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.