<< Back to Genesis 1 | On to Genesis 3 >>
This is another installment in my Q&A Bible study, which ends up resembling a commentary. I don't pretend this to be a definitive commentary but instead non-authoritative study notes by a humble student of the Bible. Read more about what I am up to if you like, and feel free to give feedback and offer your own answers to the questions asked.
By the way, I am currently working through Gen 12. I wrote the following some time ago, and will probably keep posting installments relatively quickly until I catch up to wherever I am at in my reading.
Genesis 2
The Seventh Day: The First Sabbath
Why mention (in Gen. 2:1) “and all the host of them” in addition to “the heavens and the earth,” as the things created? The heavens and earth includes everything, no?
The word, צְבָאָֽם or tsaba, means literally “the host of them,” as the literal translations have it; the word means something like “armies.” But, obviously, since we are not talking about soldiers but merely every created thing, the word means something metaphorical. If it is to be contrasted with “heavens and earth” (וְהַשָּׁמַ֥יִם הָאָ֖רֶץ, hashsāmayim wuhā’āretz), then this “host” must mean the contents of (the items within) the creation; so then “heavens and earth” would mean the spaces and their structure. This is confirmed by a reference back to Gen. 2 that occurs in the Ten Commandments at Ex. 20:11: the LORD made “heaven and earth...and all that in them is.” This also precisely contrasts with Gen. 1:2, which said the world was “without form, and void.”
God, being the source of all, is surely not in need of rest; being limitless, it seems he could do anything without effort. Why, then, does the text say in Gen. 2:2 that he “rested”?
Indeed, it is very probably not because he needed a rest. Probably, the traditional explanation is correct: he was demonstrating to mankind what man should do: observe the sabbath, the weekly day off. The following sentence underscores this. The text anthropomorphizes God in this way, in a few different places, e.g., when it says “repents” and is “grieved” that he made man, on Gen. 6:6. There are also physical anthropomorphisms; perhaps indeed God has no literal “face,” despite being said to have one (e.g., Lev. 20:6).
Is there anything worth noting in the difference between “created” and “made” (Gen. 2:3)?
Yes: in the broader context and given the use of the words in Gen. 1, these do not seem simple synonyms. “Created” translates bara, or “made ex nihilo,” while “made” translates asah, which here seems to mean something like “form or fashion out of pre-existing materials.”
What might be “holy” about resting (Gen. 2:3)?
Perhaps nothing in itself. Certainly not every time a man rests, is it a holy rest. But this demonstrated instance of resting was a holy example to man, who even before the Fall, here, is said to need one day in seven to rest. Insofar the day is set apart (the word for “holy,” קָדַשׁ or qadash, means something like “set apart”) from the other six unto God, and insofar as holy God himself “rested,” it makes sense that the Mosaic code, in the Ten Commandments itself, sets the sabbath as a holy requirement (Ex. 20:8-11). Indeed, in the Decalogue, the text points back to God’s rest: “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
The Creation of Man
What is the significance of the recurring phrase “These are the generations” (the first instance of it being at Gen 2:4)?
This phrase, the toledoth (“generations”) formula, precedes one of a series of connected accounts. Genesis 1 does not begin with this phrase, but from here until the end, all the various accounts are included these sections, some rather short and others chapters long. The word תּוֹלְדָה or toledoth means “generations,” or, it seems, something like “an account of how something came about” and usually “an account of the generations following” some person such as Noah. Each family was said to have a “head” for his generation; so we might say that the sections recount the story of a family.
Since the heavens and the earth are not a family, and since the creation was already recounted in Gen. 1, why is the toledoth formula here in 2:4, and why is there another creation account?
These two questions have the same answer, namely, this does tell the story of a sort of “family”: it is the family of “the dust of the ground,” from which Adam and Eve sprang, and this is their story. This is not, of course, an entire creation account—contrary to “critical” readers who fail to consider the whole context—but only mentions a few small details needed to contextualize the account of Adam and his activity. Indeed, if you do not recognize that the narratives, in the present chapter (beginning at Gen. 1:4) as well as the following three chapters, concerns Adam and his immediate family, you will be confused about this redundant creation language. By the way, it is not about “the generations of Adam,” which actually begins at Gen. 5:1, because the generations of a figure do not typically include the figure, but instead refer to those generated by the figure. It is possible that “generations” should be rendered “offspring” or “descendants.”
So why is it “Lord God” now (at, e.g., Gen. 2:4) and not just “God”?
Yes. It is a two-word phrase, יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים or yahweh elohim. Some critical purveyors of the Documentary Hypothesis make much of this, thinking it is the “Yahwist” who wrote these texts. This is more easily explained by saying that God, since he will presently have a man to rule over, can be called the sovereign lord—is a good gloss of the etymological and connotative meaning of the name “Yahweh”—in addition to “God.”
Of the many things that God created before Adam, why mention plants, ground, and rain, again, at Gen. 2:5?
Because the present narrative is about the creation of Adam, whose primary function was to “till the ground”; it is surely no accident that the name Adam resembles adamah, ground. In the narrative, neither rain, which was necessary for growing things, nor grass and plants, which could be grown, were needed, because Adam was not yet on hand to farm them. Of course, we have already been told in Gen. 1:11-12 that on the third day God created plants, and presumably some time before that he first caused the rain to fall. But those verses are in no tension with Gen. 2:5, because the narrator is simply reminding the reader that there was a time before rain, ground, and plants—and Adam—but that they will all, presently, be working together. This is to be understood as an origin story, in short, not just of man, but more precisely of man-the-tiller-of-the-ground.
Does the mention of the “mist” that “watered” the ground in Gen. 2:6 not entail that it rained only after, or just before, Adam was created?
This might seem to be the narrative’s implication, because why else mention such a trivial-seeming detail otherwise? Does that not in fact contradict Gen. 1? There are probably a few different ways to make sense of this, but I believe the simplest is simply to point out that from a Biblical point of view the very purpose of the rain and plants is for use (and soon, cultivation) by man; so if there are a few eons that separate the sprouting of the first plants and the creation of man, it hardly matters for the narrative since we are not talking about a scientific explanation but about the origin of man, the tiller of the ground. Indeed, God is himself shortly both to plant and to water the Garden of Eden for Adam, which aptly explains this choice of detail—by contrast with the prior desolation, they relate what a blessing for Adam the Garden was.
Why is a second origin account given for man (Gen. 2:6)? And are these accounts consistent?
There is nothing inconsistent about them, but there is a difference of emphasis. In Gen. 1 we have an account of God’s creation, and man is brought up strictly in that connection. How he is made is not the focus. Gen. 2, by contrast, is not primarily an account of God’s creation but instead concerning “the generations of”—that is, the family of—“the heavens and of the earth.” The focus, moreover, is on that offspring, namely, Adam and his immediate family. Gen. 2 kicks off a string of “family stories,” beginning with the very first one. Gen. 1, by contrast, is sui generis, because it is about the original creative activity of God, which happened once only and so is treated separately. That there is overlap makes sense, because the events are interrelated, just as there is overlap (and consequent repetition, as we will see) between the later family stories.
This is another installment in my Q&A Bible study, which ends up resembling a commentary. I don't pretend this to be a definitive commentary but instead non-authoritative study notes by a humble student of the Bible. Read more about what I am up to if you like, and feel free to give feedback and offer your own answers to the questions asked.
By the way, I am currently working through Gen 12. I wrote the following some time ago, and will probably keep posting installments relatively quickly until I catch up to wherever I am at in my reading.
Genesis 2
The Seventh Day: The First Sabbath
Why mention (in Gen. 2:1) “and all the host of them” in addition to “the heavens and the earth,” as the things created? The heavens and earth includes everything, no?
The word, צְבָאָֽם or tsaba, means literally “the host of them,” as the literal translations have it; the word means something like “armies.” But, obviously, since we are not talking about soldiers but merely every created thing, the word means something metaphorical. If it is to be contrasted with “heavens and earth” (וְהַשָּׁמַ֥יִם הָאָ֖רֶץ, hashsāmayim wuhā’āretz), then this “host” must mean the contents of (the items within) the creation; so then “heavens and earth” would mean the spaces and their structure. This is confirmed by a reference back to Gen. 2 that occurs in the Ten Commandments at Ex. 20:11: the LORD made “heaven and earth...and all that in them is.” This also precisely contrasts with Gen. 1:2, which said the world was “without form, and void.”
God, being the source of all, is surely not in need of rest; being limitless, it seems he could do anything without effort. Why, then, does the text say in Gen. 2:2 that he “rested”?
Indeed, it is very probably not because he needed a rest. Probably, the traditional explanation is correct: he was demonstrating to mankind what man should do: observe the sabbath, the weekly day off. The following sentence underscores this. The text anthropomorphizes God in this way, in a few different places, e.g., when it says “repents” and is “grieved” that he made man, on Gen. 6:6. There are also physical anthropomorphisms; perhaps indeed God has no literal “face,” despite being said to have one (e.g., Lev. 20:6).
Is there anything worth noting in the difference between “created” and “made” (Gen. 2:3)?
Yes: in the broader context and given the use of the words in Gen. 1, these do not seem simple synonyms. “Created” translates bara, or “made ex nihilo,” while “made” translates asah, which here seems to mean something like “form or fashion out of pre-existing materials.”
What might be “holy” about resting (Gen. 2:3)?
Perhaps nothing in itself. Certainly not every time a man rests, is it a holy rest. But this demonstrated instance of resting was a holy example to man, who even before the Fall, here, is said to need one day in seven to rest. Insofar the day is set apart (the word for “holy,” קָדַשׁ or qadash, means something like “set apart”) from the other six unto God, and insofar as holy God himself “rested,” it makes sense that the Mosaic code, in the Ten Commandments itself, sets the sabbath as a holy requirement (Ex. 20:8-11). Indeed, in the Decalogue, the text points back to God’s rest: “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
The Creation of Man
What is the significance of the recurring phrase “These are the generations” (the first instance of it being at Gen 2:4)?
This phrase, the toledoth (“generations”) formula, precedes one of a series of connected accounts. Genesis 1 does not begin with this phrase, but from here until the end, all the various accounts are included these sections, some rather short and others chapters long. The word תּוֹלְדָה or toledoth means “generations,” or, it seems, something like “an account of how something came about” and usually “an account of the generations following” some person such as Noah. Each family was said to have a “head” for his generation; so we might say that the sections recount the story of a family.
Since the heavens and the earth are not a family, and since the creation was already recounted in Gen. 1, why is the toledoth formula here in 2:4, and why is there another creation account?
These two questions have the same answer, namely, this does tell the story of a sort of “family”: it is the family of “the dust of the ground,” from which Adam and Eve sprang, and this is their story. This is not, of course, an entire creation account—contrary to “critical” readers who fail to consider the whole context—but only mentions a few small details needed to contextualize the account of Adam and his activity. Indeed, if you do not recognize that the narratives, in the present chapter (beginning at Gen. 1:4) as well as the following three chapters, concerns Adam and his immediate family, you will be confused about this redundant creation language. By the way, it is not about “the generations of Adam,” which actually begins at Gen. 5:1, because the generations of a figure do not typically include the figure, but instead refer to those generated by the figure. It is possible that “generations” should be rendered “offspring” or “descendants.”
So why is it “Lord God” now (at, e.g., Gen. 2:4) and not just “God”?
Yes. It is a two-word phrase, יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים or yahweh elohim. Some critical purveyors of the Documentary Hypothesis make much of this, thinking it is the “Yahwist” who wrote these texts. This is more easily explained by saying that God, since he will presently have a man to rule over, can be called the sovereign lord—is a good gloss of the etymological and connotative meaning of the name “Yahweh”—in addition to “God.”
Of the many things that God created before Adam, why mention plants, ground, and rain, again, at Gen. 2:5?
Because the present narrative is about the creation of Adam, whose primary function was to “till the ground”; it is surely no accident that the name Adam resembles adamah, ground. In the narrative, neither rain, which was necessary for growing things, nor grass and plants, which could be grown, were needed, because Adam was not yet on hand to farm them. Of course, we have already been told in Gen. 1:11-12 that on the third day God created plants, and presumably some time before that he first caused the rain to fall. But those verses are in no tension with Gen. 2:5, because the narrator is simply reminding the reader that there was a time before rain, ground, and plants—and Adam—but that they will all, presently, be working together. This is to be understood as an origin story, in short, not just of man, but more precisely of man-the-tiller-of-the-ground.
Does the mention of the “mist” that “watered” the ground in Gen. 2:6 not entail that it rained only after, or just before, Adam was created?
This might seem to be the narrative’s implication, because why else mention such a trivial-seeming detail otherwise? Does that not in fact contradict Gen. 1? There are probably a few different ways to make sense of this, but I believe the simplest is simply to point out that from a Biblical point of view the very purpose of the rain and plants is for use (and soon, cultivation) by man; so if there are a few eons that separate the sprouting of the first plants and the creation of man, it hardly matters for the narrative since we are not talking about a scientific explanation but about the origin of man, the tiller of the ground. Indeed, God is himself shortly both to plant and to water the Garden of Eden for Adam, which aptly explains this choice of detail—by contrast with the prior desolation, they relate what a blessing for Adam the Garden was.
Why is a second origin account given for man (Gen. 2:6)? And are these accounts consistent?
There is nothing inconsistent about them, but there is a difference of emphasis. In Gen. 1 we have an account of God’s creation, and man is brought up strictly in that connection. How he is made is not the focus. Gen. 2, by contrast, is not primarily an account of God’s creation but instead concerning “the generations of”—that is, the family of—“the heavens and of the earth.” The focus, moreover, is on that offspring, namely, Adam and his immediate family. Gen. 2 kicks off a string of “family stories,” beginning with the very first one. Gen. 1, by contrast, is sui generis, because it is about the original creative activity of God, which happened once only and so is treated separately. That there is overlap makes sense, because the events are interrelated, just as there is overlap (and consequent repetition, as we will see) between the later family stories.
Last edited:
