinct being, to whom he had no natural relation. But as God formed her out of a part of the man himself, he saw she was of the same nature, the same identical flesh and blood, and of the same constitution in all respects, and consequently having equal powers, faculties, and rights. This at once ensured his affection, and excited his esteem.

Verse 23. Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, &c.] 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 Dyon ni zoth happaam, we should render more literally this turn, this creature, which now passes or appears before me, is flesh of my flesh, &c. 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, ver. 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

Closeness of the marriage union.

A. M. 1.

B. C. 4004.

24

* Chap. xxxi. 15; Psa. lxv. 10; Matt. xix. 5; Mark x. 7; 1 Cor. vi. 16; Eph. v. 31.

A. M. 1. B. C. 4004.

y Chapter iii. 7, 10, 11. Exodus xxxii. 25; Isaiah xlvii. 3.

and the word used to express what we term woman is the same with a feminine termination, ishshah, and literally means she-man. Most of the ancient versions have felt the force of the term, and have endeavoured 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 avopis, andris, a female form of avnp, 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. pombman, of which woman is a contraction, means the man with the womb. A very appropriate version of the Hebrew Nishshah, 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 WOMBMAN, or female man, because she was taken out of man. See Verstegan. Others derive it from pirman or piiƑman, man's wife or she-man. Either may be proper, the first seems the most likely.

Verse 24. 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, &c., 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, Matt. xix. 5, with some variation from this text: They TWAIN shall be one flesh. So in Mark x. 8. St. Paul quotes in the same way, 1 Cor. vi. 16, and in Eph. v. 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 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 the 24th verse, and not in the 25th; and a copyist having found that he had written it twice, in

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 1 Cor. vii. 3. 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. v. 33. The 23d and 24th verses 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! 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 Matt. xix. 4-6.

Passion, turbulent and irregular,

Verse 25. They were both naked, &c.] The weather