And Jehovah Elohim took Man, and put him into the garden of Eden, to till it and to guard it.
God placed the first man in a garden He had prepared and gave him work to do. Two questions follow. What does it mean that God put him there? And why does a world with no sin or curse need anyone to work and keep it?
The verse starts with God, not with the job. One writer traces every right Adam held back to God, who owned it all first.
The man had received his being from God, and it was God who placed him in the garden prepared for him. He was placed there not to be idle, but "to work it and keep it." How complete were God's rights over the creature He had formed! All of Adam's rights — over the garden, the earth, and the various kinds of lower creatures — came from the sovereign appointment of the One to whom they all belonged, Adam included.
Nothing in the garden was broken. Yet God still gave the man a charge, and one writer says why doing nothing would have been wrong:
Here we are told not about the place, its resources and surroundings, far-reaching as they were. We are told its moral point and purpose. God the Governor took Man and put him into the paradise He had prepared. All was unfallen, in order and beauty, with no stain in Adam or in the creation under him, and certainly none in its loveliest spot. Yet God put Man there to work it and keep it. Standing above the work in indifference would have been out of place, even though Man was blessed, everything was very good, and toil and sorrow were unknown.
Many assume work began as punishment. One writer separates work from the toil that came later:
Scripture does not say there was no "work" before the fall. Man was placed in the garden "to work it and keep it," which shows God did not want His creature to be idle. But no "toil" or "sorrow" went with that occupation. Now thorns and thistles were to appear, and man was to eat bread by the sweat of his face. Weariness is known now, and so is the sweetness of rest after work. Idleness was one of the sins of Sodom (Ezek. 16:49). It had no place in innocence… Work here is good for all, and there is profit in it. For out of evil God can and does bring good.
Service does not end where toil and weariness end:
How telling it is that God laid toil on man when sin came into the world! Man was to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow. At first God put him there to work and keep the garden, but there was no bitterness of service and toil. So in that heavenly Paradise, the rest of God we enter, there will be service and ministry throughout eternity — but no weariness, no toil, nothing to show that sin is present.
One writer contrasts Adam's place in the garden with the stoop of a slave:
He had put Adam there to work it and keep it — not as a slave, bent low by the sweat of his face over ground cursed because of him. That ground gives back for his labour, along with the plants he eats, "thorns and thistles," rods of discipline and constant reminders of his fall. No, God had placed Adam there as king, centre and head of the whole lower creation, a picture of the One who was to come.
The charge was also a lesson. One writer counts it among God's provisions for Adam:
Along with everything else God provided for his blessing we must count this — too little thought of — that Adam was also to be taught mastery, even in a place where no moral evil existed. He was to "fill the earth and subdue it," and to "work and keep" even the "garden of delight."
Adam did not keep what he was given. One writer sets Eden beside a second garden:
In the first garden God placed Adam, innocent, with access to the tree of life. But he chose the tree of responsibility, went the wrong way, and fell. In the second garden lay the One who had a right to the tree of life, yet who had met that responsibility in the dust of death. For the first man, the garden east in Eden became the gateway to a lost world that ends in the lake of fire. For the other, that garden becomes the gateway for His people — not back to Paradise regained, but into the Paradise of God.
- Placed — Adam did not choose his place. God set him there, and every right he held came from that gift.
- Charged — even where nothing was wrong, standing back would have been out of place. He was given the garden to work and to guard.
- Trained — the charge was a gift, teaching mastery in a scene where no evil yet existed.
- Not cursed — work belongs to innocence; toil, sweat, thorns and weariness came in only with sin.
- Restored — the first man lost the garden he was to keep. The One who lay in the second garden met that responsibility in death. He opens not Eden again but the Paradise of God, where service goes on without weariness.
And Jehovah Elohim commanded Man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou shalt freely eat;
God's command to the man opens with a gift, not a ban — the whole garden is his to eat from. Why then did a Creator who withheld nothing keep back one tree?
One writer breaks the command into its parts, and notes where Adam stood when he heard it:
How fitting that there should be some test of whether Adam recognised these rights of his Creator! And if there was to be a test, how could there have been an easier one, or one kinder to man? In Genesis 2:16-17, notice four things: God's authority — He "commanded the man"; His bounty — "Of every tree"; His prohibition — "You shall not"; His warning — "In the day." So man is fully set in responsibility before the woman is created. She was to share the responsibility with him.
Two small words carry the tone of the whole permission: "every" and "freely." (Older translations read "freely eat" where the ESV has "surely.") They tell you what the Giver is like.
God had revealed His ways to him, as a Giver, in the widest generosity. Nothing was withheld from man. The ten thousand streams that fed into his happiness in Eden spoke of a God who would withhold no good thing. "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat" announced the freeness and fullness of a Hand that was not stingy. The man was to enjoy it all freely.
The tempter would later hint that God was holding something back. The answer lay in God's own words, and went unused:
What could have met such a poisoned arrow from Satan but perfect confidence? Confidence would have answered in the very words of the LORD God: "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat." Such is our Creator's goodness. And since He made only this one exception, we can trust His goodness in this too — that it is for our good. Faith would have noticed the "every" and the "freely" in Genesis 2:16.
The single exception marks whose garden it was:
God had reserved for Himself only one of the trees in that great estate. That one tree showed that the garden belonged to God. The command not to eat from it simply upheld God's right to be obeyed by His creature.
Keeping that one tree closed also spared Adam something:
Here was a test of man's obedience. The wide range of delightful fruits made it no hardship to refrain from this one tree. And further, it was a merciful fencing off of a real danger. Think for a moment. Adam knew the good. The good could only be a blessing to him. The knowledge of evil could only defile, and bring nothing in its train but sorrow.
The forbidden fruit was not wrong in itself. Everything hung on God's word alone:
The sense of responsibility was there, the debt of obedience. It belonged to the nature of his relationship with God. But distinguishing things as good and evil in themselves had no place in his mind. To have eaten of the tree was no evil in itself: he would have eaten of it as innocently as of any other. God had forbidden it, and everything depended on that command. Adam in innocence was formed to understand responsibility to obey. Avoiding something just because it was evil, where no command had been given, was unknown to him.
Commentators differ over whether to call this command a law. Some use that word, but stress how small the law was:
In verses 16 and 17 we find that Adam, though created in a state of innocence, was put in a place of responsibility… He was put under law in the simplest way. The law was one commandment, and that commandment concerned only one tree… The divine command was cut down to the barest minimum. It was just enough to keep before him that as the creature he must be subject to the Creator and walk in obedience.
Others draw a line between responsibility and law, and use the wording of the verse to do it:
Responsibility and moral obligation to God is the due relationship of the creature, man, to God as sovereign and supreme, in every condition… Law was not in Eden, though responsibility to obey was there. So it is written: "The Lord God commanded the man." This commandment was not a ban on something wrong in itself, like "You shall not murder." It was a simple test of obedience.
- Bounty first. Before God says "you shall not," He says "every" and "freely" — the command opens with a gift, not a restriction.
- One exception. God kept back one tree out of the whole garden. It marked the garden as His, and man as bound to obey Him.
- Mercy in the limit. Adam already knew the good; the knowledge of evil could only defile him, so the fence was kindness.
- A test, not a moral code. The fruit was not evil in itself; everything rested on the bare fact that God had spoken.
- Trust is the issue. Faith weighs the "every" and the "freely." Those words answer any hint that God is holding good back.
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt certainly die.
God gave man a garden full of food, fenced off one tree with a word, and attached a penalty to it. Sin, death, and the need for a Saviour all turn on how man treated that one sentence.
God was not withholding pleasure. He set one limit inside an abundance He had already given.
The forbidden tree took nothing from Adam. It denied him no pleasure or taste, for the Lord God had set in the garden every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. It did carry fruit. But God restricted eating it for one reason only: to remind His wonderful creature that he held everything in trust under his Maker. Beneath man was everything in this lower creation. Above him, God. The one simple safeguard for keeping his position was obedience. And obedience, not to a complicated code of laws, but to one simple command.
The command settled a question that had nothing to do with the fruit itself.
The actual test was the prohibition of something that was not in itself evil, but simply and by decree wrong for man because God had forbidden it. That is the very essence of a test for an innocent man... It was the simple question of whether God was really Jehovah-Elohim, whether He was a moral governor or not, whether man was to be independent of God or not. This was not decided by some great matter whose results man could reason out and foresee. It was decided simply by doing or not doing the will of God.
God knew what that knowledge would do to man.
God had given every tree of the garden for food except one single tree. This prohibition was a test of the creature's obedience to the Creator. The Creator also knew what would follow if they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It would ruin man's innocence. It would poison his whole being by bringing in the knowledge of evil, with no power to resist it. Therefore His prohibition was merciful.
Obedience would have left him knowing good only; disobedience gave him knowledge without the strength to act on it.
Knowledge was acquired, but no wisdom, and man's knowledge ever since has been his ruin — knowledge of good, but no power to practise it; knowledge of evil and no power to resist it.
Notice what God does not say. He promises no reward for obeying — the sentence carries only a warning.
Adam already had life. God tested him by a direct, well-known command: do not eat the forbidden fruit. What made this test perfect was that it raised no moral question in itself... What I insist on is this. There was no promise of life, which would suppose he did not have it. There was a threat of death, which supposed he was alive — alive and innocent, with no knowledge of good and evil.
The garden held two trees, and we must never confuse them.
The tree of life was distinct from that of knowing good and evil. The test of responsible obedience was one thing, the means of life quite another. When man disobeyed by eating from the one tree, God drove him out, in case he should also take from the other and make his fallen sinful state everlasting.
How was this sentence carried out? Commentators differ. Some read the death as separation from God, beginning the same day:
Here the Lord attaches to the first act of evil nothing less than complete separation from Himself; for He is the living God... and therefore a state of death was a state of separation from Him. He announces this state as the certain and immediate doom of the creature the moment he commits evil.
Others insist the sentence meant the death of the body, not the moral ruin sin caused:
Spiritual death, or "death in trespasses and sins," cannot be what God speaks of in His warning to Adam. That is indeed the spiritual state that results from the fall. But the moral state of a criminal is very different from the judgment passed on the criminal. Man's depravity is what he is condemned for, not what he is sentenced to.
The first lie in history struck straight at this verse.
The first form of unbelief was the denial of God's word... God said, "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." The serpent said, "You shall not surely die." Eve did not believe God's word, and so she became the unbeliever.
The threat was never withdrawn — it was carried out on Another.
The Lord had said, "you shall surely die." Christ came as the great witness to His people that "the wages of sin is death." In His case it was by imputation only, for He was perfectly and entirely holy. But He took our sins; He bore our iniquities. He was willing to be looked on as the guilty one, and to bear the penalty God had attached to sin — "you shall surely die" — to uphold the truth of God.
- Trust — God withheld one tree in a garden full of gifts. That kept obedience simple and left His authority as the only question.
- Test — the fruit was not evil in itself. That is what fits a test for an innocent man, who already had life and was warned, not offered a reward.
- Truth — "you shall surely die" was God's word. The serpent contradicted it, and man believed the contradiction.
- Toll — death followed. Some writers read it as immediate separation from God, others as the sentence of bodily death.
- Triumph — the penalty stood until Christ, holy Himself, bore it, and so upheld the truth of God.
And Jehovah Elohim said, It is not good that Man should be alone; I will make him a helpmate, his like.
In this chapter God plants a garden, gives man work, and sets one rule. Then the first thing He calls "not good" is Adam by himself. That raises the questions this verse turns on. Why is being alone a fault in a world with nothing yet wrong? What sort of "helper" does God intend? And why does He announce the plan before He carries it out?
Up to this point in the chapter God has issued commands. Here He gives a considered judgment about what is best for the man He made.
Here in Genesis 2 the LORD God is both moral Governor and Creator. He enters with kind care into the daily life and comfort of man on earth. He has a kind and wise mind about man's well-being. He also speaks it out, so that man may know it as His. This is not a command, as in verses 16 and 17. It is the kind judgment of One who knew everything and overflowed with favour toward man. "Then the LORD God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone.'" Exchange of affection and interest is good for man. No wonder that solitude is the harshest punishment short of death.
Adam had lost nothing and done nothing wrong. What follows is added goodness on top of an already generous provision.
The love that had blessed with so much had further good in store, and that in the form of one who should be worthy of the object of such love and goodness.
The gift met more than Adam's need for a working partner.
For Adam, where everything was still right, here was a spiritual being he could share thought and feeling with — the exchange our whole being craves. She was also an object for his heart. She was a pledge of his Creator's love. In her, love served him where he could see it, and drew out his own love. She rescued him from isolation, and from being wrapped up in himself.
God states the need in verse 18, then parades the animals before Adam in the verses that follow. The order is deliberate.
God did not create man to be self-sufficient. He needed more than company. He needed a "helper fit for him," a counterpart. We see the goodness of God as well as His wisdom in the way the counterpart came into being. God's aim was Adam's own good. So He brought the whole range of beasts and birds before Adam. That way Adam saw for himself that no such counterpart existed among them.
Every marriage since traces back to the word spoken here. It also traces back to something in man that mirrors God Himself.
"A marriage" carries us back at once to Eden, and to the word by which God set it up: "It is not good that the man should be alone." God made man for communion. The gift of language shows it — man can speak, and can be spoken to. In this he shows not only a creature's need. He also shows the likeness of his Creator. In the very preface to his creation the words "Let us make man" speak of communion.
God supplied the need in one particular way. That makes this verse the measure of every later departure from it. The first on record is Lamech, who took two wives.
It was "not good that the man should be alone." But His provision was not two or more. It was one woman, "a helper fit for him," his counterpart. Self-will kept growing. In the end it did not hesitate to cross God's mind, which His act had shown plainly to those who fear Him: "And Lamech took two wives." From the beginning it was not so.
God's answer to Adam's aloneness was not simply another human being. One writer asks why.
The man was created first, and it was not good for him that he should be alone. The woman was created in view of this need. Why a woman for that reason, and not another man? Because another man would not have given the help she gave.
One writer reads the same words as God's thought about Christ, answered in the church.
In eternity past God looked forward and saw the risen, glorified Son. He was saying, It is not good for Him to be alone. I will build a helper suitable for Him. God thought it; God said it; and God has done it. All of it is of God. Think of the predestined glory of the church. Whatever Adam was, that was every particle of Eve. Whatever Christ is, as the risen man from among the dead, such shall be, such is, His bride.
- Not good — In a world God had called good, the one fault He names is Adam being alone. He says it as kind judgment about man's comfort, not as a command.
- Gift — The remedy is added goodness, not repair. God gives a counterpart who draws out Adam's heart and rescues him from himself.
- Discovery — God announces the need, then lets Adam name the animals and find no match, so the gift lands on a felt lack.
- Institution — Marriage rests on this word. One woman for one man is the shape of God's provision. Lamech's two wives are the first break with it.
- Fulfilment — Read forward, the same sentence is God's thought about His Son. The answer is a bride who shares everything He is.
And out of the ground Jehovah Elohim had formed every animal of the field and all fowl of the heavens, and brought [them] to Man, to see what he would call them; and whatever Man called each living soul, that was its name.
Genesis 2:19 puts the newly made man at the centre of the animal world, with God Himself bringing every beast and bird to him for a name. Two questions follow: does this place the animals after man, against chapter 1, and why does God stage the parade at all?
Some claim that chapters 1 and 2 come from two writers who contradict each other. This verse says God "had formed" the beasts and birds. One commentator finds the key in the purpose of chapter 2:
This moral meaning, and the picture it carries, is the true key to the record in Genesis 2:4-25. It fully accounts for the differences from chapter 1 to 2:3 — differences that ignorance and unbelief twist into the contradictions of two separate writers. It is not true that Genesis 2:7, 19 presents man as created first of all living creatures, before the birds and beasts. Nor does man's creation in God's image (Gen. 1:27) contradict Genesis 2:7, which says that God formed him from the dust of the ground.
This verse says God formed the birds, like the beasts, out of the ground. Some read that as a clash with the fifth day. The answer lies in the older English version this writer corrects:
Chapter 2 shows that God made birds out of the earth. But Genesis 1:20, they say, shows that He made them out of the waters. Superficial objectors! Genesis 1 says nothing of the sort. It agrees perfectly with Genesis 2:19… This verse does not teach that the waters were to bring forth birds, as it appears to do in our English version. It says, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature, and let birds fly about the earth in the open expanse of heaven."
Adam did not summon the animals. God brought them to him, and gave him the wisdom to name them:
God made Adam lord of the lower creation here on earth. In His goodness He gave him the wisdom and intelligence to give the proper names to all cattle, to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, for He had put them all under him. This matters all the more, because it is the fitting sign of the dominion given him… Adam claimed nothing here in pride. It was the Lord God who brought the animals to him to see what he would call them, and whatever Adam called every living creature had His approval.
The names were not noises. Each one described what the creature actually was:
One of man's first lessons was a lesson in zoology. Giving names to all the creatures implies that he understood them, and the names stood for qualities in them that could be recognised, and were. Adam had no language but his own. He could not hide the emptiness of a meaningless name behind grand-sounding Greek, as our zoologists do now.
The same scene answers a question about where language came from:
The Lord God brings these creatures before Adam, and Adam gives names to them all. This shows not only his title as lord, but the power of fitting language, given by God from the first. The idea that clear speech is only a growth from the slow putting together of elements is a dream of clever speculation… On the very first day of his life, even before Eve was formed, Adam gave the animals their names, and God Himself endorsed what their head said.
The parade had a second effect. Among all those creatures, none matched Adam, and God let him find that out for himself:
God did not create man to be an entirely self-sufficient being. He needed not only companionship but a "helpmeet," a counterpart. We see the goodness of God as well as His wisdom in the way that counterpart came into being. God's aim was Adam's good and profit, so He brought the whole range of beasts and birds before him and let him see for himself that no such counterpart existed among the animals.
The order of events is deliberate — rule first, then a bride. One writer describes the sequence as two ceremonies:
To complete his condition, the Lord God holds for him a coronation day and a wedding day. But this action has an order in it… He brings the creatures of the field and of the air to Adam, to see what he would call them. This was investing him with dominion, setting the royal crown on his head. Then He prepares the helper suited to him, and presents Eve to him, following his coronation with his marriage.
- Formed — birds and beasts alike came out of the ground. The clash with chapter 1 comes from an old translation, not from the text.
- Brought — Adam did not round up the animals. God led them to him, so the naming confirmed a rule already given.
- Named — the names described real qualities. Naming them showed understanding, and speech was God's gift on day one, not a slow invention.
- Crowned — one writer reads the scene as a coronation. The crown went on Adam's head before a bride was presented to him.
- Alone — the parade that proved his rule also proved his solitude. No creature matched him, and God let him see it for himself.
And Man gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; but as for Adam, he found no helpmate, his like.
God brings every creature He has formed to the man, and the man names each one. Two things happen at once: he shows his authority over the animals, and he finds that none of them matches him.
God Himself brings the animals to Adam, and whatever he calls them stands. Writers point to naming as Scripture's mark of who rules whom.
Giving names is a ruler's right. Scripture recognises this everywhere — not only in Genesis but right through the Bible, even when Gentile nations held the upper hand. It belongs to man by nature, and he still uses it today over everything and everyone under him. But the weightiest and most striking use of this right was in man before he sinned, fresh from his Creator's hand. The Creator, Himself Sovereign Ruler, took pleasure in the rule of His representative on earth.
The same sign appears later with people, not animals.
Giving names is a mark of lordship, or ownership. So Adam at the beginning gave names to the animals. Pharaoh gave a name to Joseph, and Nebuchadnezzar gave one to Daniel (Gen. 2:20; Gen. 41:45; Dan. 1:7).
The names were not random sounds. What Adam called each creature showed what he knew.
He gives them each a name. These are not made-up names. In Scripture a name states the mark that sets a thing apart. So in naming the animals we see that Adam knew them perfectly. But with all this knowledge he fails to find one "his like."
Adam's naming assumes he could already talk. Commentators see here a gift from God, not a slow human invention.
Jehovah-Elohim brings these creatures before Adam, and he gives names to them all. This shows not only his title as lord, but also his power of fitting speech, which God gave him from the first. Some say that speech grew piece by piece, out of smaller elements. That idea is a clever dream. It may exercise men's wits, but it has no foundation at all. On the very first day of his life, before God formed Eve, Adam gave the animals their names. And God Himself approved what their head said.
God did not hand Eve over at once. The parade of creatures came first.
God did not create man to be completely self-sufficient. He needed more than company. He needed a "helpmeet," or counterpart. The way God brought that counterpart into being shows His goodness as well as His wisdom. God's aim was Adam's own good. So He brought the whole range of beasts and birds before him, and let Adam see for himself that no such counterpart existed among the animals.
The creatures he named made his own loneliness plain.
Every creature under Adam's rule had its mate to share the joy of its new life. The eagle in mid air, the singing birds in the trees, the roaring lion, the lamb feeding in peace beside him, down to the silent creatures of the waters — each had its own. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. Man was alone in the middle of a paradise, and therefore it was no paradise to him. There was a void in his heart, with all the abundance of that beautiful garden around him.
Adam names the creation before the woman exists. Writers see a picture here of Christ and the church.
The beautiful picture is kept intact: creation belongs to Christ. It does not belong to the church in the first place at all; her place is one of grace alone. The Heir of all things is the Second man, not the bride. If she has everything along with Him, that is because she is joined to Him, not because it is hers in herself.
What Adam could not find, God supplied. Where the ESV reads "a helper fit for him," older translations read "a helpmate, his like."
When God created man, no other creature of God's hand was found to be "a helpmate, his like" (Gen. 2:20) — none that could enter into the thoughts and feelings of man, or respond to his love. Ephesians 5 teaches us that Christ went into death, as Adam went into his deep sleep, so that one could be produced who would be "His like."
- Authority. Naming is Scripture's sign of lordship. Adam names the animals because God set him over them.
- Intelligence. A name states what a thing is. Adam's naming shows he knew each creature, and could speak from his first day.
- Exposure. The same parade that showed his rule showed his lack. God let him find for himself that nothing there matched him.
- Absence. Every creature had its mate. The man had none, so a perfect garden was no paradise to him.
- Supply. He named the creatures before the woman existed, so headship stayed his alone. In this he pictures Christ, Heir of creation, who went into death so that a companion "His like" could come out of it.
And Jehovah Elohim caused a deep sleep to fall upon Man; and he slept. And he took one of his ribs and closed up flesh in its stead.
Nothing God had made so far matched the man. So God does not form a second creature from the ground. He puts the man to sleep and takes something out of his side. Commentators find in that method both the pattern for marriage and a picture of the cross.
The Hebrew word here is not the word for ordinary rest. One writer, tracing the same term through Scripture, notes how narrow its use is:
A deep sleep — in Hebrew, tardemah. The word is never used of natural sleep. It is used of sleep that is either supernatural, sent for a special purpose, or spiritual, sent as part of God's dealings in governing man.
Why sleep at all, and why a rib? One writer finds kindness in the method, and an answer about rank in the place the rib came from:
God would give man the gift of companionship, the joy of fellowship, the exchange of affection. The end was good, and so was the way. He put the man into a trance, as the Greek version of the Old Testament renders it. So the man felt no pain, yet knew fully what God was giving him. She was not taken from his head, and not from his feet. She was not an absolute equal, and not an utter inferior. She came from his side: the object of nearest love and sustaining care, one who shared all joy and sorrow while depending on him.
God was not limited to this method. One writer notes the care in it, right down to the closed wound:
Of course God could have created a wife for Adam in a different way, if that had been His will. But He chose to do it in a way that man would never have imagined, showing a wisdom far higher than man's. He caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and removed one of his ribs, closing up the wound (without stitches!).
How God made the woman carries moral weight. One writer presses it on the reader's conscience:
If God had created the woman separately from the man, it would have been a bare fact with nothing to teach us. Instead, God keeps this striking detail for the account of moral relationship. And may I put it to the conscience of every soul: is this event not placed exactly where it should be? We all know how ready man is to forget the truth, and how often might takes advantage of right. God, for His part, was pleased to form the woman, and to reveal how He formed her. He did it in a way that ought to shame any man who admits she is his own flesh and bone, and yet slights or misuses a relationship so close.
Adam's sleep also points forward. One writer sees in it a picture of the death of Christ, whom he calls the "last Adam":
It takes little to see in that deep sleep God sent on Adam a figure of the deeper and more mysterious sleep of the "last Adam." The woman came out of the sleeping man, as the Church came out of Christ's death. And the creative Spirit builds the Church up as His body, "of His flesh and of His bones."
The parallel runs down to the wounded side itself. One writer sets the two scenes side by side:
The Risen One breathed the spirit of resurrection life on those for whom He had died. He had made the first Adam a living soul. He was the same One who took the rib out of sleeping Adam's side and made Adam's helper out of it. One day a soldier's spear would pierce His own side and draw out the blood and the water. That was to fit the bride the Father had given Him to live with Him in glory.
Eve did not exist before Adam's sleep. One writer applies that to Christ, and it settles when the church began:
Adam fell into a deep sleep, and God built from a rib out of his side a woman, whom He presented to Adam as a helper suited to him. In the same way, the helper suited to Christ came into being after His death. The church did not spring out of the living body. There was no union with Christ when He became man. Through His death this new body came into being.
- Sleep — the word is never used of ordinary sleep. God sent it for a purpose of His own.
- Side — not from the head, not from the feet, but from the side: nearest love, sustaining care, shared joy and sorrow.
- Cost — God took something out of the man before He gave anything to him. The pattern points on to a pierced side, blood and water.
- Timing — the helper did not exist before the sleep. Commentators read this to mean the church came out of Christ's death, not before it.
- Conscience — a man who calls the woman his own bone and flesh, then slights her, denies the way God made her.
And Jehovah Elohim built the rib that he had taken from Man into a woman; and brought her to Man.
Adam was alone, and God acted. He took part of the man himself, made a woman, and gave her to him. Commentators read both halves — the making and the giving — as the pattern for every marriage since, and as a picture of Christ and the church.
The Hebrew word rendered "rib" is used widely in the Old Testament. One writer points out how translators handle it everywhere else:
It is worth noticing that the Hebrew word translated "rib" here is in every other case translated, no less than nineteen times, as "side."
Where God took the material from carries meaning. One writer draws a lesson from it about how the man and the woman stand toward each other:
He would give man the gift of companionship, the joy of fellowship, the exchange of affection. The end was good, and so was the way. He threw the man into a trance, as the Greek translators put it. Adam would not feel pain, yet would know perfectly what God was giving him. It was not a separate human being independent of Adam. It was not from the head nor from the feet — not an absolute equal, nor an utter inferior — but from his side. Others long ago have observed what that means: she is the object of nearest love and sustaining care, a sharer of all joy and sorrow, joined to him yet dependent on him.
The Hebrew verb behind "made" is "built." One writer follows that word forward:
When it comes to the way God's act of creating Eve is described, the word "built" catches our attention. It was certainly an act of creation. Yet the wording is unusual: God "built the rib into a woman." This is the first time this verb (to build) appears in the Bible. In Ephesians 2:20, 22 the word for the building of the church comes from the same root as the word used here, in the Greek translation of the Old Testament. The church is presented here as companion. But the mention that God "built" Eve is meant to confirm the truth that the builder of the church is a divine One. The Lord Himself said to Peter: "on this rock I will build my church" (Matt. 16:18).
Adam did not find her; God gave her. One writer, using the Hebrew names for God, calls that giving the founding pattern of marriage:
As Jehovah Elohim was pleased to build his rib into an Ishah (woman), so He brought her to the man. This is the highest and best form of marriage. The woman was received, as it were, from the divine hand. She came not from Elohim only, but from Him who in all His action recorded here was perfectly laying the ground for mutual duty in the relationship of marriage.
How Eve came to be still shapes marriage today. One writer treats Adam's case as the model, not the exception:
The woman was formed by divine handiwork, not from the dust of the ground as Adam had been, but out of Adam himself. Eve was the Creator's provision for Adam. The marriage of Adam is the prototype of the marriage of all his sons. In every case of true marriage, God arranges the union. Divine wisdom notices the moment when the man's loneliness is no longer good for him. He then provides a bride who is the complement of his nature, with its personal characteristics. Adam had no choice of brides; there was only the one that would suit him, and she was prepared by God especially for him.
The pattern reaches further than marriage. One writer sets out what had to happen before the church could begin:
Scripture fully warrants us in looking at Adam and Eve as a type of Christ and the church. So the death of Christ had to be an accomplished fact before the church could be set up. Yet in the purpose of God she was looked at, and chosen in Christ, before the foundation of the world.
Yet the picture is not an exact match, and the difference is the point:
We may find a contrast to Christ in Genesis 2:22. The Lord God presented Eve to Adam; in Ephesians 5:27 Christ presents the church to Himself. Why is this? The answer is very simple — Christ is God.
- Sleep — Adam felt no pain, yet knew perfectly what God was giving. The gift came while he slept, not by his work.
- Side — the same Hebrew word is translated "side" nineteen other times. She came not from the head or the feet, but from his side.
- Built — this is the first "build" in the Bible. The same root returns for the building of the church, and the builder is divine.
- Brought — she came from God's own hand. That giving sets the pattern for every true marriage.
- Beyond — the picture stops short at one point. God presented Eve to Adam; Christ presents the church to Himself, because Christ is God.
And Man said, This time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh this shall be called Woman, because this was taken out of a man.
These are the first recorded words of a human being. In Adam's cry we find the origin of marriage, the origin of the word "woman," and a picture of something far larger.
One writer asks why God did not make the woman separately out of the dust, as He had made Adam:
Man was alone, and it was not good that he should be so... If God had created someone else out of the dust, apart from Adam, where would Adam's supremacy have been? And where would the tender closeness of relationship that such a companion needs have been? ... His exclamation clearly shows the joy with which he received her. It also shows that he saw the infinite wisdom that had provided him a partner and companion. She was distinct from him, and so the object of his affection and delight. Yet she was so mysteriously linked with his existence that she had once been part of himself.
Everything he ruled over had been a blank until this moment.
When he awoke out of sleep and saw standing by his side the fair one whom the Lord God, in His goodness, had provided for him, he exclaimed, "This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh." The blank was now filled up. He had seen nothing till now to suit his heart.
In Hebrew the two words echo each other: Ishah (woman) taken out of Ish (man). No one had told Adam what God did while he slept, yet he knew at once. The writer below keeps the Hebrew words in an older rendering of the verse:
The woman now came to him as it were from God's own hand... "the man said, This time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh: this shall be called Ishah, for out of Ish was taken this." He knew at once how close and fitting this relationship was, though until then he had not known God's purpose. And he gave her a name that expressed the fact perfectly.
Naming her also placed her in a particular relation to him:
Note the intelligence of Adam and his knowledge of the mystery of the woman's creation... He gives her a name, but owns that she is part of himself. This time it is so, as the name itself shows — part of himself, yet subject to him.
She was not made the way Adam was made.
God formed the woman by His own hand. He did not take her from the dust of the ground, as He had taken Adam, but out of Adam himself. So the woman really was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. Eve was the Creator's provision for Adam. God saw that Adam was incomplete while he was alone, and gave him a partner designed to meet exactly what he lacked. So in their marriage the two became one flesh, each completing the other.
The way God chose to make her, and the way He chose to record it, carries moral weight.
We all know how ready man has been to forget the truth — how often power takes advantage of what is right! God, for His part, chose to form woman, and to reveal how He formed her, in a way that should shame any man who recognises her as his own flesh and bone, yet slights or misuses so close a relationship.
This has something to say about every marriage since:
Adam's marriage is the pattern for the marriage of all his sons. In every true marriage, God arranges the union... Adam had no choice of brides; there was only one who would suit him, and God had prepared her especially for him.
Ephesians 5 takes Adam's words and applies them to Christ and the church. The order of cause and effect is worth noticing:
The relationship of husband and wife is not merely a convenient illustration. Ephesians 5 makes it clear that God modelled marriage on what He already had in His mind — the relationship of Christ and the church. In other words, God had the relationship of Christ and His church in mind in His eternal purpose, and only later, in time, did He institute marriage.
One writer warns against getting the link backwards:
The link is not between the Lord as Man and men in general. It was not true, as some say, that in becoming Man He became flesh of our flesh and bone of our bone. It is we, His people, who are flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone (Eph. 5:30). For this, too, death had to come in... It was in the deep sleep that fell on Adam — the image of that death-sleep — that Eve was taken out of his side.
- Alone. Adam alone was not good; his solitude left him incomplete, and nothing in creation could fill the gap.
- Out of him. God did not form her from dust, but from Adam himself. That origin makes the tie so close.
- Named by him. Ishah out of Ish — Adam read God's work at a glance and gave her a name that states the fact.
- Owed to her. A man who calls the woman his own flesh and bone, then slights or misuses her, stands condemned by this verse.
- Fulfilled in Christ. God modelled marriage on His eternal purpose. Through Christ's death-sleep, His people — not humanity at large — became flesh of His flesh.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
These closing words of the Eden account are not story but rule. God set out marriage here before there was a second family on earth. Adam had no parents to leave. So who is speaking here, and how far do these words reach?
The sentence describes something Adam could never have faced. It looks ahead to those who would come after him.
The first verse describes circumstances entirely different from those of Adam, who had no father or mother to leave.
When people asked the Lord about divorce, He went back to this verse and to who first spoke it.
As He had already answered: "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matt. 19:3-8). It is not Adam who said this, but God.
"Leave" marks a change in where a man's first duty lies.
Up to the time of a man's marriage the chief relationship he stands in is that of a son, and his responsibility is towards his parents. But when he marries he leaves his father and mother and holds fast to his wife. From then on she becomes his chief care, for he and she are no longer two but one flesh.
"Hold fast" answers two questions at once: how many, and how.
This verse settles many questions. He holds fast to his wife — only one wife, so that bigamy and polygamy are completely unscriptural. Holding fast to his wife involves genuine love for her, and faithfulness and devotedness.
Later law allowed divorce. So which passage shows God's real mind about marriage?
Now the same lawgiver who allowed divorces had, in an earlier book of the law, made known how God first set up marriage. That first account has no clause permitting divorce. Both passages (Deut. 24:1; Gen. 2:23-24) were God's Word. The first was a provision "for the hardness of their hearts"… The second (Gen. 2:24) taught the sacredness and the real character of the tie… So we are taken back to how marriage began, and reminded of how God sees it — two made one flesh, whom He has joined, and whom therefore man should not separate.
God formed this union while the man and woman were still sinless. The ruin that followed did not cancel what He had set up.
It matters greatly that God set up marriage between Adam and Eve while they were still innocent. When they were joined, sin had not entered the world, and death, its just penalty, had not yet come. But when their disobedience brought sin in, marriage kept the holy character God gave it when He set it up.
The same union points past marriage, and becomes a reason for personal purity.
That union is meant to remind the Christian of his own blessed privilege: he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him — not one flesh, but one spirit. This is so because he has received the Holy Spirit. So impurity is a sin not only against his own body, but against the Trinity and the price paid for him. "Glorify God then in your body."
Ephesians 5 ties this verse to Christ and the church. That picture was no afterthought.
God cast Adam into a deep sleep and formed Eve from a rib taken from his side. This is a picture of the church, which was formed by the death of Christ. Ephesians 5:25-32 brings this out so clearly that there can be no mistake about its meaning. Marriage was not just a handy illustration of Christ and the church. God designed it from the start to be a picture of that union.
Even the "leaving" finds its counterpart.
Christ, as man, left what belonged to Him through His link with His earthly people, Israel, so that He might gain and have the church… The marriage bond, therefore, becomes the picture of the union of the church with Christ.
- Speaker — the words describe a man with parents to leave, which Adam never had. The Lord traced them back to God Himself.
- Leave — marriage moves a man's first responsibility off his parents and onto his wife, and a new home begins.
- Hold fast — one wife only, held with love, faithfulness and devotedness.
- One flesh — God tied the two together before sin entered, and sin did not undo it. Later permission to divorce met hard hearts; it was not the original order.
- Picture — the same verse points to the believer joined to the Lord as one spirit, and to Christ and the church. Marriage was designed to picture that from the start.