Gen 2:1
Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished: That's all of creation. Everything. And no mention of life on other planets. Sorry UFOlogists... you're deceived by demons. I'm not saying that there aren't UFOs, but I am saying that what we see as UFOs are demonic deceptions.
Gen 2:2
And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done: God was done with creating everything, and on the seventh day, he kicked back and enjoyed His creation. The "rested" used here means to cease working. The picture here isn't that God was physically exerted and needed to recover, but more that He finished His creation, and He was pleased with it, like a painter that finished a masterpiece and is admiring his own work. Notice that the rest on the seventh day came before any commandments, laws, rules, or anything. Since the foundation of the world, one day in seven has been a day of rest, to focus on the goodness of God.
Gen 2:3
Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made: Before any covenants, laws, etc., God blessed the 7th day and sanctified it. Since God sanctified it, we should honor this. It's not mandated that we set aside the sabbath, but we should put aside time to honor God, and what better way than to get together and praise Him?
SANC'TIFIED, pp.
1. Made holy; consecrated; set apart for sacred services.
2. Affectedly holy.
Gen 2:4
Gen 2:4-7: The placement here is strange and does not flow well. In my opinion, Gen 2:1-3 should have been included at the end of chapter 1 and Gen 2:4-7 should have been verses 1-3. I don't understand why it's in this order because the layout makes the understanding difficult to grasp at first and causes undue confusion.
This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created – when the LORD God made the earth and heavens: This is a declaration of what the following verses are going to be about. We are treated to a second creation account with a focus on the creation of man.
Gen 2:5
before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown: This is admittedly a hard verse to understand. How can God create plant life on the third day in Gen 1, but describe the creation of man and say that it was before any plants of the field? The explanation is simpler than expected. First, there's a distinction between two types of plant: One that grows wild and one that needs to be cultivated. The seeming contradiction between Gen 1:11-12 is that God created plants before man, but here, the author says it's before any of the two types of plants had grown. And there's the answer! They simply hadn't grown yet.
for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground: And here the author states the reasons that plants hadn't grown yet. There was no rain to water the wild plants, and man didn't exist yet to cultivate the ground for the food plants. Gen 2:6 shows the process of water evaporation, which would eventually cause rain.
Gen 2:6
but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground: This verse also confused me. There was a seeming contradiction between verses 5 and 6. How can the plants not grow because they need rain, but the next verse talk about how the earth is watered by a mist? The answer again is simple. The mist resulted from the separation of the water and the land. As everything settled, water evaporated and created a mist until enough gathered to create rain. The rain isn't mentioned, but it should be inferred simply because God says in verse 5 that plants need rain to grow, and in verses 8 & 9, we see that God plants a garden, and it grows.
Gen 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being: Notice that man was FORMED! by God out of the dust of the ground. Any mention of monkeys? Nope. Reason: We didn't evolve from monkeys! Paul refers to man being created in this prophecy: Rom 1:24-25. Paul wrote that prophecy of the stupid theory of evolution.
Gen 2:8
The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed: Right after forming man, God planted a garden in Eden. This garden is of the type of plant that requires cultivation, so He put the man there to do the cultivation. From the verse, we can speculate the timing in two ways. First, that God planted the garden on day 3, then on day six, put the man in the garden. Second, that this part happened after the seventh day. Either way works for me, although I am more inclined to belive that the garden was created on day three.
Gen 2:9
And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food: No mention of a period of time. The wording falls in line with the idea that God had planted a garden, and the garden grew in due course. Remember, man was created to tend and cultivate the garden, and God put Adam in the garden. Why else would Adam be in the garden, if not to cultivate it?
The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden: This tree grants immortality to whomever eats it. Thankfully, God was wise enough to deny us access to it once we fell. This was a mercy because life on this planet is miserable, and we would have to live forever in misery if we were allowed to eat it. At least we have a way out of this misery through death. Maranatha.
and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: This tree is the test God set up, which we end up failing. We could eat from every tree except that tree. Gotquestions explains the tree this way, "There was nothing essentially evil about the tree or the fruit of the tree. It is unlikely that the fruit, in and of itself, gave Adam and Eve any further knowledge. That is, the physical fruit may have contained some vitamin C and some beneficial fiber, but it was not spiritually nutritious. However, the act of disobedience was spiritually deleterious. That sin opened Adam’s and Eve’s eyes to evil. For the first time, they knew what it was to be evil, to feel shame, and to want to hide from God. Their sin of disobeying God brought corruption into their lives and into the world. Eating the fruit, as an act of disobedience against God, was what gave Adam and Eve the knowledge of evil—and the knowledge of their nakedness."
And notice that we had a choice. We were free to eat from the tree of life. Yet the choice was made to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It's the same choice we have today. Follow Jesus and eat from the tree of life, or follow the world and eat of the knowledge of good and evil.
Gen 2:10
Now a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it parted and became four riverheads: This verse is another that's hard to understand. It seems to me that there was a river in Eden that was broken off into four smaller rivers and those four rivers watered the garden. However, Albert Barnes says, "Here is a river the source of which is in Eden. It passes into the garden and waters it. “And thence it was parted and became four heads.” This statement means either that the single stream was divided into four branches, or that there was a division of the river system of the district into four principal streams, whose sources were all to be found in it, though one only passed through the garden. In the latter case the word נהר nâhār may be understood in its primary sense of a flowing of water in general. This flowing in all the parts of Eden resulted in four particular flowings or streams, which do not require to have been ever united. The subsequent land changes in this district during an interval of five or six thousand years prevent us from determining more precisely the meaning of the text."
It doesn't matter either way, but it seems like something we Christians should be aware of just in case. People love to twist God's word.
Keep in mind also that as we will see later, God hid Eden (Gen 3:24), so I can't understand why people argue over it's location, or over the location of these rivers. The real fun begins when you wonder why there are physical markers that exist on Earth where Eden was, still identifiable today, but you can't see Eden. I believe that researches such as Josh Peck are onto something with their focus on Quantum Field Theory.
Gen 2:11
The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which skirts the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold: Nobody is 100% positive where the locations are of Pishon and Havilah.
Gen 2:12
And the gold of that land is good. Bdellium and the onyx stone are there:
BDEL'LIUM, n. [ Bochard and Parkhurst translate it, pearl. Gen 2. But it is doubtful whether the bdellium of the scriptures is that now used.]
A gummy resinous juice, produced by a tree in the East Indies, of which we have no satisfactory account. It is brought from the E. Indies and from Arabia, in pieces of different sizes and figures, externally of a dark reddish brown, internally, clear and not unlike to glue. To the taste, it is slightly bitterish and pungent; its odor is agreeable. In the mouth, it becomes soft and sticks to the teeth; on a red hot iron, it readily catches flame and burns with a crackling noise. It is used as a perfume and a medicine, being a weak deobstruent.
ON'YX, n. [Gr. a nail. L. onyx.] A semi-pellucid gem with variously colored zones or veins, a variety of chalcedony.
Gen 2:13
The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one which goes around the whole land of Cush: Nobody knows the location of either Gihon or this Cush
Gen 2:14
The name of the third river is Hiddekel; it is the one which goes toward the east of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates: It's believed by many that the Hiddekel river is the Tigris, and the Euprates is still known by that name today. However, just like the other rivers, we can't be sure.
Gen 2:15
Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it: We were designed to be workers. From this verse, we can see the state that God intended for us: Living in a place of beauty, having all our needs met, while working to maintain that perfect state. Work for humans is in our nature, and gives us a sense of purpose. Work keeps us grounded, and if we work as if we're working for God, we can have a closer relationship with Him.
From personal experience, I've learned that you can work for God, or money, or personal satisfaction, or for recognition, or for many other worldly reasons. However, I've never found satisfaction in any of those worldly things. Only after changing my mindset to working for God did I start to feel a sense of accomplishment, and that I was doing the right thing. God wants us to work, but working for the things of this world will only satisfy our flesh for a short period. The flesh always wants more and can never be fully satisfied. Working for God will bring fulfillment in ways that only the redeemed can know. My sense of accomplishment is in presenting myself in a Godly manner and bringing light to a very dark world. Isn't that a much better goal than working to obtain things for this world? Why work toward a temporary mansion and a comfortable life here on earth when we could be working toward an everlasting mansion in heaven, hanging out with Jesus? What would you rather have? The answer to that question is in your own personal history. Have you worked toward the things of this world, or the things of God? You will know by the things you have.
Gen 2:16
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat: This garden must have been amazing. Can you imagine the untainted fruit produced by plants and trees that God specifically designed for us? "You may freely eat" can also be translated as, "You can eat to your heart's content," so it appears that the food was for sustenance, as well as for pleasure.
Gen 2:17
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die: What is this tree? People generally think the fruit was an apple, but there's no indication of this. There's also no indication that the fruit itself was anything other than fruit. Rather, the indication here is that the act itself of eating from the fruit of the tree was the trigger, not that there was some compound in the fruit that granted knowledge. This tree of knowledge of good and evil was next to the tree of life, both in the middle of the garden. God had constructed a sort of test, with the choice being life or death. We all know how that turned out.
God tells man that he will die if he eats from the tree. When Adam and Eve eat from it, they don't die. Wrong! They chose death over life. They could have eaten from the tree of life and lived forever, but they chose the tree that causes death over life, in direct opposition to God's simple command. This simple, deliberate act, taught them disobedience, which opened their eyes to there being a choice whether or not to obey God. And because man had openly defied God, and knew that they could disobey, God could not let them eat from the tree of life, which explains what God meant when He said, "you will surely die." The death wasn't immediate. The death was the loss of their immortality and separation from God.
Gen 2:18
And the LORD God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.": God knew that we need companionship. We need someone to be with. Well, most of us, anyway. There are people who are perfectly content being alone, and Paul commends them (1Co 7:7-9). But for most of us, we need companionship.
Gen 2:19
Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name: This is still the sixth day. We see here that God creates all the creatures and brought them to Adam to be named. We're not told if God only made a pair and they hadn't multiplied yet, or if God made enough to populate the earth and only brought Adam enough so he could name them.
Gen 2:20
So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him: Adam named all of the creatures, but he didn't find a helper comparable to himself. It's not clear here if the purpose of presenting all of the animals to Adam was to find a companion, but we can infer that. There seems to be a couple of reasons for having brought the animals to Adam: To establish Adam's dominion over the animals, and to show Adam that he is alone. Only someone with dominion over another can name them, and accepting the name shows subjection. Adam named the animals, and there was no rejection. God established the order of things.
Adam also realized that he was alone. Adam did not find any companionship in the animals that was suitable for completion. This is because most of us long for companionship, and most can't fill that void through companionship of animals. They are nice to have around, but they can't understand feelings, talk things through with you, and provide that which you lack. Only a counterpart can do that. And I've heard it said that God didn't create the woman at first because God wanted Adam to come to the realization himself that he needed a companion.
Gen 2:21
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place: God was the first anesthesiologist.
Was it a rib? Nobody knows. The literal translation of "He took one of his ribs" is "He took part of the man's side." It's just traditionally translated that God took one of Adam's ribs.
One of the arguments against this happening is that man would have one fewer rib than woman. That's a terrible argument. There are probably millions of examples of disfigured people giving birth and the child coming out whole.
The biggest thing to note here is that evolution is stupid. God made man, then used the flesh of man to make the woman. They weren't fish, monkeys or anything else.
Gen 2:22
Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man: God made woman. He didn't evolve woman from monkeys. There was no period of billions of years in this account. God did it on purpose.
God designed man and woman to complete each other. God didn't just create a woman and let things happen as they may. God brought the woman to the man.
Gen 2:23
And Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.": This is the reaction Adam had when God brought him the woman. First, we see that Adam realized that he had a true companion, one that was comparable to him. We also see that Adam was happy about it, and expresses such intimacy. She is flesh of his flesh; She is a part of him and together they are one.
Adam named her woman. This can't be her name because we all know her name was Eve. Just like all the other animals which Adam had dominion over, Adam named this creation of God, woman. This is where we see God establish that man has dominion over his wife. However, as we see in the new testament, and throughout scripture, this dominion is different from the dominion over animals. It's more of a dominion of caring for instead of having power over. Man is told to be loving toward their wife 1Co_13:4-7. There is no mention of anything other than being longsuffering and putting the woman first. Man is told to lay down his life for his wife as Jesus did for the church.
Gen 2:24
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh: Mat 19:4-5 lets us know that this verse came from God. God said it. It wasn't Moses drawing a conclusion based on writings he found.
The meaning of this is that when a couple is joined through marriage, they should be equal in partnership. They should cleave to each other. The man has dominion over the woman in that same sense that Jesus had dominion over the church: He laid down his life for it. (Eph 5:22-32) There should be no trouble over this role of man as leader because if the husband is leading properly, the husband will be leading the wife down the same path the woman is on. And a good leader doesn't simply bark orders and expect that they are followed without question. A good leader considers those they are responsible for and puts them first, just as a man should do in his role as husband. They put the wife and children first, even to the extent that they lay down their life for them. This is vastly different than how you hear husbands speaking that they are the head of the wife in the world.
Gen 2:25
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed: Adam and Eve hadn't learned shame. At this point, they were blameless.
But the question is, "Why are we ashamed of nakedness?" After our fallen state, our lusts became unnatural, and something other than what God had intended for us. The nature of the relationship between a man and a woman changed. When humans discovered sin, and acted upon it, the purity of our relations was lost, and our interactions with each other changed. Although the relationship between a husband and wife can still be a beautiful thing, the relationship has to contend with the fallen nature as well. I do not believe it's possible to know or even imagine the purity of the relationship between Adam and Eve before the fall.
No comments:
Post a Comment