These are the histories of the heavens and the earth, when they were created, in the day that Jehovah Elohim made earth and heavens,
Genesis opens a new section here, with a heading that shapes the whole book and a name for God not used before. It raises three questions: is this a second account of creation, why does "God" become "the LORD God," and what does "in the day" mean after six days?
The verse sums up chapter 1 and opens something new. It does not tell the creation story a second time.
This verse opens a new section of the book. The rest of Genesis 2 and Genesis 3 use the divine names in a very special way. This verse also sums up the main facts of Genesis 1. What went before gave creation completely. The new section does not speak of the creation of the heavens and earth. It is not a second account, and still less a different or contradictory one. It is the added revelation of man set in moral responsibility, tested by Jehovah Elohim.
The first chapter says nothing about Eden. This new section names it, because man's trial needed a place.
From Genesis 2:4 we see the subject from another point of view. This is not a repetition of the account of creation. It is something even more necessary to bring before us here: the place of relationship in which God set the creation He had formed — not only among themselves, but above all towards Himself. That is why Eden is first spoken of here. We would not have known anything of paradise from the first chapter. The reason is clear. Eden was to be the scene of the moral trial of man.
The word for "generations" is rare, and here it means origin, not family line.
The word translated "generations" occurs only sparingly in the Old Testament... and it seems to have the force of "births" or "origins." If this is so, "the generations of the heavens and the earth" would mean their origins. The generations of Adam, Noah and others would mean those who by birth found their origin in these fathers.
The same heading returns later in the book. This first one covers the time while man was still unfallen.
"The generations of the heavens and of the earth" (Gen. 2:4) include Adam unfallen. Next, man was tested with no restraint up to the flood, and "the book of the generations of Adam" [fallen] (Gen. 5:1) brings us up to the flood and Noah.
The verse ends by naming the earth before the heavens, the reverse of chapter 1's order. The change looks deliberate.
I doubt that the order in verse 4, eretz v'shamayim (earth and heavens), is changed without design. Here we have come down to the present ordering of the earth and the heavens around it — yet it still hangs on the original creation.
Chapter 1 counts six days. This verse gathers them into one "day." Scripture uses the word in more than one sense, and the context decides.
No one can honestly deny that Scripture, like other speech, uses "day" in a general or figurative sense where needed. That sense may cover a long stretch of time. But this need never trouble a careful reader: as always, the context gives the clue.
From here on the text says "the LORD God" — Jehovah Elohim. Jehovah is the name He uses in relationship with people.
Jehovah is His personal name, "The Name." He bears it in relationship with man on earth, and above all with His people. He is the Self-existent and Eternal One. This is always the proper name of the true God for those on earth. In time it became the name by which He made Himself known as the covenant God of Israel.
Once that name appears, the chapter unfolds as a series of ties.
"Jehovah" is His title of relationship. It is wonderful that He should stoop to enter into relationship with His lowly creature man. So all through Genesis 2, from verse 4, we read "the LORD God," that is, "Jehovah Elohim." Note the various relationships in that chapter: vv. 4-6, the heavens and the earth in relation to Him. He created them... vv. 7-15, man in relation to Him. The special inbreathing. vv. 16-20, man in relation to the lower orders. Their lord. vv. 21-25, man in relation to woman. Her head.
Some argue that the change of names proves two writers were stitched together. Kelly answers that one inspired writer could not have written it any other way.
Suppose there was only one writer of the book of Genesis, as I am persuaded there was. Then the book would not have borne the stamp of a divine communication if he had used the name Jehovah-Elohim in 1–2:3, or the name "Elohim" only in 2:4-25. The change of name springs from distinct truths. It does not come from different storytellers, or from a poor compiler who could not even blend them.
- Heading. "These are the generations" is a title, and it means origins. It is the first of the headings that divide Genesis.
- Hinge. Chapter 1 gave the making of things. From this verse on, Genesis gives the relationships.
- Name. Because relationship now begins, the Creator is called the LORD God — Jehovah Elohim, His name of relationship with man.
- Scope. Under this one heading fall Eden, man's tie to God, his rule over the animals, and the woman — the setting of man's trial.
- Answer. The changed name is design, not a seam between two documents. The difference of subject accounts for it.
and every shrub of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for Jehovah Elohim had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground.
The verse pauses the story. It describes a world with plants but no rain and no farmer, and it points to God as the cause. Two questions follow. Why does Genesis go back over ground already covered in chapter 1? And why does it matter that the field grew without rain or human hands?
People often ask why Genesis seems to tell the creation story twice. One writer answers that the two passages have different aims. The first records how things came to be. The second shows how they stand toward God.
It is wrong to say that the second account brings the whole present world into being at once. The creation history runs from Genesis 1 to Genesis 2:3. From verse 4 to the end of Genesis 2 we have not so much a history of creation as a statement of the relations of creation, and especially of man, its centre and head. Genesis 2 assumes Genesis 1, but adds moral elements of the utmost importance and interest.
From this verse on, the text calls Him "the LORD God," not simply "God." Older translations render that name "Jehovah." The change of name goes with a change of subject.
Here we meet the solemn truth that God is Jehovah-God: He is not merely a Creator, but sets the creature, man, in relationship with Himself. So He is not only the Absolute One; the One who is absolute chooses to form relationships between the creature and Himself.
Two ordinary causes of growth are missing from the verse: rain and human work.
Verse 5 stresses that the plant world came straight from the hand of God. Natural causes such as rain did not produce it, and neither did man's skill at cultivating. Verse 6 shows that a mist rising from the earth itself kept it alive, with no water coming down from above. Some think that the watering of the earth by mist and not rain lasted until the time of the flood. It may have been so.
Those first plants also began life unlike any plant since.
This describes the plants and herbs produced on the third day, before man, the head of creation, appeared. Like man, they were full-grown, and not from seed as ever since. The account names them as the food the living creatures would need when God called them into existence on earth; and there they were, in suitable maturity, by God's ordering — in contrast with everything since.
No human writer would invent a world watered this way. One commentator takes that as a mark of where the book came from.
This is another evidence of God's authorship of the Bible, for it is something that man would never have imagined. Though there were "waters above," God did not use them as rainfall. How the earth produced the mist we do not know.
Some claim this contradicts chapter 1, where God gathered the waters and dry land appeared. One writer answers the objection simply:
If divine power separated the earth from the waters, why should the earth stay soaked? Genesis 1 says God called the dry land Earth. These verses say that though no rain had yet fallen, a mist went up. What could be more consistent?
Growth came neither from human work below nor from rain above. One writer draws out what that means for man's place.
All things were here in their own order as creatures of God, connected with the earth. But man's work was not what made them grow and bear fruit. Nor did rain from heaven supply fruitfulness from above. The mist that watered the ground rose from the earth, drawn up by power and blessing, but not coming down. Yet man's own place was a special one in relation to God.
If no one yet worked the ground, did work come later as a punishment? One answer separates work from toil.
Scripture does not say that there was no "work" before his fall. God placed man in the garden "to work it and keep it," which shows that it was not God's will for His creature to be idle. But there was no "toil" or "sorrow" in that occupation. Now thorns and thistles would appear, and man would eat bread by the sweat of his face.
- Relations — From verse 4 on, Genesis stops retelling how the world came to be. It sets out how creation, with man at its centre, stands in relation to God.
- Name — Here God is "the LORD God." He is not only the Creator. He sets the creature in relationship with Himself.
- Source — The field grew before rain fell and before anyone farmed it. The plants came straight from God's hand, full-grown, not from seed.
- Supply — A mist rose from below to water the ground. Nothing fell from above. No human author would have invented that.
- Result — Man was never meant to be idle. Work belonged to Eden. Sin turned that work into sweat, thorns and sorrow.
But a mist went up from the earth, and moistened the whole surface of the ground.
Before there was rain, and before there was a farmer, God was already watering the ground. This short note describes the world just before man was formed, and its detail — water rising instead of falling — has drawn both wonder and criticism.
The opening chapter told us that God created. From verse 4 the subject changes to the conditions of man's life.
In Genesis 1, and in chapter 2 down to the end of verse 3, we have the great fact that God created... Then a new subject begins, not a new account of creation. That is simply not the case. Creation is mentioned only briefly here, and only in connection with there being no man. What follows sets out the condition, nature, and moral position of man: where God put him, under what conditions, the place of the animals, and the woman.
The verse before ours rules out two things we credit for a green earth: weather and farming. Verse 6 names what did the work.
Verse 5 stresses that plant life came straight from the hand of God. Natural causes such as rain did not produce it, and neither did man's skill in farming. Verse 6 shows what kept it alive: a mist that rose from the earth itself, with no water coming down from above. There were waters "above the expanse" (Genesis 1:7), but they had not yet fallen on the earth as showers. We do not read of rain until Genesis 7:4.
The mist moves upward, not downward. That direction matches man's position in the chapter: he is on earth, and God does not yet live there.
Here everything stood in its own order as God's creatures on the earth. But man's work was not what made them grow and bear fruit. Nor did rain from heaven supply that fruitfulness from above. The mist that watered the ground rose from the earth, drawn up by power and blessing, but not coming down. Yet man's place before God was a special one. Man did not live in heaven; God did not live on earth. But God had formed a place of special blessing and delight for man to live in, and there He visited him.
Creation is more than a display of power, and the way this ground gets watered is not what a human author would have invented.
Creation did not come into being merely as a display of God's power. It came as a sphere in which God's tender interest in man is wonderfully clear... Then, even after He had brought in plant life, there was no rainfall. Instead a mist went up from the earth to water the face of the ground (v. 6). This is another evidence that God is the author of the Bible, because it is something man would never have imagined. Though there were "waters above," God did not use them as rain. How the earth produced the mist, we do not know.
Commentators differ on whether this arrangement continued after Eden. One reading connects it with the rainbow God gave Noah (older translations: "I do set My bow in the cloud").
The words "I have set My bow in the cloud" imply that no one had ever seen a rainbow before. That supports the thought mentioned on Genesis 2:5-6: until the flood no rain had fallen on the earth, and a mist watered it instead.
Others treat the same idea as possible but unproven, and decline to build on it.
Some have claimed that there was no rain until the flood, and that these waters came down then. It may be so. I see no proof of it.
The objection assumes that ground once separated from the sea must have stayed soaked.
Some say Genesis 2:5-6 does not fit with Genesis 1:9-10. If divine power separated the earth from the waters, why should the earth stay soaked? Genesis 1 says God called "the dry land" earth; the later verses say that no rain had yet fallen, but a mist went up. What can be more consistent?
- Setting, not repeating. From verse 4 a new subject begins. It is not a second creation account, but a look at man's conditions and moral position.
- Supply before need. No rain fell and no one worked the soil, yet the ground stayed watered. Growth came straight from God's hand, not from weather or work.
- Upward, not downward. The mist rose from the earth instead of falling from heaven. That matched a world where man did not live in heaven and God did not live on earth.
- Credible because unexpected. A mist instead of rainfall is a detail no human writer would have invented; how the earth produced it, we are not told.
- Held loosely. Commentators differ on whether this watering lasted until the flood. Some link it to the rainbow God gave Noah; others say the idea may be true but is unproven.
And Jehovah Elohim formed Man, dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Man became a living soul.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
And Jehovah Elohim planted a garden in Eden eastward, and there put Man whom he had formed.
God plants a garden, and then places the man He has just formed inside it. Two simple actions raise big questions. Why did the man need a place made ready for him? What does the name Eden mean, and why was the garden set "in the east"?
The name is not decoration. It tells you what the place was like.
Only a word or two needs saying about the garden. It was a place of delights. Eden means pleasure. It has completely disappeared, and God meant it to disappear. Yet at least two of the rivers show us that it stood on this earth much as we have it now. The LORD God had formed the man; the LORD God had planted the garden.
God planted the garden Himself, and He left nothing for man to supply.
So at the beginning the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east. All the earth was fair before sin ruined it, and God had made everything "very good." Even so, the garden was better still, and God gave it special care in His moral government. Man had to be tested, and no excuse would be open to him, because no one could point to a single flaw. God planted the garden, so everything in it was there for use and beauty, fit for a creation that had not yet fallen. He loves a cheerful giver, and He is Himself the pattern of all generosity.
Commentators trace this sequence — first the place, then the person — right through Scripture.
This has always been God's way. He planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there He put the man whom He had formed (Gen. 2:8). The One who did this has gone to prepare a place for His own in His Father's house. He prepares the place, the land, beforehand, and then brings His people into it.
Note where the man came from.
He was not created in Eden. He was made of dust, and God breathed the breath of life into him — that is all. Then God forms the garden and places him there under set conditions. The whole scene shows the relationships, and the footing on which man stood in every respect.
How he got there also showed what kind of creature he was.
He was the favourite of Heaven, the last and newest creature. God put him there as a dependent one, and, I believe, the most dependent of all His creatures. God placed him in a paradise that He Himself watched over and cared for. All his needs became simply ways of showing God's care for him. He was a dependent creature by his very nature. The angels had fallen before this… In all this God was hiding pride from man. He was teaching him dependence.
Eden and the garden are not the same thing.
Eden was the country. "The garden" was that choice part of it, not in the west or the centre, but "in the east," which the LORD God planted for Adam. Scripture speaks of it again later — in this book, again and again in the prophets, and at greatest length in Ezekiel. It is quite distinct from another Eden, spelled a little differently in Hebrew, which seems to have been in Babylonia.
A garden is a marked-off space. Yet what God enclosed did not stay enclosed.
He planted a garden in Eden and separated it from the rest of the scene. The man was to live there, work it and keep it. Yet four rivers flowed out of it, carrying its blessings to the four quarters of the earth.
That leaves one question. Does man ever get this garden back?
Eden means "delight." It is called Paradise in the Greek translation — the Septuagint. We have heard of "Paradise Lost" and "Paradise Regained." Scripture says nothing of the second. Once lost, man's Paradise is never regained. But God in grace opens a heavenly Paradise.
Another writer turns this into a warning about how we picture Adam.
Once innocence is lost, it can never be recovered. For faith, God does bring in a better condition through the Second man at His first coming, and He will bring it in open power at His second. But the first state is never restored. People keep forgetting this. They make far too much of Adam's original condition. They fail to see how complete the ruin caused by sin is. They lower or ignore the new creation in Christ.
- Planted — Eden means delight. God Himself was the gardener, and the place matched His generosity.
- Prepared — the garden was ready before the man arrived. God still works this way: the place first, then His people.
- Placed — God formed man of dust outside and put him in. He was the most dependent of creatures, and that kept pride away.
- Poured out — God fenced the garden off from the rest of the earth, yet its rivers carried blessing to all four quarters.
- Past — innocence, once lost, never returns. God does not restore the old garden; He gives new creation in Christ.
And out of the ground Jehovah Elohim made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; and the tree of life, in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
God filled Eden with trees that were beautiful and good for food. At its centre stood two named trees, and the whole human story turns on them: one offered life, the other tested obedience.
The verse first describes plain abundance: trees for the eye and trees for the table. One writer notes that both needs were met at once:
God created man in this way, and then made a garden of delights to be his home. The name Eden means "Pleasure." Every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food was there. Nothing was lacking to support life or to give pleasure. The verse gives special mention to two trees. The tree of life was surely a witness to a life different from the one man already had. God put that life within his reach. The other tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was there to remind him of his responsibility and to test it.
The care behind the planting is itself the point. One writer sees the same pattern God later used with Israel's vineyard:
As with Israel long afterward, there was full preparation now. Nothing was lacking on Jehovah's part... So at the beginning Jehovah Elohim planted a garden eastward in Eden. However fair all the earth might be before ruin came through sin, and everything that God had made "very good," the garden was clearly superior, and the object of special care to God in His moral government. Man had to be tried; and no excuse was possible, no flaw could be alleged.
The verse names the two trees separately, and commentators say that separation matters:
But there is revealed in verse 9 another fact of the deepest interest. The tree of life was distinct from the tree of knowing good and evil. The test of responsible obedience was one thing; the means of life was quite another. From the very first they are separate. When man disobeyed by eating from the one tree, God drove him out, in case he should take from the other as well and make his fallen sinful state last for ever. The point is marked clearly here: responsibility and life are wholly separate.
A whole history turned on one piece of fruit. Kelly answers that the smallness was the design:
People often find it hard that God made the moral history of the world turn on touching that tree or eating that fruit. To the mere mind of man it seems a great problem that something which looks so small should carry such terrible results. Do you not understand that this was the very essence of the trial? The key feature of the trial was this: it turned only on God's authority in forbidding, not on some grave moral evil.
The name of the second tree points to something Adam did not yet have:
Almost all men say that God created Adam in righteousness and in holiness of the truth. Not so... He was innocent; he did not have what Scripture here calls "the knowledge of good and evil." Man only gained it by the fall. He had, of course, the consciousness of responsibility... Now holiness implies that, having this knowledge, we are separate from the evil to the good. Adam had no such knowledge. Unfallen, he had no lust.
Because the two trees are distinct, merging them goes against the record:
The constant effort of man, especially of religious man, is to treat the two trees as one. That is, to make life depend on fulfilling responsibility. This idea flies in the face of the facts when man was innocent. It is even more plainly false once man was a sinner, expressly shut out from the tree of life... Sin morally compelled God to be a judge. Love, divine grace, made Him a Saviour.
Commentators say the two lines meet in one Person only:
In the garden of Eden there was the tree of life, and there was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Life stood on one side, responsibility on the other. Man failed, ate of the tree of knowledge, and could not get to the tree of life. Now the law took up the same principle... and said, "Do this and live." Then the Lord Jesus Christ, the second Man, comes. He does His Father's will in everything, and sovereign grace takes up our responsibilities. He takes the consequences of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and He is the life.
The tree itself reappears at the end of Scripture, in a better setting:
If in the earliest chapters of the Bible we find man shut out from the tree of life in the middle of a paradise of innocence, in the closing chapters we find him redeemed through Christ's precious blood, and in the paradise of God — the paradise of holiness — eating of the Tree of Life, in a higher sphere and condition than before.
- Planted — God made a garden of delights for man first. Nothing was lacking, for life or for pleasure.
- Two trees — one offered a life beyond what man already had; the other tested whether he would obey.
- Separate — life and responsibility stand apart from the first page. Eating from the test tree cost man the tree of life.
- Innocent — Adam was upright, but not holy. Man gained the knowledge of good and evil by the fall, not before it.
- United in Christ — He bore the consequence of our responsibility, and He is Himself the life. So we eat from the tree of life again, in the paradise of God.