Genesis-Commentary-1-to-9-Synopsis-Matthew-Poole-Trans-Steven-Dilday

99

eclipses, conjunctions, etc. And for the discovery of supernatural and
miraculous effects; of which see Joshua 10:13; Isaiah 38:8; Luke 21:25, 26;
Acts 2:19, 20.

[And for seasons (Septuagint, Chaldean, Syriac, Arabic, Montanus,
Pagnine, Oleaster), Myd(I jwOml;w@] For the fixed solemnities of the Jews (certain
Jewish interpreters in Fagius); fixed seasons (Ainsworth, Piscator, Tigurinus);
hours (Ibn Ezra in Fagius). Others understand this of the four parts of the year,
winter, spring, summer, autumn (thus Nahmanides in Fagius, Malvenda,
Munster, Bonfrerius, Ainsworth, Piscator, Lapide). Certainly this would
include times of the harvest, of the vintage, etc. (Bonfrerius). Likewise, it
would include seasons dry, hot, wet, etc. (Lapide). See what things are written
on Job 9:9 (Piscator, Ainsworth). Others: months; otherwise, Moses would
have omitted months (certain commentators in Malvenda). It appears to signify
months, as in Psalm 104:19, He made the moon MydI(wj mO l,; for months
(Piscator). Others: Let them be for signs of the seasons, days, etc., that is,
they signify seasons, etc. (Junius). This does not satisfy. Then it would have
said MydI(wj mO h@ a tto)ol,; for signs of the seasons. Neither would these
luminaries signify days and years, but effect them (Piscator).

[And years] That is, and for years.1 They often omit a word, as it is in
Hosea 3:4;2 Ephesians 4:11;3 and Galatians 3:284 (Ainsworth). MynI#$f signifies
years, both solar of 365 days and lunar of 30 days (Fagius).

[Days, MymiyF] The luminaries were given so that days and years might
be reckoned by them (Fagius, Onkelos in Fagius). The luminaries were created
also, 1. for the glory of God, 2. for the use of men. Moses touches upon the
second reason so much, because the Jews were inclined to idolatry. Whence
Deuteronomy 4:19, Lest perhaps thou shouldst worship what God has created
for service (Lyra).

And for seasons, and for days, and years: 1. By their motions and

1 Genesis 1:14b: “And let them be for signs (tt)o lo ;), and for seasons (Myd(I jwOml;w@),
and for days (MymiylF ;w@), and years (Myn#I wf$ ,: with the prefixed l/for omitted).”
2 Hosea 3:4: “For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and
without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an
ephod, and without teraphim (MypirFt;w,@ with the Ny)/' without omitted but
understood).”
3 Ephesians 4:11: “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some,
evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers (touj\ de\ poime/naj kai\ didaska/louj,
touj\ de,\ and some, being replaced with kai/\ and in the case of didaskal/ ouj/
teachers).”
4 Galatians 3:28a: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free,
there is neither male nor female (ouk0 en1 i a!rsen kai\ qh~lu, oud0 e\ being replaced with
kai\).”

100

influences to produce and distinguish the four seasons of the year, mentioned
Genesis 8:22. And to show as well the fit times and seasons for sowing,
planting, reaping, navigation, etc., as for the observation of set and solemn
feasts, or other times for the ordering of ecclesiastical or civil affairs. 2. By
their diurnal and swift motion to make the days, and by their nearer approaches
to us, or further distances from us, to make the days or nights either longer, or
shorter, or equal. He speaks here of natural days, consisting of twenty-four
hours. 3. By their annual and slower motion to make years.

Verse 15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to
give light upon the earth: and it was so.

Verse 16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the
day (Heb. for the rule of the day), and the lesser light to rule the night: he
made the stars also (Ps. 8:3; Job 38:7; Ps. 136:7-9; 148:3, 5).

[Two great luminaries] They are called great, not with respect to mass
(for the moon is smaller than all the stars, Mercury excepted [Menochius]), but
with respect to brilliance or brightness; thus Abarbanel and others (de Muis,
Estius). They are called great also because they exert themselves with greater
energy and efficacy than the stars (Menochius).

Two great lights, or, enlighteners, as the word properly signifies. The
sun, which is really and considerably greater than the moon, or any of the stars,
or the whole earth. And the moon, called here the lesser light, is greater than
any of the stars, not really, but in appearance, and in clearness and light, in
respect of which it is called great in this place, and both are much greater in
efficacy and use than any of the stars.

[So that they might preside over the day, MwOyh% a tle#me$ ;mel;] For the
rule of the day (thus most interpreters). But in the Arabic it reads, for
illuminating in the course of the day.

To rule the day; either, 1. To influence the earth and its fruits with
heat or moisture, and to govern men’s actions and affairs, which commonly are
transacted by day; for the word day is sometimes put metonymically for the
events of the day, as Proverbs 27:1; 1 Corinthians 3:13. Or, 2. To regulate
and manage the day; by its rise to begin it, by its gradual progress to carry it on,
even to the midday, and by its declination and setting to impair and end it.
Which seems most probable, because the moon is in like manner said to rule
the night, which is meant of the time, and not of the actions or events of the
night.

Verse 17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give
light upon the earth . . .

101

[And He placed, Nt'@yI%wA] Hebrew: He gave. Thus, I gave the Spirit, in
Isaiah 42:1,1 is in the place of I put, in Matthew 12:18.2 Thus, Thou didst give
in 1 Chronicles 17:223 is Thou hast confirmed in 2 Samuel 7:244 (Menochius).
He did not make them beforehand elsewhere, and afterwards place them, etc.,
but He made them in the very firmament of heaven (Menochius).

Verse 18: And to rule over the day and over the night (Jer. 31:35),
and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

[Even so that they might preside] They preside by means of the
preeminence of the light; for nothing is more brilliant than those (Menochius).

This clause was omitted in the first day’s work, but is added here,
because the light was then but glimmering and imperfect, which now was made
more clear and complete.

Verse 19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
[And evening was accomplished] The Arabic Version reads thus: And
when it had passed from the night and the day, the fourth day.

Verse 20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the
moving (Heb. creeping) creature that hath life (Heb. soul), and fowl that may
fly (Heb. let fowl fly) above the earth in the open firmament of heaven (Heb.
face of the firmament of heaven; 2 Esd. 6:475).

[Let the waters bring forth] The waters are taken here for the air6
(because He made air from rarified waters). our0 anoj_ no/tioj kai\
u9etw&dhj, the air is moist and rainy, says Josephus (Grotius on verse 2).

[wc@ r#: y;$ I] Cr#A $f means to bring forth in great abundance (Vatablus)
after the manner of creeping things (de Dieu). Let the water team (Syriac,
Tigurinus). In the Ethiopic language, it is also said of the herbs (de Dieu). God
willed that it might proceed from the water (Arabic).

1 Isaiah 42:1b: “I have put (ytti@ na F/given) my spirit upon him.”
2 Matthew 12:18b: “I will put (qh/sw/put) my spirit upon him.”
3 1 Chronicles 17:22a: “For thy people Israel didst thou give (Nt@'twi@ )A to thyself for a
people for ever.”
4 2 Samuel 7:24a: “For thou hast confirmed (Nnw" Okt;w@ )A to thyself thy people Israel to
be a people unto thee for ever.”
5 2 Esdras 6:47: “Upon the fifth day thou saidst unto the seventh part, where the
waters were gathered, that it should bring forth living creatures, fowls and fishes: and
so it came to pass.”
6 It is observed that the waters are commanded to bring forth both aquatic life and
fowl. Here it is asserted that, with respect to the fowl, the waters are standing in place
of the air, which is a rarified form of water.

102

[Creeping thing, Cr#E e$] Nhkton_ , swimming creature (Grotius). They
are called creeping things, which have either no legs, or very short ones (Lyra,
Vatablus, Malvenda). CrE#e$ is every kind of animal that does not rise up high
off of the earth, says Rabbi Salomon, like flies, worms, mice, and all fish (de
Dieu). CrE#e$ is not only used of such, as Rabbi Salomon might maintain, but
concerning all perceiving and moving creatures, even man, as in Genesis 9:7,
Now bring forth abundantly.1 The Targum always translates it by #xr, which
signifies to be agitated and to be stirred together (Fagius).

[Creeping thing having a living soul] The singular has been put in the
place of the plural, that is, animated, living creeping things (Vatablus, Piscator).
Creeping thing and soul stand in apposition (Piscator).2

The moving creature, or, creeping thing. A word which belongs to all
those living creatures who move with their bellies close to the element they
move in. Hence it is used both of birds which fly in the air, Leviticus 11:20,
and of things creeping upon the earth, as Genesis 1:24, and of fishes that swim
in the sea, as here.

[And the flying thing, etc., over the earth, Ppw' O(y: PwO(w:] Others
thus: And let the flying things (the singular for the plural) fly (Vatablus,
Pagnine, Estius, Syriac, Samaritan Text, Tigurinus, Malvenda, Piscator,
Jerusalem Targum, Ainsworth). And flying things flying (Arabic, Septuagint).
Others, however, read it thus, the flying thing (which) may fly about. And
from this place they infer that the birds came up from the water (Castalio,
Lyra, Menochius, Lapide, Bonfrerius). Moses posits one origin for the
swimming things and the flying things. 1. Because the atmosphere (the place
of the birds) and water (the place of the fish) are related elements. 2.
Lightness and agility belong to both. 3. Many birds both fly and swim. 4. The
motion of each is similar (Lapide). It supports this view that CrE#$e is used of
birds in Leviticus 11:203 (Pisactor, Ainsworth). But others deny this and
determine that birds were formed out of the soil, not out of the water (Estius,
Cajetan, Piscator, Bochart’s A Sacred Catalogue of Animals). They
demonstrate it, first, from Genesis 2:19, Having formed from the ground every
living thing of the earth, and flying thing, etc. [concerning which see that
place]; and from this, that He appoints them to fly over the earth (both rest and
sustenance are certainly there for them). If they had emerged from the water,

1 Genesis 9:7: “And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly (wc@ r:#)i$
in the earth, and multiply therein.”
2 Genesis 1:20a: “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the creeping
thing, a living soul (here placing creeping thing and soul in apposition).”
3 Leviticus 11:20: “Every winged creeping thing (Pw(O hf Cr#E $e, creeping thing which
flies), going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.”

103

God would have commanded them in that first rising to fly out over the waters.
In another way, the Hebrews reconcile this passage with Genesis 2, that birds
had come forth from both elements, since they were made from moldable
mud. Chizkuni1 maintains that aquatic birds came forth from the waters, the
others from the earth. To no purpose: In both places, it speaks of the entire
race of birds (Bochart’s A Sacred Catalogue of Animals 1:1:9:55). Second,
they demonstrate it from this, that, in verse 21, birds are expressly
distinguished from creeping things, which were brought forth from the waters.
Now, the causes why birds might be created with fish appear to be two: 1.
because both are egg-layers; 2. because birds fly in the air, where float the
clouds, that is, the upper waters (Piscator). Others: Things capable of flight
were not created out of the water alone (rather some out of the water, some
out of the earth; for, in Genesis 2:19, He formed from the earth), but water
was the principal material cause of them (Vatablus).

And fowl that may fly above the earth. The particle that or which is oft
wanting, and to be understood in the Hebrew language, as Genesis 39:4;2 Job
41:1;3 Isaiah 6:6:4 according to this translation the fowl have their matter from
the water as well as the fishes; which seem most probable, as from this, so also
from the following verses, in which they are both mentioned together, as made
of the same materials, and as works of the same day, and both are blessed
together, and both are distinguished and separated from the production of the
earth, which were the works of the sixth day, Genesis 1:24, etc. And whereas
it is said, Genesis 2:19, Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of
the field, and every fowl of the air; it may be answered, That the word ground
or earth may be there understood more largely, as it is confessedly in some
other places of Scripture, for the lower part of the world, consisting of earth
and water. For it is most reasonable to expound that short and general passage
from the foregoing chapter, wherein the original both of beasts and fowls are
largely and distinctly described. Moreover, the fowl seem to have been made
of both these elements, viz. of soft and moist earth, possibly taken from the
bottom of the water, in which case they were brought forth by the water, as is
said here, and formed out of the ground, as there. As Eve is said to be made of

1 Precious little is known about the French commentator, Rabbi Chizkiyah ben
Manoach Chizkuni. However, his commentary on the Torah, written around the year
1250, survives. Chizkuni reveals his commitments both to the interpretive tradition of
the rabbis and to the literal meaning of the text.
2 Genesis 39:4b: “And he made him overseer over his house, and all (supply that) he
had he put into his hand.”
3 Job 41:1: “Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord
(supply which) thou lettest down?”
4 Isaiah 6:6: “Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand,
(supply which) he had taken with the tongs from off the altar.”

104

Adam’s bone and rib, Genesis 2:21; and of his flesh, Genesis 2:23. Which
shows that with the rib flesh was taken from Adam, though it be not said so,
Genesis 2:21. So here, the fowl were made both of water and earth, as their
temper and constitution shows, though but one of them be here expressed.
But these words are by some translated thus, and let the fowl fly. But
according to that translation, the mention of the fowl, both here and in Genesis
1:21, seems to be very improper and forced. For it is preposterous, and
contrary to the method constantly used in this whole chapter, to speak of the
motion of any living creature, and the place thereof, before its original and
production be mentioned. Besides, either the original of the fowls is described
here, or it is wholly omitted in this chapter, which is not credible.

[Under the firmament of heaven, (Ayqri : yn"p;%-l(]a Upon the
superfice of the expanse, or, before the expanse, or, before the sight of the
expanse of heaven, that is, in the highest part of the atmosphere (Vatablus). It
is called the superfice (or face) of heaven, which stands open to our sight
(Fagius). Others of the Hebrews maintain that l(a/upon is set down in the
place of M(,i close to, and it is to be translated bordering on heaven (Fagius).

Verse 21: And God created great whales, and every living creature
that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and
every winged fowl after his kind (Gen. 6:20; 7:14; 8:19; Ps. 104:26): and God
saw that it was good.

[He created the great sea-monsters, MnyI n@Ita@] This signifies all massive
animals, the terrestrial, like dragons, as much as the aquatic, like whales
(Menochius, Kimchi in Fagius, Oleaster, Piscator, Ainsworth, Bochart’s A
Sacred Catalogue of Animals, Lapide). This word properly signifies those
elongated animals upon the land, which plainly bear the form of a serpent;
nevertheless, here they are to be understood of aquatic creatures (Vatablus), of
dragons (Oleaster, Malvenda, Syriac). Pliny’s Natural History 32:1 mentions a
600 foot long sea-monster (Ainsworth). But how is God said to create when it
follows that the waters had brought forth? I respond: The waters brought
forth by furnishing the matter and propensities; God created as the efficient
cause (Bonfrerius).

God created, i.e. produced out of most unfit matter, as if a man should
out of a stone make bread, which requires as great a power as that which is
properly called creation.

Great whales; those vast sea monsters known by that name, though
elsewhere this word be applied to great dragons of the earth.

[Living and also mobile] The and also is put in the place of that is; it
explains what precedes. It signifies that any animal, that is gifted by nature or
intrinsically with the power of moving the self, is called a living soul.

105

(Menochius out of Lapide).
After his kind; in such manner as is declared in the first note upon

Genesis 1:20.

Verse 22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply,
and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth (Gen. 8:17).

[He blessed them] Hebrew: them,1 in the accusative case. Thus it is
in Ephesians 1:3, eul0 ogh/saj h9maj~ 2 (Piscator). For God to bless is to confer
benefits (Menochius). He explains Himself, when He says, Be fruitful, etc.
(Fagius, Vatablus). He blessed, that is, He gave to them fertility, the ability and
desire to reproduce according to their kind (Fagius, Piscator, Estius,
Menochius, Ainsworth). It is precisely and properly to be understood as a
blessing with respect to multiplication, for it is only spoken concerning
fertility, in verses 22 and 28; it is not said, however, God blessed the light or
the firmament, etc. See Ruffinus3 on Psalm 66. He blessed the animals, not
the plants, because He Himself had filled the land with the latter according to
His will; He had created the former just two by two (Theodoret’s Questions4
1:17, Gataker).

[Increase] Not with respect to mass, but number. The abundance of
the fish is the very greatest (Menochius). The Hebrews say that the imperatives
are in the place of future tense verbs, Ye shall increase, etc. (Vatablus).

He gave them power of procreation and fruitfulness, which is justly
mentioned as a great blessing, Psalm 128:3, 4.

Fill the waters in the seas; and consequently in the rivers, which come
from the sea, and return into it.

Let fowl multiply in the earth, where they shall commonly have their
habitation, though they had their original from the waters; of which see on
Genesis 1:20.

Verse 23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Verse 24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature
after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind:
and it was so.

[He said also] But Picherel thus translates verses 24 and 25: But after

1 Hebrew: Mt)f o.
2 In Latin, benedicere, to bless, takes a dative object. In the Hebrew (K7rbA f@) and in the
Greek (eu0logew/ ), it takes the accusative.
3 Ruffinus was a fourth century churchman, a friend of Jerome turned foe, a
commentator, and a monastery builder.
4 Questiones in Genesin.

106

God had said, Let the earth . . . bring forth living things. . . . also all . . .
creeping things God had made also after their own kinds; since He had foreseen
this also to be good. Here also I understand a hysteron proteron, as in verse 8
[see the comments in that place], and I refer these things back to the fifth day.
1. Since on one day, namely, the third, God created the herbs and the trees,
endowed with vegetative life, it is equal that He would make the flying and
terrestrial animals, endowed with a perceiving soul one day, namely, the fifth.
2. It was also equal that their own day might be set apart for Adam and Eve
(who had rational souls). 3. It is not to be doubted that the blessing given to
swimming things and birds in verse 22 is to be understood here. For unless you
understand that God blessed the various beasts on the same day, then with a
greater difficulty it will be understood on day six (granting that they were then
created). For one and the same blessing (verse 28) to brutish and to rational
creatures would hardly be suitable: therefore, on the fifth day, not the sixth,
these were created. Objection: But thus on the fifth day it would be expressed
two times, He had foreseen it to be good. Responses: 1. Thus indeed, for
two diverse kinds had appeared, resulting in the goodness of both shining forth.
2. The two are not less of an obstacle on a single sixth day, if this one has
respect to terrestrial animals. These are Picherel’s views.

[Let it bring forth cattle] twOmhb' @; are domesticated animals, like
horses, cows, etc. (Ibn Ezra in Fagius, Menochius). This does not satisfy.
twmO hb' @;/behemoth is used of wild animals in Deuteronomy 32:241 and Micah
5:82 (Oleaster). Likewise Isaiah 18:63 and Jeremiah 7:33.4 See also
Deuteronomy 14:4-75 (Bochart’s A Sacred Catalogue of Animals). But when
hmfhb' @/; behemah and hyx%F a/beast are placed side by side, the former signifies
domesticated livestock, the latter, wild animals. Therefore, Rabbi Salomon
observes that Goliath, in 1 Samuel 17:44, improperly said, I will give thee for
food tmahbv le ,; to the behemoth/livestock, for which David, in verse 46,

1 Deuteronomy 32:24b: “I will also send the teeth of beasts (tmho 'b;@) upon them, with
the poison of serpents of the dust.”
2 Micah 5:8a: “And the remnant of Jacob shall be among the Gentiles in the midst of
many people as a lion among the beasts of the forest (r(ayA twOmhbj ba ;)@ . . .”
3 Isaiah 18:6: “They shall be left together unto the fowls of the mountains, and to the
beasts of the earth (CrE)hf f tmahvbelw; @): and the fowls shall summer upon them, and
all the beasts of the earth (Cr)E fhf tmahvb-e@ lkwf :) shall winter upon them.”
4 Jeremiah 7:33a: “And the carcases of this people shall be meat for the fowls of the
heaven, and for the beasts of the earth (CrE)fhf tmha bv el;w)@ .”
5 Deuteronomy 14:4-5: “These are the beasts (hmhf 'b;@ha) which ye shall eat: the ox,
the sheep, and the goat, the hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild
goat, and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois.” It will be observed that
some of these “beasts” are not domesticated animals.

107

responds with tyAx% la ;, to the beasts (Bochart’s A Sacred Catalogue of Animals
1:1:2:5). Therefore, to others, twOmh'b;@/behemoth are all animals feeding
upon herbs, both domesticated and forest-dwelling (Fagius, Gerundensis1 in
Munster). To others, they are animals of greater stature (Ainsworth), of
considerable mass; not mice, moles, etc. On the other hand, rabbits are placed
among the twmO h'b/@; behemoth in Leviticus 11:3-62 (Bochart’s A Sacred
Catalogue of Animals 1:1:2:4).

[Creeping things, #omre E] Rabbi Salomon says that these are small
animals crawling upon the earth (Ibn Ezra in Fagius), or, squirming
(Menochius). But Nahmanides asserts that it is said of all animals, and he
demonstrates it out of passages of Scripture. For #mo arF denotes movement, not
size; and it is the same as smra F, to trample, with the s/s having changed into
#o/s, symbolizing the same sound (Fagius, Kimchi).

[Beasts, hy%xF a] They are wild animals which live in open fields and
deserts and feed upon meat, like wolves, etc. (Fagius, Vatablus, Ibn Ezra and
Nahmanides in Fagius, Ainsworth, Piscator, Menochius). They have their name
from life or vitality,3 which in these is most noticeable.

1. Those living creatures hereafter mentioned, whose original is from
the earth, and whose habitation is in it. 2. Those tame beasts which are most
familiar with and useful to men for food, clothing, or other service. 3.
Creeping thing; to wit, of the earth, of a differing kind from those creeping
things of the water, Genesis 1:20. 4. The wild beast, as the Hebrew word
commonly signifies, and as appears further, because they are distinguished from
the tame beasts, here called cattle.

Verse 25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and
cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his
kind: and God saw that it was good.

Verse 26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our

1 Moses Gerundensis (1194-c. 1270) was reckoned in his early teens as one of the
great Spanish, Talmudic authorities. His commentary upon the Torah is characterized
by careful philology, faithfulness to traditional rabbinic interpretation, an unswerving
belief in the miraculous, and even some Kabbalistic mysticism.
2 Leviticus 11:3, 4a, 6: “Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and
cheweth the cud, among the beasts (hmhf 'b;@b@)a , that shall ye eat. Nevertheless these
shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof . . . the hare,
because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.”
3 hyxF% a is derived from the verbal root hyFxf, to live.

108

likeness (Gen. 5:1; 9:6; Ps. 100:3; Eccles. 7:29; Wis. 2:23;1 Acts 17:26, 28,
29; 1 Cor. 11:7; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10; Jam. 3:9): and let them have dominion
over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and
over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth
(Gen. 9:2; Ps. 8:6).

[Let us make] He does not say (as in the other places), Let the earth
bring forth; for the intellective soul, which is the form of man, is not from seed
through procreation, but by God (Lyra). From this place, the Fathers,
Hillary,2 Augustine, and Fulgentius3 in Estius, and others after them (thus
Munster, Fagius, Vatablus, Drusius, Lyra, Estius, Menochius, Tirinus, Lapide,
Bonfrerius, Oleaster, Malvenda, Piscator, Ainsworth) gather the Trinity of
Persons in God. Thus it is spoken unto the seat of His own judgment, say the
most ancient of the Hebrews. What is this, except the Son and the Holy Spirit
(Drusius)? It appears to be spoken in connection with the Son, as the Sibyl
sings in book 8, By the counsel of this one, etc. The Jews contrive various
things, so that they might explain away this passage (Munster, Fagius). Others
maintain that He addresses the angels (Munster, Fagius), tapei/nwsin, by
condescension, lest in jealousy they should be troubled concerning man, whom
He had purposed to form in their similitude (Fagius). But to call those Creators
is absolutely a)qeo/logon/atheistical (Drusius). In creation, God neither
needed nor made use of them (Menochius, Lyra). How would He be
deliberating concerning the creation of man with those who had themselves
been created (Drusius)? Others maintain that God spoke in the manner of
great persons (Munster, Fagius, Grotius). For this is the manner of the
Hebrews, as it is in 2 Kings 22:204 (Grotius). Now, because they contend that
the plural number is to be applied for the sake of honor, certain Hebrews took
it in the second and third persons; but no example anywhere is read in the first
person, in which a single, individual someone speaks concerning himself in the
first person plural, as Ibn Ezra in Genesis 1:30 most learnedly observed (Junius’
Analyses in Genesis). Others translate h#e(o jnA (not, let us make, but) as let
come into being, or, he is to be made, man.5 But these Ibn Ezra ridicules and
impugns, as he also does those who say that these words, in our image, etc., are

1 Wisdom of Solomon 2:23: “For God created man to be immortal, and made him to
be an image of his own eternity.”
2 Hillary, Bishop of Poitiers (d. 368), was, among the Latin Fathers, one of the chief
defenders of the Nicean theology against Arianism.
3 Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspe (468-533), was a champion of Augustinian and Nicean
theology.
4 2 Kings 22:20a: “Behold therefore, I will gather thee unto thy fathers, and thou
shalt be gathered into thy grave (Ky1 tre ob;qi, thy graves) in peace.”
5 Thus, h#oe(nj A is not understood as a first person, plural, Qal imperfect/jussive, let us
make, but as third person, singular, Niphal perfect/jussive, let him be made.

109

the words of Moses, not of God (Fagius). Others maintain that God, so to
speak, addressed and exhorted the four elements, that is, Ye give the body; I
will give the soul (Fagius’ Comparison of the Principal Translations). Ibn Ezra
would wish it to be spoken in the plural to express the excellence of man: that
is, Let neither the earth nor the water be occupied in the composition of man,
but only us ourselves, namely, God and the angels (Fagius’ Comparison of the
Principal Translations). The Hebrews relate that the Septuagint translates it as
poih/sw, I will make, lest Ptolemy1 should elicit a plurality in divine things
(Drusius). Let us learn from this place our dignity, of which God thought us
worthy, so that we might worship Him alone, etc. (Fagius). Here it is let us
make; elsewhere, He created:2 whence it is plain that a distinction between
)rbF f,@ He created, and h#fo(f, He made, does not always hold (Drusius).

God had now prepared all things necessary for man’s use and comfort.
The plurals us and our afford an evident proof of a plurality of persons in the
Godhead. It is plain from many other texts, as well as from the nature and
reason of the thing, that God alone is man’s Creator: the angels rejoiced at the
work of creation, but only God wrought it, Job 38:4-7. And it is no less plain
from this text, and from divers other places, that man had more Creators than
one person: see Job 35:10;3 John 1:2, 3, etc.; Hebrews 1:3. And as other
texts assure us that there is but one God, so this shows that there are more
persons in the Godhead; nor can that seeming contradiction of one and more
being in the Godhead be otherwise reconciled, than by acknowledging a
plurality of persons in the unity of essence. It is pretended that God here
speaks after the manner of princes, in the plural number, who use to say: We
will and require, or, It is our pleasure. But this is only the invention and
practice of latter times, and no way agreeable to the simplicity, either of the
first ages of the world, or of the Hebrew style. The kings of Israel used to
speak of themselves in the singular number, 2 Samuel 3:28; 1 Chronicles
21:17; 29:14; 2 Chronicles 2:6. And so did the eastern monarchs too, yea,
even in their decrees and orders, which now run in the plural number, as Ezra
6:8, I (Darius) make a decree; Ezra 7:21, I, even I Artaxerxes the king, do
make a decree. Nor do I remember one example in Scripture to the contrary.
It is therefore a rash and presumptuous attempt, without any warrant, to thrust
the usages of modern style into the sacred Scripture. Besides, the Lord doth
generally speak of himself in the singular number, some few places excepted,

1 The Letter of Aristeas relates that the Septuagint was produced at the request of
Ptolemy Philadelphus (third century BC), king of Egypt, for his library in Alexandria.
2 For example, Genesis 5:1b: “In the day that God created ()rbo )@; man, in the likeness
of God made (h#of()f he him . . .”
3 Job 35:10: “But none saith, Where is God my maker (y#of(o, my Makers, plural), who
giveth songs in the night?”

110

wherein the plural number is used for the signification of this mystery.
Moreover, this device is utterly overthrown by comparing this text with
Genesiss 3:22: The Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us.
Therefore there are more persons than one in the Godhead. How many they
are other texts plainly inform us, as we shall see in their proper places. And
whereas he saith not now as he did before: Let the earth or waters bring forth,
but, Let us make; this change of the phrase and manner of expression shows
that man was, as the last, so the most perfect and the chief of the ways and
works of God in this lower world.

[Man, MdF)f] It is the name of the species, not a proper name, and the
singular has been put for the plural; for it follows hereafter, Let them exercise
dominion (Fagius, Vatablus).

[In the image and likeness] Some distinguish them: the image is in the
natural characteristics, the likeness is in the gracious characteristics (Lyra).
Others confound them. It is an hendiadys, that is, in the image most like unto
ours (Tirinus). It is common among the Hebrews to join words which signify
the same thing; thus it is also in Homer, polemize/menai hd) e\ ma/xesqai, to
wage war and to fight (Grotius). With the words, image and likeness, He
signifies the greatest similitude (Vatablus). These words are used
indiscriminately (Menochius), both jointly, as in Genesis 5:31 with reference to
human generation (Grotius), and separately, as in Genesis 5:1;2 9:6;3
Colossians 3:104 (Menochius, Grotius). Mlece signifies shadow or adumbration
(Lapide, Oleaster, Malvenda); shadowy likeness, as it is clear from Psalm
39:6;5 102:11;6 109:23.7 Let us make him after our shadow. It was granted
unto man to be the image of God, but an imperfect one, a sort of shadow
(Oleaster); also vanishing, not substantial or constant (Lapide). The Arabic has
in our form.

1 Genesis 5:3a: “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his
own likeness (wtO w@mdb: @)i , after his image (wOmlc; ak);@ .”
2 Genesis 5:1b: “In the day that God created man, in the likeness (twm@ d:bi)@ of God
made he him.”
3 Genesis 9:6: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in
the image (Mleceb);@ of God made he man.”
4 Colossians 3:10: And [ye] have put on the new man, which is renewed in
knowledge after the image (eik0 on/ a) of him that created him.”
5 Psalm 39:6a: “Surely every man walketh in a vain shew (Mlecbe @;): surely they are
disquieted in vain: he heapeth up riches.”
6 Psalm 102:11: “My days are like a shadow (lck' ;@) that declineth; and I am withered
like grass.”
7 Psalm 109:23: “I am gone like the shadow (lck' @;) when it declineth: I am tossed up
and down as the locust.”

111

[twm@ d]: Some translate it likeness (Ainsworth, Piscator, Oleaster).
Others: after our image/conception, that is, after the idea which we have
formed in the mind (certain interpreters in Malvenda). The Arabic translates it
in our figuration. The Jews posit this image in these things: in as much as the
soul fills the body, so also God fills heaven; as God is one, so there is one soul
in the body (or one man was made at first); as God, so also the soul, is not
defiled by the rags of the body; as God, so also the soul, sees all things, but is
not seen; as God, so also the soul, does not sleep; as no one is like unto God, so
no man is like unto another. Others posit the likeness in the immortal soul.
Others posit it in dominion (Fagius’ Comparison of the Principal Translations).
The likeness is understood, not of the body, but of the soul (Vatablus,
Menochius). Nevertheless, it, after a fashion, shines forth in the body, as far as
the body is the image of the mind (Menochius), for example, in the features, in
the erect stature (Tirinus). It consists in immortality, innocence, holiness, and
the rest of the endowments of the soul (Vatablus, Fagius). See 2 Corinthians
3:18; Colossians 3:10; Ephesians 4:24 (Vatablus). The image is twofold: 1.
natural, in the intellect and free will; 2. supernatural, in grace and
righteousness (Menochius); insofar as, as Peter the Deacon1 testifies, the soul is
made a sharer of the divine nature (Tirinus). Others posit the image in the
rational faculty; thus Augustine and Prosper.2 Others place it in the free will;
thus Basil,3 Ambrose,4 and Jerome (Estius, thus also Grotius). Others place it
in dominion; thus Chrysostom. For he is able to exercise dominion over the
other creatures (as Ovid5 has it), evidently dia_ to_ op) isthmoniko/n, on
account of fear (Grotius). But these declarations are easily reconciled (Estius).
Rabbi Moses6 observes that Mlece is the essential image, ei]doj/form or
i0de/an/semblance, but the corporeal image is called r)ato@, visible form.
Nearly the same view is found in Kimchi (Fagius’ Comparison of the Principal
Translations).

After our likeness. Image and likeness are two words noting the same
thing, even exact likeness. For both of them are used of Adam, Genesis 5:3:
He begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and they are separately and

1 The “D. Petro” referred to here is probably Peter the Deacon. However, there are
two men that are thus known, and both of them appear in Biblia Maxima. One lived
during the late fifth, early sixth century; the other, the twelfth.
2 Prosper of Aquitaine (403-463) was a student of Augustine, and, like his teacher, he
was an opponent of Pelagianism.
3 Basil the Great was a fourth century Church Father and stalwart defender of Nicean
Trinitarianism.
4 Ambrose (340-397), Bishop of Milan, was a man of great influence, ecclesiastically
and politically, and was instrumental in the conversion of Augustine.
5 Publius Ovidius Naso (43 BC-17 AD) was a Roman poet.
6 This Rabbi Moses is likely Nahmanides.

112

indifferently used in the same sense, man being said to be made in the likeness
of God, Genesis 5:1, and in the image of God, Genesis 9:6. Question.
Wherein doth the image of God in man consist? Answer 1. It is in the whole
man, both in the blessedness of his estate, and in his dominion over the rest of
the creatures. 2. It shines forth even in the body, in the majesty of man’s
countenance, and height of his stature, which is set towards heaven, when
other creatures by their down-looks show the lowness and meanness of their
nature, as even heathens have observed. 3. It principally consists and most
eminently appears in man’s soul. 1. In its nature and substance, as it is, like
God, spiritual, invisible, immortal, etc. 2. In its powers and faculties, reason
or understanding, and freedom in its choice and actions. 3. In the singular
endowments wherewith God hath adorned it, as knowledge, righteousness, and
true holiness, in which St. Paul chiefly placeth this image, Ephesians 4:24;
Colossians 3:10.

The male and female are both comprehended in the word man, as is
expressed, Genesis 1:27, together with their posterity.

[And let them have dominion, wd@ @r:yIw]: It is thought to be a composite
of the Qal and Piel forms;1 whence Rabbi Salomon explains it both actively and
passively, that is to say, if men would live well, then they would have dominion
over the others, but if not, the others would have dominion over them
(Fagius). The Arabic translates it, let them exert themselves, etc., for the
power of the master is exerted over the servants (Oleaster).

Over the cattle;2 by which he understands either, 1. Both tame and
wild beasts, the same word being used here in a differing sense from what it
hath Genesis 1:25, as is frequent in Scripture. Or, 2. Tame beasts, which are
particularly mentioned, because they are more under man’s dominion than the
wild beasts, and more fitted for man’s use and benefit, though the other be not
excluded, but comprehended under the former, as the more famous kind, as is
usual in Scriptures and other authors.

[And over the whole earth] That is, over the wild animals, the beasts
of the earth; so that the thing containing is in the place of the thing contained,
that is, so that, with the wild beasts subdued, men might live in whatever land
they might wish (Vatablus). Or, over the whole earth, that is, let them
cultivate the earth, and let them, so to speak, compel it to bring forth fruit for
them (Fagius, Vatablus, Piscator).

1 The root of this verb is hdrF ,F a Lamed He verb. In the third person, masculine,
plural, Qal form of a Lamed He verb, the h/He is commonly elided; however, it is
unusual for the second radical, in this case the d, to take a Dagesh. The Dagesh in the
second radical (d@) is one of the features of the Piel conjugation.
2 Hebrew: hmfhb' @;bwa .@

113

Over all the earth; over all other creatures and productions of the
earth, and over the earth itself, to manage it as they see fit for their own
comfort and advantage.

Verse 27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him (1 Cor. 11:7); male and female created he them (Gen. 5:2;
Mal. 2:15; Matt. 19:4; Mark 10:6).

[Him, wOt)o] That is, Each one of them (Vatablus).
[After the image of God] Or, in the image of God (thus most
interpreters). In the image which God ennobled, etc. (Arabic).
[Male and female] Not simultaneously, but successively. It does not
follow that Adam was an hermaphrodite, as the Hebrews imagine (Menochius).
This is said in the anticipation or pro/lhyin/prolepsis of that which is said
later in Genesis 2:21, which manner of expression is common in these books,
as in other books (Grotius); for he was soon to speak of the multiplication of
men (Lyra). It is asked in the Talmud: Why was man created on the evening
of the Sabbath? It is responded: Lest the heretics should say that man was an
assistant to God in the work of creation. Furthermore, so that, if his soul
should become haughty, it could be said to him: The fly preceded you in the
work of creation. Finally, so that he might immediately enter into the
commandment, namely, the sanctifying of the Sabbath (de Dieu).
Not both together, as some of the Jews have fabled, but successively,
the woman after and out of the man, as is more particularly related, Genesis
2:21, etc., which is here mentioned by anticipation. Albeit the woman also
seems to have been made upon the sixth day, as is here related, and as the
following blessing showeth, which is common to both of them, though the
particular history of it is brought in afterwards, Genesis 2, by way of
recapitulation or repetition.

Verse 28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful,
and multiply, and replenish the earth (Gen. 9:1, 7; Lev. 26:9; Ps. 127:3;
128:3, 4), and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over
the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth (Heb. creepeth)
upon the earth.

[He blessed] The blessing signifies fruitfulness and every support, and
abundance, as in verse 22 (Vatablus). Or rather, says Nahmanides, a good
prayer, by which God was praying all things happy and auspicious for them
(Fagius).

[Them] Therefore, the man and the woman were created on the sixth
day (Vatablus). Now, the manner in which they were created is related by
Moses in the following chapter by way of repetition (Vatablus, Piscator).

114

Having blessed them with excellent natures, and heavenly gifts and
graces, he further blesseth them with a special and temporal blessing expressed
in the following words.

[Increase] The ancient Hebrews make this a general precept of

contracting marriage, ordained for all men, which they call hyrp hwcm

hybrw, a commandment of fruitfulness and multiplication. Which precept, in
view of the fact that it is not reinforced (they say), has no part in the future age.
But I judge this pronouncement to apply to those that frequent prostitutes and
despisers of marriage (Fagius). This precept was not given to individuals
(Menochius, Tirinus, Oleaster). See the comments upon verse 22. This is
demonstrated: 1. Because the same is said to the beasts, which are not capable
of understanding a precept. 2. Otherwise, the precept would be to give the
work to individuals, with the result that individuals would have dominion over
the fish, etc.; for the command, have dominion, is given with no less force than
the command, be fruitful (Oleaster). 3. Then Christ Himself would have
sinned (Bonfrerius); if what is here is a precept, it is not given to individual
men, but to the whole race, that is, to all men in common, lest they should
allow the human race suddenly to die out (Lapide out of Thomas Aquinas). It is
not a precept, but permission, just as in Genesis 2:16, of every tree thou shalt
eat, and Deuteronomy 14:20, every clean bird ye shall eat (Estius).

Replenish the earth, with inhabitants to be begotten by you. Question.
Whether this be a command obliging all men to marriage and procreation? So
the Hebrew doctors think. It may be thus resolved: 1. It is a command
obliging all men so far as not to suffer the extinction of mankind: thus it did
absolutely bind Adam and Eve, as also Noah, and his sons and their wives, after
the Flood. 2. It doth not oblige every particular person to marry, as appears
both from the example of the Lord Jesus, who lived and died in an unmarried
state, and from his commendation of those who made themselves eunuchs for
the kingdom of God, Matthew 19:12; and from St. Paul’s approbation of
virginity, 1 Corinthians 7:1, 8, 26, 27, 32, etc. 3. It is here rather a promise
or benediction than a command, as appears both from Genesis 1:22, where the
same words are applied to the brute beasts, who are not subject to a command;
and because if this were a command, it would equally oblige every man to
exercise dominion over fishes and fowls, etc., which is absurd. It is therefore a
permission rather than a command, though it be expressed in the form of a
command, as other permissions frequently are, as Genesis 2:16; Deuteronomy
14:4.

[And subdue it] Render it habitable for yourselves, with the wild
animals subjugated (Vatablus, Menochius); or, domesticate it, that is, cultivate
and, as it were, compel it to yield fruit for you (Vatablus, Piscator). It has

regard to this, that the earth bears nothing unless well cultivated. #bka @f is to

115

subdue with force and violence (Kimchi in Fagius). Be strengthened over it
(Chaldean); subdue it (Syriac); possess it (Arabic).

[And have dominion over the fish, etc.] He does not add over the
heavens also and over the stars, so that man might always be mindful that there
is something greater above him, that he might stand in awe of it (Estius). He
mentions fish, lest anyone should judge them to be less subject, for neither
were they present in that company of beasts, nor did they receive a name from
man (Bochart’s A Sacred Catalogue of Animals 1:1:9:57).

Verse 29: And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing
seed (Heb. seeding seed), which is upon the face of all the earth, and every
tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat
(Gen. 9:3; Job 36:31; Ps. 104:14, 15; 136:25; 146:7; Acts 14:17).

[Behold, hn%h' i] In the writings of the Hebrews, it is put in the place of
certainly or without doubt (Vatablus).

[I have given] That is, I give, I permit, I allot (Vatablus, Menochius).
Therefore, they were not yet feeding on animals, but after they had corrupted
their way (Grotius). Therefore, they abstained from flesh and wine, not
because they were prohibited, but on account of some religious scruple
originating from that time, for God had not yet expressly granted the use of
them, as in Genesis 9:3 (Lapide, Bonfrerius, Menochius). They appear not to
have eaten meat before the flood (thus Lapide, Bonfrerius, Piscator); this was a
common view among the Fathers (Lapide). They did not desire it, nor did they
sense a lack of it, because then herbs were more savory and more nourishing
(Bonfrerius, Piscator). You will ask, why were they raising sheep in Genesis 4?
Responses: 1. Because of sacrifices, skins, milk, and cheese. 2. Or, that food
was granted to the sick and infirm (Bonfrerius). But Bochart thinks that the
eating of domesticated animals antedated the flood. 1. For Abel would not
have offered to God that which he believed it a crime to eat. 2. In vain would
he have raised lambs, which he was not permitted to use. 3. The separation of
animals into clean and unclean teaches that some were permitted, others
prohibited. For something is unclean, not by nature, but by the Law.
Therefore, this, to you it shall be for meat, I apply not only to plants, but also
to the animals, which had been discussed in the preceding verse (Bochart’s A
Sacred Catalogue of Animals 1:1:2:11).

It is neither affirmed nor denied that flesh also was granted to the first
men for food, and therefore we may safely be ignorant of it. It is sufficient for
us that it was expressly allowed, Genesis 9:3.

Verse 30: And to every beast of the earth (Ps. 145:15, 16; 147:9), and
to every fowl of the air (Job 38:41), and to every thing that creepeth upon the

116

earth, wherein there is life (Heb. a living soul), I have given every green herb
for meat: and it was so.

[So that they might have, etc., b#(eo ' qrEy-E lk@f] Every vegetable of
herb (Arabic, Montanus, Piscator). Every fresh, green plant of the herb, or,
every green herb (Munster, Oleaster, Malvenda, Septuagint, Chaldean, Syriac,
Tigurinus, Junius and Tremellius) from qry/to spit out, namely, the green
excreation (Oleaster). qrEyE/vegetable is that which the earth, as it were, spits
out1 (Malvenda).

Verse 31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it
was very good (Ps. 104:24; Ecclus. 39:16;2 1 Tim. 4:4). And the evening and
the morning were the sixth day.

[And He saw] Nahmanides observes that, by the speaking of God is
signified the production of the created things; by the seeing of God is signified
His satisfaction and approbation, by which He ascribed to them subsistence and
durability. For, should the will of God (as he says) cease for even one moment,
all things would be reduced again into nothingness (Fagius).

[He saw all things that He had made, and they were very good] All the
remaining interpreters render it in a similar manner. But Picherel renders the
verse otherwise: Now God had foreseen whatever He made surrounding the
man to be without doubt very good. For when to each day his own peculiar
saying, He had foreseen . . . to be good, was added, it is fitting that also the
sixth day, containing such a distinguished creation, would likewise have its own
peculiarity. Objection: But here the universal particle is included.3
Responses: 1. This universal expression ought often to be restricted. Genesis
3:20: Eve was the mother of all living, yet not of the beasts, but of the sons of
man, as the Chaldean adds. Thus, love bears all things (1 Cor. 13:7), yet not
wicked deeds. 2. In Hebrew, it is not in the plural, all things, but in the
singular, everything,4 as it is demonstrated from the adjective, bw+O , which is in
the singular. 3. If you should carry to this place the things which, although
omitted here, are at lasted related in chapter 2 concerning the creation of Adam

1 qrEyE may be derived from qry, to grow green, or from qrAyF, to spit.
2 The Wisdom of Ben Sirach, also known as Ecclesiasticus, 39:16: “All the works of
the Lord are exceeding good, and whatsoever he commandeth shall be accomplished
in due season.”
3 The Latin rendering, common to most of Poole’s interpreters, has God looking upon
“all things” and declaring them “very good”. However, in Picherel’s rendering, God
had foreseen “whatever He made surrounding the man,” and judged that to be very
good. Picherel’s rendering certainly makes God’s assessment in verse 31 far from
universal.
4 Hebrew: h#fo(f r#)e$ -j lk-@f t)e.

117

and, after him, of Eve, and are said and given by God to them, it is not
surprising if you should perhaps understand all things in the plural (Picherel’s
On Creation).

[Very good] That is, most excellent. For the Hebrews are missing the
superlative (Menochius). For, the admirable excellence arises out of all the
parts of the whole, which are organized with respect to each other reciprocally,
and ultimately with respect to God, as unto a general (Lyra).

[The sixth day] Hebrew: That sixth day; the article h is included and
emphatic1 (Piscator, Malvenda), in which all things were perfected (Malvenda),
inasmuch as God had determined to create the world in the space of six days
(Piscator).

1 Hebrew: y#i#$% ih%$ a MwyO . The article is not used with any of the preceding days.



Chapter 2

The sabbath instituted and blessed, 2, 3. A rehearsal of the creation;
and, (1.) Of vegetables, 4, 5. The earth watered, 6. (2.) Of man, 7. His
habitation, 8, 9. Trees for his delight and food; as also the tree of life and
knowledge, 9. Its pleasant situation and riches, 10-14. Man’s employment,
15. Every tree given him but that of knowledge, 16. This denied on pain of
death, 17. A purpose to create the woman, and the reason thereof, 18. Beasts
and fowls named by Adam, 19, 20. The woman made of Adam’s rib,
presented to him, 21, 22, and owned by him, 23. Marriage ordained, 24.
Their state whilst innocent, 25.

Verse 1: Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host
of them (Ps. 33:6).

[And all the order] Thus the Septuagint calls M)bf cf ,; the host of them
(Chaldean, Syriac, Arabic, Munster, Pagnine, Tigurinus, Junius and
Tremellius, Cajetan, Oleaster, Bonfrerius, Ainsworth, Malvenda, Piscator),
arranged/ordered, because order is preserved in a host. That is, all things
which are in the heavens and on the earth were perfected on the completed
sixth day. It signifies that the world was outfitted with all its ornaments
(Vatablus). Others render it, the excellence, the abundance of them, because
God displays by them (as a king by his stores) His power and wisdom (Fagius).
MyIma#$f )bcf ;, the host of heaven is sometimes the stars (Deuteronomy 4:19;
Isaiah 40:26 [Grotius]; and Deuteronomy 17:3; 2 Kings 23:4, 5 [Malvenda]),
sometimes the angels (1 Kings 22:19 [Grotius] and 2 Chronicles 18:18; Luke
2:13 [Malvenda]). In this passage, it signifies: 1. Stars (Grotius, Oleaster),
because it is more plausible that Moses continues not except concerning the
founding of things which are visible (Grotius). The stars are called a host: 1.
on account of their multitude; 2. on account of their order and harmony; 3.
because through them God subdues enemies1 (Oleaster, Symmachus,
Menochius). 2. Angels and stars (Menochius, Hebrews in Fagius), and the
souls of men (Hebrews in Fagius). 3. All heavenly and terrestrial things
(Bonfrerius, Pagnine, Ainsworth, Malvenda).

All the creatures in heaven and earth are called their hosts, for their
multitude, variety, order, power, and subjection to the Lord of hosts.
Particularly the host of heaven in Scripture (which is its own best interpreter)
signifies both the stars, as Deuteronomy 4:19; 17:3; Isaiah 34:4; and the angels,

1 See Judges 5:20.

120

as 1 Kings 22:19; 2 Chronicles 18:18; Luke 2:13; who from these words
appear to have been created within the compass of the first six days, which also
is probable from Colossians 1:16, 17. But it is no wonder that the Scripture
saith so little concerning angels, because it was written for the use of men, not
of angels; and God would hereby take us off from curious and impertinent
speculations, and teach us to employ our thoughts about necessary and useful
things.

Verse 2: And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had
made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made
(Ex. 20:11; 31:17; Deut. 5:14; Heb. 4:4).

[And He completed on the seventh day] Here, the Hebrews torture
themselves: If He completed, then He did work; for the completion of work is
work; therefore, He did not rest (Drusius, Fagius). Consequently, others read,
He completed on the sixth day (thus the Septuagint, Samaritan Text). Mention
is made of this in the Talmud. 1. They suppose that it was deliberately
depicted after those, lest it should appear that God worked on this day
(Drusius). 2. The ancient Hebrews (whom Rabbi Salomon follows) say that
God, in the same moment in which He entered the Sabbath, completed His
work. The moments were known to God alone, but not to man, for whom,
therefore, it is necessary to add the words from the profane to the sacred,
#dwqh l( lwxm (Fagius). 3. He finished on the seventh day, considered
exclusively (Menochius out of Bonfrerius). Others maintain that the b/on in
MwyO %b@,a on the day, signifies the same as MdEwqO /before (Fagius). 4. But all
these fall to the ground, if you would but translate it, He had completed
(Drusius, thus the Hebrews in Vatablus); when He had completed (Piscator).
There is only one past tense to the Hebrews, which is rendered sometimes by
the imperfect, sometimes by the pluperfect (Drusius). It could be translated
even more clearly: And He ceased on the seventh day (Oleaster).

God ended his work, or rather had ended or finished, for so the
Hebrew word may be rendered, as all the learned know, and so it must be
rendered, else it doth not agree with the former chapter, which expressly saith
that all these works were done within six days.

[He rested] That is, from the work of creation (Vatablus, Menochius,
Lyra, Ibn Ezra in Fagius), not from the works of governing and preserving
(Bonfrerius, Fagius, Lapide). It expresses only cessation, not exhaustion
(Vatablus, Menochius). So, it is not said that He rested in the work, but from
the work;1 that is to say, ceasing and resting in Himself most blessedly, not
needing the creature (certain interpreters in Lyra). The Chaldean translates it:

1 Hebrew: wtO k@ ); lam;-lkm@f .i Note the preposition Nmi/from.

121

And God was delighted in His work. The Sabbath of God was His delight in
His own work, Psalm 104:31 (Ainsworth).

He rested, not for his own need and refreshment, for he is never
weary, Isaiah 40:28; but for our example and instruction, that we might keep
that day as a day of religious rest.

Verse 3: And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it (Neh.
9:14; Isa. 58:13): because that in it he had rested from all his work which God
created and made (Heb. created to make).

[And He blessed] That is, He commended, He approved (Philo in
Bonfrerius, Fagius, Estius). He rendered it honored, auspicious, and august. It
explains itself in the following word, and He sanctified it (Malvenda). He
granted many prerogatives to that (for, for God to bless is to confer a benefit),
that it might be dedicated to the worship of God, and a day much-desired by
servants, etc. (Oleaster, Bonfrerius); that it might be a day of rest, sanctity, and
joy. And, therefore, it is not described by evening and morning, but it is
entirely day (Ainsworth). Since on the other days He had created something,
He posits the blessing in place of the creative work, lest this day should have
appeared to be without honor, and lest anyone should think less favorably of
the seventh day, as we are wont to do concerning those at leisure: Theodoret’s
Questions 1:21 (Gataker). By the leisure of the seventh day, God taught that
the creation had been completed; whence He concluded the cycle in seven
days, although He could have in six; that the six days might signify the creation,
the seventh the perfection of the creation: Theodoret’s Questions 1:21
(Gataker). Concerning the seventh day, thus it is said by Aristobulus1 in “The
Epistle to Ptolemy,” which is found in Eusebius’ Preparation for the Gospel
13:12: Sa&bbaton an) a&pausij diermhneu/etai, Sabbath signifies rest.
Now, they teach that the seventh day is holy: Hesiod, kai\ eb9 do/mh i9ero_n
h]mar, and the seventh day is holy; Homer, eb9 doma&th d h0 !peita
kath/luqen i9eron_ h]mar, that is, the seventh came as a holy day, and
elsewhere, e3bdomon hm] ar eh1 n, kai\ tw|~ tete/lesto ap# anta, that is, the
seventh day was, in which all things were perfected; Linus,2 e9bdoma&th| dh\ oi9
(read d 0 h0oi)~ tetelesme/na pan& ta te/tuktai, on the morning of the
seventh day, all things were made perfect, and again, eb9 do/mh ei0n ag( aqoij~ ,
kai\ e9bdo/mh e0sti\ gene/qlh, eb9 do/mh en0 prw&toisi, kai\ e9bdo/mh es0 ti\

1 Aristobulus lived during the reign of Ptolemy Philometer (second century BC). He
was among the Jewish Alexandrian philosophers, who sought to demonstrate the
harmony between Greek philosophical thought and Biblical religion. His work
survives only in fragments.
2 Linus was an ancient Greek poet. It is said that he was the son of Amphimarus, son
of Poseidon, and Ourania, the Muse.

122

telei/n, the seventh day among the holy, even the seventh is the time of birth;
the seventh day among the most excellent, even the seventh is kept (Gataker).
To bless here indicates to the Hebrews an addition of good. They place the
good in this, that on the Sabbath the body would be more vigorous, and the
soul more wise (Fagius).

[And He sanctified] He separated it from a profane use, and He
dedicated it to divine worship (Munster, Fagius, Oleaster, Ainsworth). He
separated it from the common sort; He desired it to be kept solemn, holy, and
revered (Vatablus). The w/and in #$d@q' ayw: A, and He sanctified, is put in the place
of that is: He blessed, that is, He sanctified (Vatablus). Certain Hebrews
ascribe the blessing, and even the hallowing, to man, rather than to the
Sabbath; whence, they say, the blessing and hallowing of the Sabbath devolve
upon His worshipers, who thence are blessed and sanctified. In this way, the
Sabbath is more holy, by which day we are made more holy. The Hebrews say:
The Sabbath was given for the purpose of understanding the works of God and
meditating upon His Law (Fagius).

[He sanctified] Not actually and in reality, but by His decree and
determination, John 7:22, 23 (Bonfrerius, thus Menochius, Estius, Vatablus).
It began to be kept as holy and solemn with the giving of the Law, not earlier
(Vatablus). Therefore, this is said by way of anticipation (Bonfrerius). Others
hold the contrary position. The Sabbath was an holy day instituted and
sanctified originally, not from Moses, Exodus 20:8, but from the beginning of
the world. The same is gathered from Exodus 16:23 and Hebrews 4:3 (thus
Philo, Ribera1 and Catharinus2 in Lapide and Lapide himself). I do not doubt
that the first of the people of God honored this day ever since the time of Adam
(Malvenda).

God blessed the seventh day, by conferring special honours and
privileges upon it above all other days, that it should be a day of solemn rest
and rejoicing and celebration of God and his works, and a day of God’s
bestowing singular and the best blessings upon his servants and worshippers.
He separated it from common use and worldly employments, and consecrated
it to the worship of God, that it should be accounted a holy day, and spent in
holy works and solemn exercises of religion. Some conceive that the sabbath
was not actually blessed and sanctified at and from this time, but only in the

1 Francis Ribera (1537-1591) was a Spanish Jesuit scholar, most remembered for his
commentary on Revelation in which he advances the Futurist scheme of
interpretation.
2 Lancelot Politi, also known as Ambrosius Catharinus (1483-1553) was an Italian
Dominican scholar, who played a prominent role at the Council of Trent in defense of
the Papacy against the Reformation. In spite of theological eccentricities, he was
considered to be an orthodox Romanist.

123

days of Moses, which they pretend to be here related by way of anticipation.
But this opinion hath no foundation in the text or context, but rather is
confuted from them; for as soon as the sacred penman had said that God had
ended his work and rested, etc., he adds immediately in words of the same
tense, that God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it. And if we compare
this place with Exodus 20:8-11, we shall find that Moses there speaks of God’s
blessing and sanctifying of the sabbath, not as an action then first done, but as
that which God had done formerly upon the creation of the world, to the end
that men might celebrate the praises of God for that glorious work, which as it
was agreeable to the state of innocency, so was it no less proper and necessary a
duty for the first ages of the world after the fall, than it was for the days of
Moses, and for the succeeding generations. Because he would have the
memory of that glorious work of creation, from which he then rested,
preserved through all generations.

[He created so that He might fashion (thus the Chaldean, Samaritan
Text, Montanus, Oleaster), tw#O o(lj a )rbF @f] That is, so that He might make it
perfect, and equip and designate it unto its own, particular use. To fashion
signifies this (Fagius). He had created so that He might perfect (Dutch), so that
He might dispose that work in that order in which it now is (Vatablus); so that
He might equip and adorn. h#(fo f signifies this in 2 Samuel 19:241 (Malvenda).
He created, namely, on the first day out of nothing, so that He might fashion
from it the works of the subsequent days. Thus Nahmanides (Fagius). The
Hebrew reads: He created to make, that is, to exist, and that perfectly and
gloriously; or rather, He created to make is in the place of He created and
made perfectly: thus to hold, in 1 Chronicles 13:9,2 is in the place of and he
was holding in 2 Samuel 6:63 (Ainsworth). He had created and He had made;
He created to make, that is, so that the creatures might work, reproduce, and
not be useless (certain interpreters in Malvenda). Which He began to do
(Septuagint). Picherel otherwise explains it, at great length, and he relates the
twO#(o lj a, not to He had created, but He had rested (which, says he, the
preceding Tarha-aharona accent relates, which often serves a disjoining
function);4 thus he renders the entire passage: because that in it, so that men

1 2 Samuel 19:24a: “And Mephibosheth the son of Saul came down to meet the king,
and had neither dressed (h#of(f-)Olw:) his feet, nor trimmed (h#f(o f-)lO w): his beard . . .”
2 1 Chronicles 13:9a: “And when they came unto the threshingfloor of Chidon, Uzza
put forth his hand to hold (zx)o vl,e infinitive) the ark.”
3 2 Samuel 6:6a: “And when they came to Nachon’s threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth
his hand to the ark of God, and took hold (zx)e y%wO ,A imperfect) of it.”
4 Hebrew: twO#o(jla Myhli 5)v )rbF f@-r#e)$ j (which God created to do). There is a
Tarha, otherwise known as a Tipha, accent under Myhli )5 v/God, which sets apart the

124

might also rest from their works, and consecrate it to God, God had rested
from all the works which He had created. Hebrew interpreters: for doing, or,
so that they might do, that is, so that they might observe, supplying it, or, this,
or, the same. A similar relative is supplied after twO#o(lj a in Proverbs 3:23,1
27;2 Ecclesiastes 2:11.3 See Exodus 31:14; Deuteronomy 5:12, 15. Jerome,
with the Greeks, renders it, that thou shouldest observe the day of the Sabbath,
for in Hebrew it is, that thou shouldest make the day of the Sabbath,4 and
which in Exodus 31:16 he renders, so that they might celebrate the Sabbath.5
The verb, tw#O o(lj ,a to do, has six hundred significations, as many in Hebrew as
in Greek, in the service of the context. Previously, although Moses had said,
nay, had repeated, the clauses, His works which He had made and from all His
works which He had made, he did not substitute for making; so that here it
would readily be possible for it not to pertain unto the immediately antecedent
phrase, He had created, which is put in the place of He had made. Others thus:
which He had created and was about to fashion (Targum Jerusalem). To others
it is a Hebraism for He created by fashioning. Thus our interpreters (Munster,
Menochius, Syriac, Tigurinus, Junius and Tremellius, Castalio, Grotius, de
Dieu, Bonfrerius), which is to say, He fashioned attentively and most aptly:
this the doubling of expressions often signifies (Bonfrerius). By fashioning is
added e0chghtikw~j/exegetically. For often h#f(o ,f to make, is put in the
place of )rbF @,f to create. So it is in Acts 4:24: God is called o9 poi/hsaj, He
who made. There are many such Hebraisms: as Judges 13:19, )lip;maw@
twO#(o lj ,a and He did marvelously by doing; and 1 Kings 14:9;6 2 Kings 21:6;7
especially Ecclesiastes 2:11 (which parallels Genesis 2:3), in the work which I

following word, twO#o(jla, to do. Picherel then joins tw#O (o jl,a to do, to God had rested:
God had rested/ceased to do all His works which He had created.
1 twO#o(jla does not appear in this verse, and no explanation or correction is apparent.
2 Proverbs 3:27: “Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the
power of thine hand to do (twO#o(lj a, the implied object must be supplied).”
3 Ecclesiastes 2:11a: “Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and
on the labour that (supplied relative here to complete the sense) I had laboured to do
(twO#o(lj )a .”
4 These are renderings of the last portion of Deuteronomy 5:15: “Therefore the Lord
thy God commanded thee to keep the day of the Sabbath (tbf#@ a$h% a MwOy-t)e tw#O o(jl)a .”
5 Exodus 31:16: “Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe
the sabbath (tbf#@ h$%a -a t)e twO#o(lj )a throughout their generations, for a perpetual
covenant.”
6 1 Kings 14:9a: “But thou hast done evil by doing (twO#o(jla (rAt@fw)A above all that
were before thee.”
7 2 Kings 21:6: “He transgressed greatly by working (twO#o(jla hbfr@ :h)i wickedness in
the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger.”

125

have worked by working (twO#o(jla), or simply, which I worked. He created by
fashioning, that is, He made through the mode of creation. There are similar
phrases in 1 Samuel 16:17, Ng"n% lA ; by+iym,' one who is doing well by playing,
that is, one who is playing well; and in Psalm 113:61 (de Dieu). The l with
the infinitive construct often forms a gerund, as it is in 2 Kings 19,2 hbfhj)la ,;
by loving. Two words of the same idea are put here, just as in 1 Corinthians
12:2, h!gesqe a)pago/menoi, ye were led, being led away, in the place of,
h!gesqe kai\ ap) hg/ esqe, you were led and led away. Such is that of Cicero:
the fallen weapons fell from their hands3 (Castalio).

Which God created and made; either, 1. Created in making, i.e. made
by way of creation; or rather, 2. Created out of nothing, and afterwards out of
that created matter made or formed divers things, as the beasts out of the
earth, the fishes out of the water. He useth these two words possibly to show
that God’s wisdom, power, and goodness was manifest, not only in that which
he brought out of mere nothing, but also in those things which he wrought out
of matter altogether unfit for so great works.

Verse 4: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth
when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the
heavens (Gen. 1:1; Ps. 90:1, 2),

[Those, hl)@e '] Those; that is, those things which were narrated in
chapter 1. Thus Rabbi Salomon. I would prefer that it be referred to what
follows, Genesis 36:1, 9; 37:2, as is the common practice (de Dieu).

[The generations, twOdlw; Ot] Only in this place and in Ruth 4:18 is it
set down in a manner free from omissions; because only these generations,
namely, of the world and of the Messiah (whose lineage the Book of Ruth
traces) are complete (Fagius). The generations, that is, the things that came
forth from the heaven and the earth, which were brought about in connection
with them (Fagius). Thus it is said that they are, as it were, what came forth of
the times. See Proverbs 27:1 (Malvenda, Ainsworth). Origins, beginnings
(Vatablus). Or it might be taken actively, that is, these are the things which
generated the heavens and the earth (Vatablus).

[twdO lw; tO ] They translate it, The book of the generation (Septuagint),

1 Psalm 113:6: “Who humbleth himself by looking upon (twO)r:li yliyp#i% m;$ ha@ a) the
things that are in heaven, and in the earth!”
2 This reference appears to be an error. Perhaps the intended reference is
Deuteronomy 19:9a: “If thou shalt keep all these commandments to do them, which I
command thee this day, by loving (hbhf j)la ); the Lord thy God, and by walking
(tkle elwf ): ever in his ways.”
3 De Officiis 1:77.

126

the narration of things brought forth (Arabic).
These things mentioned in the first chapter are a true and full relation

of their generations, i.e. of their original or beginnings.
[In the day] In the day, the singular in place of the plural (Lyra), as in

Exodus 8:21, the fly comes, etc.1 The day, that is, in the space of the six days
(Menochius out of Lapide, Bonfrerius). Or day is put for time (Grotius,
Ainsworth), as in Luke 19:42; 2 Corinthians 6:2; Psalm 50:15 (Piscator). Thus
MwOyb;,@ in the day, in Numbers 8:17 is used of the time of the night (Malvenda).
The Hebrews note that hwOFhy/: Jehovah is written for the first time here, for
when the work of God was perfected, God’s perfect title is introduced
(Munster, Vatablus).

In the day; not strictly so called, but largely taken for the time, as it is
Genesis 2:17; Ruth 4:5; Luke 19:42; 2 Corinthians 6:2.

Verse 5: And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and
every herb of the field before it grew (Gen. 1:12; Ps. 104:14): for the LORD
God had not caused it to rain upon the earth (Job 38:26-28), and there was not
a man (Gen. 3:23) to till the ground.

[And every shrub (Montanus, Oleaster, Pagnine)] A shrub is a crowd
of sprouts, arising out of a root (de Dieu).

[xay#io2] They translate it, trees (Chaldean, Syriac, Arabic, Kimchi and
Ibn Ezra in Fagius, Grotius). Thus Genesis 21:153 (Vatablus); herb or plant
(Samaritan Text, Ainsworth, Munster), stock (Junius and Tremellius), bush
(Malvenda).

[Before it sprung up, etc.] Our translators join this with the preceding
in this way: In the day in which He made the heavens and the earth, the trees
also, before they were sprouting. And they maintain that this is a recapitulation
(thus Fagius, Lapide, Bonfrerius, Piscator, Ainsworth). They translate Mr+E e as
before4 (Kimchi in Fagius, Chaldean, Samaritan Text, Arabic, Montanus,
Ainsworth, Munster, Pagnine, Tirinus, Septuagint). Ibn Ezra and Rambam
maintain that it always signifies before when an imperfect follows. But they are
compelled to do violence to Exodus 9:305 and 1 Samuel 3:7,1 where it clearly

1 Hebrew: br(o hf e, the fly.
2 Genesis 2:5a: “And every plant (xay#oi) of the field before it was in the earth, and
every herb of the field before it grew.”
3 Genesis 21:15b: “And she cast the child under one of the trees (Mxyi #%ohi a).”
4 MrE+e appears twice in this verse. Genesis 2:5a: “And every plant of the field before
(Mr+E e) it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before (Mr+E )e it grew.”
5 Exodus 9:30: “But as for thee and thy servants, I know that ye will not yet fear
(Mr+E e is followed by the imperfect Nw)@ ry: t@i, ye will fear) the Lord God.”

127

signifies not yet. Which, if it is to be translated by before, I take it in this way:
These are the generations of the heavens, etc., in which day He made the
heavens, etc., before there was any shrub of the field: and the w/and in lkow:
xay#io, and every shrub, I render as superfluous2 (de Dieu). It indicates that all
of these things were brought forth by God alone, not by the working of rain, of
man, etc. (Fagius). In the day He made heaven and earth, and every plant of
the field, which was not yet in the earth, and every herb of the field, which was
not yet sprung up, when God had not let down the rain, and there was no man
to cultivate the earth (Junius and Tremellius). And every plant, and likewise all
things composed which He made after that point: it is a synecdoche. Certainly
he mentions plants before other things because, first, these had been formed
first out of the simple matter of the elements, constituted on the third day,
Genesis 1:11, and because, second, a most illustrious testimony of divine
power appeared in the creation of them. For plants are not wont to grow,
except rains and human cultivation be added; however, all these Moses
expressly denies to have been before the generating of even unsown plants, so
that we might acknowledge them to be born of the word of God alone. I
translate it, not yet was there, etc., that is, even if, in the most regular natural
cycles, rains had fallen, vapors had ascended, men had cultivated, etc., all
would have been in vain, unless God had created the plants by His word and, in
addition, by that same power had refreshed and supported, not only these
species, but also the means suitable for sustaining and propagating them
(Junius). This translation (and exposition) is less satisfying than that which is
commonly received (de Dieu, Gataker). The not yet refers to that time in
which Moses committed those things to writing; which is not at all necessary,
nor does it pertain to that which here Moses had proposed to himself (Gataker’s
Cinnus 2:2:174). I render the passage in this simple way: These are the origins
of the heavens and the earth, when they were created, in the day that God was
making (that is, in which time He was making) the earth and the heavens, and
every plant of the field, when not yet (or before, for whichever way you might
render it, it will come to the same thing) it was in the earth, and every herb,
when not yet it was sprouting. This space of time only denotes what had

1 1 Samuel 3:7: “Now Samuel did not yet know (Mr+E e is followed by the perfect (dyA ,F
he did know) the Lord, neither was the word of the Lord yet revealed (MrE+e is
followed by the imperfect hlge %yF ,I it was revealed) unto him.” The perfect verb of the
first clause should be understood as coordinate with the imperfect of the second
clause.
2 Genesis 2:5a: “. . . and every plant (xay#io lkwo ): of the field before (Mr+E e) it was in
the earth . . .” Here it is proposed that the w/and of , and every shrub, be treated as
superfluous and left untranslated. Furthermore, the Hebrew word order is altered to
bring Mr+E e/before to the beginning of the clause.

128

preceded the production of the plants, etc, on the third day, which production
was accomplished by the will of God alone, apart from any other aids,
concerning the future use of which aids there is nothing in these words of
Moses, except what is from elsewhere stuffed into the context for obvious
reasons (Gataker’s Cinnus 2:2:174). And what follows I thus render, not
because He had not caused it to rain, but yea, He had not caused it to rain1
(thus this particle, yk,i@ is used; Ps. 12:1;2 Isa. 28:27;3 Jer. 4:3;4 4:31;5 51:56),
or, when7 (as in Ps. 75:2;8 Job 3:22;9 5:2110) Jehovah had not caused that it
should rain over the earth (for this does not maintain that these plants had not
existed previously because aids of this sort were absent; but that they were
created by His will or word alone, seeing that nothing of this sort were
available), nor was there any man who might cultivate the earth, or vapor (or
nor vapor) ascending which might water the earth, etc. (Gataker’s Cinnus
2:2:179). The Hebrews makes this place the occasion of an unusual opinion in

1 The asseverative use of yk@i is here proposed.
2 Psalm 12:1b: “Help, Lord; for the godly man ceaseth; yea (yki)@ , the faithful fail
from among the children of men.”
3 Isaiah 28:27: “For the fitches are not threshed with a threshing instrument, neither is
a cart wheel turned about upon the cummin; yea (yk)i@ , the fitches are beaten out with a
staff, and the cummin with a rod.”
4 Jeremiah 4:1-3: “If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the Lord, return unto me: and if
thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my sight, then shalt thou not remove.
And thou shalt swear, The Lord liveth, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness;
and the nations shall bless themselves in him, and in him shall they glory. Yea (yk)i@ ,
thus saith the Lord to the men of Judah and Jerusalem, Break up your fallow ground,
and sow not among thorns.”
5 Jeremiah 4:30, 31: “And when thou art spoiled, what wilt thou do? Though thou
clothest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold,
though thou rentest thy face with painting, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair; thy
lovers will despise thee, they will seek thy life. Yea (yki)@ , I have heard a voice as of a
woman in travail, and the anguish as of her that bringeth forth her first child, the voice
of the daughter of Zion, that bewaileth herself, that spreadeth her hands, saying, Woe
is me now! for my soul is wearied because of murderers.”
6 Jeremiah 51:4, 5: “Thus the slain shall fall in the land of the Chaldeans, and they
that are thrust through in her streets. Yea (yki@), Israel hath not been forsaken, nor
Judah of his God, of the Lord of hosts; though their land was filled with sin against
the Holy One of Israel.”
7 The circumstantial use of yki@ is here proposed.
8 Psalm 75:2: “When (yki@) I shall receive the congregation I will judge uprightly.”
9 Job 3:20, 22: “Wherefore is light given to him that is in misery, and life unto the
bitter in soul . . . which rejoice exceedingly, and are glad, when (yk@i) they can find the
grave?”
10 Job 5:21: “Thou shalt be hid from the scourge of the tongue: neither shalt thou be
afraid of destruction when (yk)@i it cometh.”

129

this way, the trees were not yet. No trees, that is, of proper size; none brought
forth by the work of the sun, rain, and man. For they maintain that in this
place it is a question of the trees only. Thus Nahmanides. For on the third day
the tender trees sprouted, and they grew up only after the rain. They further
support their opinion, for hd#1and )lqx signify a cultivated field (Fagius).
They explain MrE+e by means of the Aramaic )l d(, not yet (Syriac,
Onkelos, Munster, Rabbi Salomon, Fagius, Targum Jerusalem, Ainsworth); the
plant of the field was not yet, nor was it going to be, unless God had produced
it (Ainsworth). I think that MrE+e by itself always signifies not yet (and MrE+eb@;/
before, that is, in the not yet, when not yet); as it is in Exodus 9:30 and 1
Samuel 3:7,2 so it is in this place. And the w in lkow: I translate as at that time
(just as in Genesis 3:5, in the day in which you eat of it, w@xqp; n; wi ,: at that time
shall be opened your eyes) in this way: These are the generations of the
heavens and the earth. There I place a period, which is to say, of this sort was
the method of the production of things as now follows: When they were
created, at that time there was not yet any shrub of the field (de Dieu,
Menochius). That they sometimes translate Mr+E e as before, arises from a
Hebraism, when it flows into the following section: as in Psalm 119:67, before
(MrE+)e I was afflicted, I was straying; and in Isaiah 65:24, before they call,
yn)I jw,A even I will answer. But then the w is made superfluous (de Dieu). But
that exceptional syntax is not necessary. It is to be observed that the b particle
is supplied, so that MrE+e, not yet, occurs in the place of Mr+E be ,;@ in the not yet,
or, when not yet, or when as yet not; which is altogether the same with before.
Thus it is found with the b, as in Genesis 37:18;3 Leviticus 14:36;4 1 Samuel
2:15;5 Haggai 2:15;6 but without the b, as in Genesis 19:4, w@bk#@f $;yI Mr+E ,e
before they lay down; Psalm 119:67, hnE(v)e Mr+E ,e when not yet, or, before I
was afflicted; and in this place in like manner, hyEh;yI Mr+E e, at the time not

1 The Chaldean hd# is obviously closely related to the Hebrew hdE#of. Genesis 2:5a:
“And every plant of the field (hd#E %foh)a before it was in the earth, and every herb of the
field (hdE#oh%f )a before it grew.”
2 See the treatments of these verses above.
3 Genesis 37:18: “And when they saw him afar off, even before (Mr+E be ;w)@ he came
near unto them, they conspired against him to slay him.”
4 Leviticus 14:36a: “Then the priest shall command that they empty the house, before
(Mr+E eb);@ the priest go into it to see the plague . . .”
5 1 Samuel 2:15a: “Also before (Mr+E eb;@) they burnt the fat, the priest’s servant came.”
6 Haggai 2:15: “And now, I pray you, consider from this day and upward, from
before (MrE+m@e )i a stone was laid upon a stone in the temple of the Lord . . .”

130

yet, or, before it was (Gataker’s Cinnus 173). Following on this, an
interpretive difficulty arises, for it appeared to be en0 antiofane\j, a
contradiction, to interpreters: although here it is said that there was no shrub
because there was no rain, etc., in chapter 1, on the other hand, God produces
those things by His word. The difficulty is resolved in this way: There are here
three words which require attention, not one of which appears in chapter 1:
xay#oi is a crowd of shoots out of a root; hd#E of is a cultivated field; xmca f is to
put forth and to sprout, namely, from a seed and root. Nothing is such in the
first creation (de Dieu). hdE#of is the part of the earth cultivated for grain,
pasture, herbs, etc., whereby I understand in this place shrubs, trees, and
herbs, which, with cultivation and preparation added, are turned into fields and
pleasant gardens. That is to say, even though God had filled the earth with
trees, herbs, etc. on the third day, there was not at that time the pleasantness of
fields and gardens, for there was not yet rain, etc., nor a man who might
cultivate, etc. This understanding is wonderfully suited to what follows, in
which the fashioning of man and the planting of Paradise are described. Thus I
translate (for it is a new verse, and the Silluq accent distinguishes it from the
preceding verse): And before every shrub of the field will be (was) and before
every herb of the field will sprout, in the place of had sprouted (Bochart’s A
Sacred Catalogue of Animals 1:3:27:955, Malvenda). [Thus far in Bochart’s A
Sacred Catalogue of Animals, with de Dieu producing nearly the equivalent.
But let us hear the judgment of Gataker concerning these things.] Both, says
Gataker, the translations of Louis de Dieu [which I have already exhibited from
him] please me certainly much less than either the version of Junius or the
Vulgate, which for the most part is of sufficient quality. There are many things
which I am less able to approve. 1. Because he translates hl@e)'1 as these, not
as those things preceding; he does not with the majority apply it to the
preceding context, the matters in chapter 1, but to the succeeding context, in
which the order and method of the production of certain things is repeated and
more fully explained. 1. For, even though certain things concerning plants,
man, woman, etc., are here somewhat more fully described than previously,
nothing further is said concerning the heavens and the earth. 2. Even if this
should be conceded to him, he would still not persuade that what things are
described here were not created in the space of the six days of chapter 1. 2.
Why, I ask, would it be said: Before the heavens and the earth were founded,
neither did any shrub or herb exist? Could anyone think the shrub to exist
without a foundation? Or to what end would he be citing the heaven and the
earth as established before the shrubs? as if those, if they had existed, would

1 Genesis 2:4a: “These (hl@e)') are the generations of the heavens and of the earth
when they were created . . .”

131

have been able to contribute anything to the production of the heavens and the
earth. 3. It is said that the shrubs had not yet been, because the rain was not,
neither was there a man who might cultivate, but only a vapor, etc., as if in fact
either God would not be able to bring forth whatever shrubs he will without
the operation of rain and man; or the vapor alone, without the rain or the
cultivation of man, would suffice, not for bringing these forth, but for
conveying them unto their own perfection by a single influence. 4. I do not
approve that he refers this place to the garden planted in Eden. For the words
appear to be of a much wider compass. 5. What things that learned man
chatters about the words, xay#,io hdE#of, and xmca ,f are mere subtleties; just as
concerning the bristles on an ear of barley (said he), just as nothing is more
acute, so also nothing is more fragile. xmacf in general signifies to be brought
forth or to come forth, as in Isaiah 42:9,1 granting that it is frequently applied
to plants, which now come up by natural law, for the word is used for the most
part concerning them alone: the same is able to be said both concerning
)cw' Oh, to bring forth, which is in Genesis 1:24,2 and concerning )#d$f ,F to
sprout, which is used only in Genesis 1:113 and Joel 2:22.4 But even
hdE#/fo field is more loosely applied, as it is known from Genesis 2:19, 205 (lest
you should deny that wild animals, which are distinguished there from domestic
animals, were either created by God or brought to Adam) and Genesis 3:1.6
Finally, xay#oi is frequently used for shrub or sapling, as it is in Job 30:4,7 78 and
Job 12:8,9 where Pagnine renders it thicket and Œcolampadius10 shrub; it

1 Isaiah 42:9: “Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I
declare: before they spring forth (hnFxm; act; @i) I tell you of them.”
2 Genesis 1:24a: “And God said, Let the earth bring forth ()cw' tO @) the living creature
after his kind . . .”
3 Genesis 1:11a: “And God said, Let the earth bring forth ()#'$d:ta@) grass . . .”
4 Joel 2:22a: “Be not afraid, ye beasts of the field: for the pastures of the wilderness
do spring (w@)#d;$ )F . . .”
5 Genesis 2:19a, 20a: “And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the
field (hdE#f%oha), and every fowl of the air . . . And Adam gave names to all cattle, and
to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field (hd#E fho% )a .”
6 Genesis 3:1a: “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field (hd#E f%oha)
which the Lord God had made.”
7 Job 30:4: “[They] cut up mallows by the bushes (xAy#io), and juniper roots for their
meat.”
8 Job 30:7: “Among the bushes (Myxiy#oi) they brayed; under the nettles they were
gathered together.”
9 Job 12:8: “Or the shrub (xyA #)oi of the earth, even it shall teach thee: and the fishes
of the sea shall declare unto thee.”
10 Johannes Œcolampadius (1482-1531) began his career as a cathedral preacher at

132

appears to be used here, so that it might all the more express that there was not
even a shrub or an undershrub of the field, or a wild plant, or, as Junius says, an
unsown plant (for field here is opposed to the enclosed garden of Song of Songs
4:12; 5:1), much less a sown plant, or a plant grown in a garden, or a
somewhat tall tree, when God created, etc. The remaining argument of the
learned man is futile: The herbs and the trees, which God created on the third
day, sprouted not from seed and roots, but they themselves were the first seeds
of all; therefore, the plants at that time were not perfect. In the same way, I
might say that the animals, created on the fifth or sixth day, were not from
seed; therefore, at that time they were not whole and perfect. Moreover, if we
admit his etymology of xyA #i,o no one would readily grant that trees were
created without shoots/twigs (Gataker’s Cinnus 2:175, etc.).

Before it was in the earth, i.e. when as yet there were no plants, nor so
much as seeds of them, there. Before it grew, to wit, out of the earth, as
afterwards they did by God’s appointment.

The two great means of the growth of plants and herbs, viz. rain from
heaven, and the labour of man, were both lacking, to show that they were now
brought forth by God’s almighty power and word.

Verse 6: But there went up a mist from the earth (or, a mist which
went up from, etc.), and watered the whole face of the ground.

[But a fountain, d)w' :] In the place of dy)w' : (Vatablus), that is, a
fountain (thus the Samaritan Text, Syriac, Bonfrerius. A spring (Aquila in
Bonfrerius). An inundation, that is, inundations or fountains (Oleaster,
Bonfrerius out of Augustine). This fountain is the abyss of waters which was
appearing to emerge from the earth and to ascend, and was watering the whole
earth. Therefore, I translate it: On the day in which He made the heavens
(that is, the first day), there was not yet any shrub, but a fountain, etc.
(Lapide). Others, a cloud (thus the Chaldean, Munster, Drusius). Others, a
vapor (thus Pagnine, Piscator, Arabic, Junius and Tremellius, Drusius,
Vatablus, Fagius). He sets forth the creation of rain from vapor (Fagius,
Vatablus). The vapor breathes out, evidently on the third day, when God
ordered the plants to spring forth (Castalio). This does not satisy; for this
would be to represent the rain on those first days, which here is denied to have
been (Oleaster, Bonfrerius).

[But a fountain] That is to say, the herbs and plants, although on the

Basel. During the first motions of reformation in Germany, he sided with Luther on
many issues. He allied himself with Zwingli, and through preaching and debate he
convinced the magistracy of Basel to embrace the Reformation. He was a man of
considerable skill in Greek and Hebrew. His commentary on Job, In Librum Job
Exegemata, is here referred to.

133

third day they were not brought forth by means of the rain, etc., nevertheless,
thus they soon would be (Lapide).

[dy)w' :] De Dieu, Piscator, and most others translate the w as but. For
they maintain that, even if not rains, at least vapors were antecedent to the
production of plants; as if God would have made use of any instrument in the
creation of things; even so much as of vapors, in these things which, before the
luminaries (by the operation of which it is manifest that the vapors are drawn
forth) were created, were brought forth on the third day (Gataker’s Cinnus
2:2:181). Rightly, therefore, does Junius render the w as or, or the vapor was
ascending from the earth. Thus the conjunction was wont to introduce a
disjunctive notion, as in Exodus 21:151 (Junius). To this verse might be added
Exodus 21:17;2 Esther 4:11;3 Nehemiah 5:8;4 Job 6:22;5 and Job 8:36
(Gataker’s Cinnus 2:2:181). Others read it with the negative particle, Ny),'
there was not. This is the position of Saadias7 (whom Ibn Ezra in Drusius calls
Nw)gh/HaGaon, the Excellent), who in a most ancient codex thus finds it:
which I would not reject, if a consensus of more codices should appear, with
the result that Moses would be rendering the reason why God would settle that
garden in the midst of great rivers, that is, because the rains were not falling
from heaven (Grotius). [But Fagius is somewhat otherwise.] Saadias asserts
that the Ny),' there was no, is to be applied, not only to the man, but also to the

1 Exodus 21:14-15: “But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay
him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die. But he that
smiteth (hk@m' aw)@ his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.”
2 Exodus 21:16-17: “And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in
his hand, he shall surely be put to death. But he that curseth (ll@'qma w; )@ his father, or
his mother, shall surely be put to death.”
3 Esther 4:11b: “. . . there is one law of his to put him to death, except such to whom
the king shall hold out the golden sceptre, that he may live: but I (ynI)jwA) have not
been called to come in unto the king these thirty days.”
4 Nehemiah 5:8a: “And I said unto them, We after our ability have redeemed our
brethren the Jews, which were sold unto the heathen; but yet (MgwA :) will ye sell your
brethren? or (w@rkm;@ ;niw:) shall they be sold unto us?”
5 Job 6:22: “Did I say, Bring unto me? or, Of your substance (Mkxe jk@mo iw@) give a
reward for me?”
6 Job 8:3: “Doth God pervert judgment? or doth the Almighty (ydA@#a-$ M)wi ): pervert
justice?”
7 Saadias Ben Joseph (892-942) was a leader (Gaon) in the Babylonian Jewish
community and a champion of Talmudic orthodoxy. His scholarship is remarkable,
for he labored during a period in which learning was at a low ebb. He produced an
Arabic version of the Pentateuch, and translations and commentary for the books of
Isaiah, Job, and Proverbs. He tends to interpret, and sometimes to wrest, the text, so
that it might conform to traditional rabbinic interpretation.

134

vapor, in this manner: There was no man (supply nor) vapor, but God created
all things, etc. And certainly a negative particle, posited at the beginning of a
sentence, according to Hebrew idiom is often referred to more things (Fagius,
Kimchi in Fagius, Ibn Ezra in Drusius). I judge in this way: where there is
uncertainty, nothing is to be altered in the text. I am doubtful that a negation
can be repeated from one verse to another. It is without parallel (granting that
it might occur in the same verse) (Drusius, Malvenda). Negative particles are
frequently ellipses; and this either with a conjoining particle, as in Psalm 1:5,
the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, and (that is, nor) sinners in the
congregation of the righteous, Psalm 44:18;1 50:8;2 Proverbs 31:3;3 Isaiah
41:28;4 or without a conjoining particle, as in Psalm 9:18, the needy shall not
always be forgotten, (supply neither) shall the expectation of the poor perish
forever; Psalm 91:5, 6;5 Isaiah 23:4;6 28: 27, 287 (Gataker’s Cinnus 2:2:181).
[Concerning those extraordinary verses of Isaiah 28, either consult Gataker or
the things noted by us, Zwi\ Qew|,~ with the help of the living God, on that
passage.]

There went up, from time to time, by God’s appointment, a vapour,
or cloud, which going up into the air, was turned into rain, and fell down again
to the earth from whence it arose; whereby the earth was softened, and
disposed both to the nourishment of those plants or trees that were created,
and to the production of new plants in a natural and ordinary way. But these

1 Psalm 44:18: “Our heart is not ()$l) turned back, neither have declined (+t@'wA; the
negative sense of the preceding )$l is continued by the conjoining particle) our steps
from thy way . . .”
2 Psalm 50:8: “I will reprove thee not ()l$ ) for thy sacrifices nor thy burnt offerings
(Ky1 tle$ w(O w:), to have been continually before me.”
3 Proverbs 31:3: “Give not (l))a thy strength unto women, nor thy ways (Ky1 kerFdw: )@ to
that which destroyeth kings.”
4 Isaiah 41:28a: “For I beheld, and there was no (Ny)w' ): man, and there was none from
among them (hle)@ m' w' @), and there was no counselor . . .”
5 Psalm 91:5, 6: “Thou shalt not ()l$ ) be afraid for the terror by night; (supply nor)
for the arrow that flieth by day; (supply nor) for the pestilence that walketh in
darkness; (supply nor) for the destruction that wasteth at noonday.”
6 Isaiah 23:4b: “I travail not ()l$ ), nor ()$lw): bring forth children, neither ()$lw): do I
nourish up young men, (supply nor) bring up virgins.”
7 Isaiah 28:27, 28: “For the fitches are not ()$l) threshed with a threshing instrument,
neither is a wheel (Npwa )O w:, the conjoining conjunction is translated as neither,
continuing the negative sense of the preceding )l$ ) of a cart turned about upon the
cummin; but the fitches are beaten out with a staff, and the cummin with a rod. Bread
corn is bruised; because he will not ()l$ ) ever be threshing it, nor break it (Mmha fw,: the
conjoining conjunction is translated as nor) with the wheel of his cart, nor ()l$ ) bruise
it with his horsemen.”

135

words may be otherwise understood, the copulative and, here rendered but,
being put for the disjunctive or, as it is in Exodos 21:15,17; Job 6:22; 8:3, and
in other places. Or, the negative particle not may be understood out of the
foregoing clause, as it is usual in the Hebrew language, as in Psalm 1:5; 9:18;
44:18; 50:8; Isaiah 28:27, 28. And so these words may be joined with the
foregoing, and both translated in this manner, There was no rain, nor a man to
till the ground, or (or nor, for both come to one thing) so much as a mist which
went up from the earth, and watered (as afterwards was usual and natural) the
whole face of the ground.

Verse 7: And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground
(Heb. dust of the ground; Gen. 3:19, 23; Ps. 103:14; Eccles. 12:7; Isa. 64:8;
Ecclus. 17:1;1 1 Cor. 15:47), and breathed (Job 33:4; 2 Esd. 3:5;2 Acts 17:25)
into his nostrils the breath of life (Gen. 7:22; Isa. 2:22); and man became a
living soul (1 Cor. 15:45).

[And He formed, rcye y%IwA] Here there is a twofold y, for signifying
(says Rabbi Salomon) the twofold formation of man, of this age, and of the
future age after the resurrection. Below, where the word is used concerning
animals, the y is singular3 (Fagius). Concerning other things he said, And the
land brought forth, or, the water, etc., but here, He formed, that is, He more
carefully and nobly constituted him (Lyra); the likeness of the potter (to whom
God is compared, Jeremiah 18:2 [Menochius]), the image conceived in the
divine mind He forms, as it were, by hand (Fagius).

[Myh$li )v hwOFhy,: Jehovah God] The name of God is full in this place
(says Nahmanides) because of the dignity of man (Fagius).

[From the dust of the earth, hmfdF)hj f Nmi rpf(f] It does not say, out
of the dust, but simply, dust, that is, the most insignificant and common thing
which is in the earth, to subdue pride (Fagius). Dust, that is, out of the dust of
the earth (Ainsworth, Vatablus). The preposition (Nm/i from) is postpositive,
which ought to come before the prior word; this is frequent enough in Hebrew
(Vatablus). Or, it is a simple ellipsis of the preposition m, in the place of
rpf(mf ' (Glassius’ “Grammar” 664), out of the dust moistened by the vapor, or
by the rain, which by that time had fallen (Fagius, Vatablus, Malvenda).

1 Ecclesiasticus 17:1: “The Lord created man of the earth, and turned him into it
again.”
2 2 Esdras: “And thou gavest a body unto Adam without soul, which was the
workmanship of thine hands, and didst breathe into him the breath of life, and he was
made living before thee.”
3 Genesis 2:19a: “And out of the ground the Lord God formed (rcye %IwA) every beast of
the field, and every fowl of the air.”

136

[And He breathed into] He exhaled (Oleaster), He blew (Ainsworth),
He inflated (Piscator), to show that the soul of man is from an external source
through creation (Lyra, Bonfrerius), and infused at the time of the creation of
the body (Lyra, Estius, Menochius, Tirinus).

[Into his face (thus Menochius, Grotius, Septuagint), wyp)%f ba ;]@ Into his
nostrils (Aquila and Symmachus in Bonfrerius, Oleaster, Ainsworth, Piscator,
Malvenda, Vatablus), for through the nostrils the insufflation penetrated
(Malvenda). For this reason, the breath of life especially shines forth in the
nostrils (Ibn Ezra in Fagius). Into the nostrils, or face, God is said to have
breathed, because especially in these the soul, through respiration and vital
actions of the senses, reveals itself (Bonfrerius). The face is a revealer of the
mind, and is capable of speaking (Grotius).

Into his nostrils, and by that door into the head and whole man. This is
an emphatical phrase, sufficiently implying that the soul of man was of a quite
differing nature and higher extraction and original than the souls of beasts,
which together with their bodies are said to be brought forth by the earth,
Genesis 1:24.

[The breath of life, hmf#$fn;] Kimchi maintains that this word is used
concerning all living creatures and that it is the same as #$penE, that which
breathes. But Ibn Ezra rightly contends that it is ascribed to man alone. Many
of the Hebrews, as even Kimchi testifies, derive it from MymI a#,$f the heavens,
for the blowing proceeds from heaven (Fagius).

[Of life, MyyxI% a] Of lives: either because the word is without a singular
(Bonfrerius), or because the rational soul is also sensitive and vegetative
(Lapide, Menochius, Tirinus, Malvenda), or because the abilities and operations
of one soul are many (Ainsworth), or to signify the twofold life and immortality
of the soul (Chizkuni in Fagius). This is further proven from the in-breathing.
He who breathes in, contributed something of Himself. In this manner, Christ
communicated the Spirit.1 Therefore, it denotes that something divine was
breathed in (Fagius). Although the souls of other living creatures are from
God; nevertheless, not without cause did Moses say this especially concerning
the more divine spirit of man; also Job 33:4 (Grotius). Nevertheless, Grotius
denies that it is a question of immortality here, on account of a collation of
passages including Job 34:14; Psalm 104:29; Acts 17:25; Ecclesiastes 12:7.
Without doubt immortality is not of the first, but of the new creation
(Grotius). [Others determine otherwise.] It is not to be doubted that, out of
these few words, by which Moses revealed the creation of the rational soul, it is
possible to demonstrate and to prove that the soul is immortal; which Moses

1 John 20:22.

137

revealed in many places, both in this book, and in his other books (Pererius1).
But concerning the immortality of the first man Rivet argues in great detail
from this place.

The breath of life, Heb. of lives; either to show the continuance of this
breath or soul, both in this life and in the life to come; or to note the various
degrees or kinds of life which this one breath worketh in us; the life of plants,
in growth and nourishment; the life of beasts, in sense and motion; and the life
of a man, in reason and understanding.

[For a living soul2] That is, he was made a living soul. Thus, I will be
for a lying spirit, in 2 Chronicles 18:21,3 is, I will be a lying spirit, in 1 Kings
22:224 (Ainsworth). He was made endowed with a spirit, and endowed with
life (Picherel, likewise Menochius). Man was made animated, with his own
methods of preservation, as to eat, to perceive, to drink, to procreate, etc.
(Vatablus, Fagius, Ainsworth, Malvenda). Compare with 1 Corinthians 15:45.
The Chaldean translates it, for a speaking spirit, because speech is peculiar to
man alone (Fagius). It intimates that Adam was not like a child, but, from the
moment when he was created, was able to walk and to speak (Ibn Ezra in
Fagius). And he was made a rational soul (Arabic).

Man, who before this was but a dull lump of clay, or a comely statue,
became a living soul, i.e. a living man: the soul being oft put for the whole
man, as Genesis 12:5, 13; 46:15, 18; 1 Peter 3:20, etc.

Verse 8: And the LORD God planted a garden (Gen. 13:10; Isa. 51:3;
Eze. 28:13; Joel 2:3) eastward (Gen. 3:24) in Eden (Gen. 4:16; 2 Kings 19:12;
Eze. 27:23); and there he put the man whom he had formed (Gen. 2:15; 2 Esd.
3:65).

[He had planted (thus Lyra, Vatablus, Estius, Ibn Ezra and Rabbi
Salomon in Fagius, Piscator, Malvenda)] Evidently on the third day (Piscator).
Picherel, On Creation, enclosed all this history, comprehended in the second
chapter, in the midst of the first week, and he, in his paraphrase, inserted it into
the very fabric of the first chapter: in which, I suppose, he is not worthy of
criticism, neither would it be possible to have almost anyone dissenting

1 Benedictus Pererius (1535-1610) was a Spanish Jesuit. He wrote Commentariorum
et Disputationum in Genesim Tomi Quattuor, in which he addresses many of the great
difficulties in Genesis.
2 Hebrew: hyF%xa #$pne El.;
3 2 Chronicles 18:21a: “And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit (rq#e e$ xawr@ l;,
for a lying spirit) in the mouth of all his prophets.”
4 1 Kings 22:22b: “And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit (xwa @r
rq#e e)$ in the mouth of all his prophets.”
5 2 Esdras 3:6: “And thou leddest him into paradise, which thy right hand had
planted, before even the earth came forward.”

138

(Gataker’s Cinnus 189). He attaches verse 8, and the verses following unto 15,
to verse 12 of the first chapter, before the words, And God saw that it was
good. Specifically (says he) Jehovah was in fact planting a most pleasant garden,
etc. (Picherel). Others translate it, He planted (Fagius, Montanus, Tigurinus,
Ainsworth).

He had planted, viz. on the third day, when he made the plants and
trees to grow out of the ground, a place of the choicest plants and fruits, most
beautiful and pleasant.

[A paradisial garden of delight, Nd(E b' ;@-Ng@A] To some it is a proper name
(Cajetan, Montanus, Septuagint, Syriac, Chaldean in Fagius’ Comparison of the
Principal Translations, Lapide, Vatablus, Ibn Ezra in Fagius). Mention is made
of this Eden in Isaiah 37:12 (Munster, Fagius, Bonfrerius) and in Genesis 4:16,
but especially in Ezekiel 27:23 (Bonfrerius) and 2 Kings 19:12 (Piscator). This
place appears to have been in the vicinity of Mesopotamia and Armenia
(Lapide, Bonfrerius), where the Tigris and Euphrates flow together into one
channel (Lapide, Estius), in the regions of Arabia and Mesopotamia (Vatablus).
It suggests that this sense of b is an addition of slight importance1 (Fagius’
Comparison of the Principal Translations, Bonfrerius). Others receive it
appellatively, as pleasure, delight, etc. Thus the Greek Catena in Menochius;
in the place of pleasure (Chaldean, Symmachus, Malvenda). A most luxurious
garden (Tigurinus). The paradisial garden was well sown with every kind of
plant (Menochius). NdE(,' with five vowel points (as in this place) is known to
be appellative from 2 Samuel 1:242 and Jeremiah 51:34.3 But NdE(e, with six
vowel points, is the proper name of the place (Malvenda).

[In the beginning, MdqE @emi4] They explain this in a variety of ways: 1.
So that it might designate the time, and that in a twofold sense. 1. From
before, so that the garden might be said to be before the world. Was planted .
. . the garden, of things proper to Eden, before the creation of the world
(Targum Jerusalem). For the ancient Hebrews determine that seven things
were before the world, among which is Paradise. But these said many things
guardedly and enigmatically, which subsequent Hebrews understood most

1 If Nd(E b' ;-@ Ng@A is translated as a proper name, the Garden of Eden, then the preposition
b is left untranslated. However, if the b is given its due weight, the translation would
be, a garden in Eden.
2 2 Samuel 1:24a: “Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you in
scarlet, with other delights (MynId(F ,j the plural absolute of NdE(') . . .”
3 Jeremiah 51:34b: “He hath filled his belly with my delicates (yndF (F jm,' the plural
absolute of Nd(E ,' with the first person singular suffix), he hath cast me out.”
4 MdEqe can signify the east or aforetime. The sun rises in the east, the beginning of
the day.

139

confusedly. To me they seem to have meant heaven, prepared from eternity
for the elect, in accordance with Ephesians 3 (Fagius). 2. In the beginning
(Onkelos, Aquila, Fagius), so that the garden might be thought to have been
from the beginning of the world, namely, on the third day of the world, when
the earth was adorned with plants (thus Lyra, Lapide, Menochius). He
furnished this garden (undoubtedly) before He was fashioning man; which view
is most natural. However, it is unfolded here with precision because of the
following history of man (Fagius). 2. So that it might designate the place, or,
toward the East (Fagius, Ainsworth, Piscator, Montanus, Tigurinus,
Septuagint, Oleaster, Malvenda, Bonfrerius, Samaritan Text, Arabic), from the
anterior direction (Syriac). Namely, either, 1. with respect to Eden, that is, in
the eastern region of Eden (Piscator), or, 2. with respect to the desert, where
Moses wrote (certain interpreters in Malvenda), or, 3. with respect to the
Jews (Lapide, Bonfrerius, Menochius, Tirinus). Eden is joined with Haran in
Ezekiel 27:23 (which was in Mesopotamia, according to Genesis 121), and,
therefore, it was near it. And the Greeks celebrate that place among the most
famous paradisial gardens (Fagius’ Comparison of the Principal Translations).
God desired the location of Paradise to be hidden from man for the punishment
of sin (Tirinus). Question: Where is Paradise? Response: 1. Some
interpreters explain these things allegorically, and they fix it outside this world:
whom the trustworthiness of the history and the express words of Moses refute
(Junius). 2. Others determine that Paradise was, either, 1. a place on the
sphere of the moon; or, 2. the whole world; or, 3. close to the equinoctial
region; or, 4. in Syria (Junius, Lapide). 3. It appears that it was in the vicinity
of Mesopotamia and Armenia (Lapide, Bonfrerius). This is demonstrated, 1.
Because it was in the east, that is, with respect to Judea. Yet the Scripture does
not designate by the name of the east just any eastern region at all with respect
to Judea, but only those more near to it and generally well-known (Bonfrerius,
Lapide). 2. Men, banished from Paradise, inhabited this region first, Genesis
4, 5, 11. 3. Eden was near Haran, a town of Mesopotamia, Isaiah 37:12;
Ezekiel 27:23. 4. Paradise is where the Euphrates and Tigris are. 5. From the
fertility of the place (Lapide). 4. Some include it in Mesopotamia, even in that
part of it which is called Babylon or Chaldea; but they maintain that the rivers
were separated by the flood and the region changed. But thus the seat of Eden
and of the rivers would be uncertain, of which, nevertheless, the Holy Spirit
desired to mark the boundaries (Junius). 5. I determine that Eden was the
choicest part of Babylon, which Ptolemy2 called Auranitis3 (probably to be read

1 Genesis 11:31, 32; 12:4.
2 Claudius Ptolemæus (c. 90-c. 168) is that famous Ptolemy, who has had such a great
impact upon the fields of geography and astronomy in the Western world.
3 Auranitis or Hauran is a very fertile region in the southern part of modern-day Syria,

140

Audanitis1). It is proven, 1. from the name, as it is pronounced; 2. from the
fertility of the place, which Pliny, in his Natural History 18:17, and Solinus,2 in
The Wonders of the World3 50, celebrate; 3. out of the collation of various
passages of Scripture, in which the pleasantness, as in Isaiah 51:3, and
influence, as in Ezekiel 27:23, of Eden are praised, and, even more
importantly, it is numbered, as in 2 Kings 19:12, among the Mesopotamians; 4.
from the rivers described here (Junius) [concerning which consult the following
verses]. This view is commended by a great many both of Protestants and of
Papists. Nevertheless, it does not satisfy me. 1. Aurantis was not able easily
to be put in the place of Audanitis, because r/r and d/d are letters of differing
articulation. 2. There is not harmony with the origin of the river, which is out
of Eden, Nd(E m' .' 4 And although Nmi sometimes signifies motion toward a place
(concerning which see Genesis 13:115), when passages require this, rarely is it
used in this way among the Hebrews, says Fuller. 3. The channels, recounted
by Junius, were not those ancient, paradisial ones, but were made by hand long
after those times. [See what things we have said on verses 11, 13, and 14.] 4.
The fertility which he sees, 1. It is common to many places. 2. Who will
demonstrate that the fertility of this place endured from the time of the flood?
Carver, of our own country, wrote of these things in his treatise in the English
language, A Discourse of the Terrestrial Paradise, Aiming at a More Probable
Discovery of the True Situation of That Happy Place of Our First Parents’
Habitation. 6. Carver places it among the Armenians, whence proceed both
the Tigris and the Euphrates; which, it is known, were the two rivers of
Paradise (Carver, Lapide, Bonfrerius). But who will prove that the Tigris and
Euphrates flow from the same fountain? Response: This is the greatest
difficulty: many theologians have dashed against this stone. And geographers
assign different fountains to it, who, nevertheless, disagree among themselves.
For Strabo6 says that the springs of these are separated by 312 miles; Ptolemy,
only 180. But Procopius, in “Concerning Belisarius” 1,7 draws them down
from the same mountain of the Armenians, near Theodosia,8 which is called the

just east of the Sea of Galilee.
1 Note the similarity in pronunciation between Eden and the first two syllable of
Audanitis.
2 Gaius Julius Solinus (third century) was a compiler of antiquarian curiosities.
3 De Mirabilibus Mundi.
4 Genesis 2:10.
5 Genesis 13:11a: “Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan; and Lot journeyed
east (MdEq@emi, that is, journeyed toward the east).”
6 Strabo (c. 63 BC-c. 24 AD) was a Greek geographer and historian.
7 From Secret History. Procopius (c. 500-c. 560) was a Byzantine historian.
8 Theodosia was a port city on the Crimean peninsula of the Black Sea.

141

city of Theodosius by Eustathius on Dionysus Periegetes.1 Isidore, in his
Etymologies 13:21,2 affirms that Sallustius3 asserted the same. However,
Lucan, in Pharsalia 3,4 clearly affirms: And where the great Euphrates takes up
its source with rapid Tigris, which Persia, that is, Armenia, gives forth not from
diverse springs, that is, Armenia. For it was most common for the writers of
the age to signify by the name of Persian all regions under Persian or Parthian
empire. Boethius, in The Consolation of Philosophy, 5:1,5 says: The Tigris
and Euphrates flow from one source, etc. Now, the spring of the Tigris is in
the Saphene region, from the south of the Taurus Mountains, as Ptolemy
testifies (Carver’s A Discourse of the Terrestrial Paradise 7, 8). And in this
place I think that Eden was, between the mountains Masius and Antitaurus.6
This place Marius Victorinus7 calls the Glade of Armenia and the Healing
Valley; by which words he brilliantly parafra&zei/paraphrases Eden; and
Dominicus Marius Niger8 calls it the Fertile Region. The same was the place of
Anthemusia,9 where the municipality of Batna was, most celebrated by Julian
the Apostate on account of pleasantness. This region was called Adonis by
Æthicus10 (under the name of which the Poets were falsely representing the
Garden of Eden by a plausible mutation), and he places it north of
Mesopotamia; and it was called Adena, by Sextus Rufus On the Victories11 of

1 Eustathius (d. 1198) was Archbishop of Thessalonica. He wrote a commentary on
Dionysius Periegetes’ (Dionysius of the Description) description of the inhabited
world. This description was written in Greek verse, probably in the second century.
2 Etymologiæ. Isidore (c. 560-636) was Archbishop of Seville and a bright and
shining light of learning in the intellectual darkness of his age. He presided over the
Second Council of Seville (619), which ruled against Arianism, and the Fourth
Council of Toledo, which required bishops to establish seminaries in their principal
cities.
3 Historiarum 4:77. Gaius Sallustius Crispus (86-34 BC) was Roman historian.
4 Marcus Annæus Lucanus (39-65) was a Roman poet.
5 Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius (480-c. 525) was a Roman statesman of great
learning and virtue. He faithfully served King Theodoric, until he was imprisoned
and executed, falsely accused of treasonous activity. While in prison, he wrote The
Consolation of Philosophy.
6 The Antitaurus and Masius mountain ranges run from the southeast to the northwest
on either side (western and eastern respectively) of the northern reaches of the
Euphrates.
7 Gaius Marius Victorinus (fourth century) was a Roman rhetorician who converted to
Christianity late in life, possibly under the influence of Augustine.
8 Dominicus Marius Niger was a Renaissance geographer.
9 Anthemusia is located between the Euphrates and Edessa, in what would be modern-
day Turkey.
10 In Cosmographia, falsely attributed to Jerome, Æthicus Ister, the protagonist of the
book, is portrayed as traveling the world, describing the people and places
encountered.
11 The Emperor Valens (4th century) commissioned the writing of this brief Roman

142

Lucullus,1 which he calls the best region of the Armenians (Carver’s A
Discourse of the Terrestrial Paradise 15). [As a colophon I add just these things
from my authors.] 1. Because the location of Paradise is hitherto disputed, it
cannot for that reason be concluded that there was no such place: just as no
one denies the existence of Persepolis,2 Cambodunum,3 Lindum,4 etc.,
although the geographers debate their locations. 2. It is not surprising that this
place is not more accurately known, since one and the same Ptolemy exhibited
to us tables of these locations, and those imperfect (Carver, in a letter). 3. It is
probable that those rivers in the time of Moses were separated to a greater
extent, etc., just as many other rivers and seas have changed their locations and
channels, as Torniellus5 notes (Lapide). [Carver has more concerning this
subject, which things you will see in succeeding verses.]

Eastward, from the place where Moses writ, and the Israelites
afterwards dwelt. Eden here is the name of a place, not that Eden near
Damascus in Syria, of which see Amos 1:5; but another Eden in Mesopotamia
or Chaldea, of which see Genesis 4:16; 2 Kings 19:12; Isaiah 37:12; Ezekiel
27:23. There are many and tedious disputes about the place of this Paradise; of
which he that listeth may see my Latin Synopsis. It may suffice to know that
which is evident, that it was in or near to Mesopotamia, in the confluence of
Euphrates and Tigris.

[In which He placed] Consequently, Adam was formed outside of
Paradise, so that it might be made known that this place was not due to him by
nature, but given to him by grace (Lyra).

There he put the man whom he had formed, to wit, in another place.

Verse 9: And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every
tree that is pleasant to the sight (Eze. 31:8), and good for food; the tree of life
(Gen. 3:22; Pro. 3:18; 11:30; Rev. 2:7; 22:2, 14) also in the midst of the
garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17).

[The tree of life] That is, life-giving; just as a man of a lie is a liar, etc.
The Hebrews do not have denominated things, but instead of them they use

history, Sexti Rufi Breviarium de Victoriis et Provinciis Populi Romani.
1 Lucius Licinius Lucullus (c. 118- 56 BC) was a consul of Rome and a military
leader.
2 Persepolis is the Greek name for a city known to the ancient Persians as Parsa,
located near modern-day Shiraz, Iran.
3 Cambodunum is the Roman name for one of the oldest known urban settlements in
Germany.
4 Lindum is the Roman name for a town located in Lincolnshire, England.
5 Augustine Torniellus (1543-1622) was a member of the Society of Barnabites, a
Counter-Reformation order. His work, Annales Sacri et Profani, cleared up many
geographical and chronological difficulties and obscurities, especially in the Old
Testament.

143

denominating things1 (Fagius). By the eating of which (not just once, but more
frequently [Estius]), life for a very long time (perhaps forever [Bonfrerius,
Tirinus]) would be prolonged (Lapide, Fagius, Bonfrerius, Menochius); and
that without sickness (Menochius). It would have preserved in man youth and
intact capacities, until finally it would have been transferred from the physical
unto the spiritual and immortal life (Munster, Fagius). It was symbol, even a
memorial, of life divinely received; so that as often as he might eat of that fruit,
he would acknowledge himself to live, not by his own strength, but by the
support of the one God, and as one about to enter into perpetual life, if he
should obey, etc. (Vatablus). Thus the saying is opened out of chapter 3 (lest
he should eat and live forever) that the eating of that would have granted
immortality (Estius). Others maintain that tree of life is thus symbolically
named, that is, that it is a symbol or sacrament of eternal life, if he should obey,
etc. (Piscator, Ainsworth).

The tree of life; so called, either symbolically, and sacramentally,
because it was a sign and seal of that life which man had received from God,
and of his continual enjoyment of it upon condition of his obedience; or,
effectively, because God had planted in it a singular virtue for the support of
nature, prolongation of life, and the prevention of all diseases, infirmities, and
decays through age.

[In the midst2] It designates either the site (thus Menochius, Piscator),
see Genesis 3:23, or the excellence of the tree (Menochius, Tirinus). That
which is choice is said to be in the midst, as in Genesis 23:103 (Menochius). Or
in the midst, that is, within the garden. Thus, in the midst of the city, in
Genesis 41:48,4 that is, within it; and in the midst of thorns, Luke 8:7,5 is
among thorns, Matthew 13:76 (Ainsworth).

In the midst of the garden, or, within the garden, as Tyrus is said to be
in the midst of the seas, Ezekiel 28:2, though it was but just within it.

[The tree of knowledge of good and evil] It is thus called, either, 1.
insofar as it might give oc0 u/thta dianoi/aj, keenness of thought, as Josephus
testifies (Grotius). But this is mistaken, for unto this bodily strength does not
extend. Or, 2. ironically, that is to say, that tree was singular, namely, which

1 In Hebrew, an adjectival genitive noun is frequently used in the place of an
adjective. The current example: Moses uses the expression, tree of life, instead of,
life-giving tree.
2 Hebrew: Kw7 Otb@.;
3 Genesis 23:10a: “And Ephron dwelt in the midst of (Kw7 tO b);@ the children of Heth.”
4 Genesis 41:48b: “The food of the field, which was round about every city, laid he
up in the same (hk@ fwOtb@;).”
5 Luke 8:7a: “And some fell in the midst of (e0n me/sw|) thorns.”
6 Matthew 13:7a: “And some fell among (e0pi)\ thorns.”

144

that lying demon had promised would give knowledge, almost divine, of all
good and evil (Menochius, Tirinus). Or, 3. by the miserable issue (Munster,
de Muis, thus many in Bonfrerius, Lapide, Ainsworth), for from it he came to
know the good, which he had thrown away, and the evil, into which he had
fallen (Bonfrerius); the good of obedience and the evil of disobedience (Lyra,
Menochius, Tirinus). In other words, the tree of experience, because he was
about to experience what he had lost, etc. (Piscator). Or, 4. because the Law
of God, which prohibited the eating of this tree, would teach what is good and
evil, and would reveal to man both his righteousness and his sin (Ainsworth).
The knowledge of good and evil, apart from God revealing it, no one is able to
possess (Fagius). The tree, in the eating of which, they discern between good
and evil (Chaldean). Telemachus1 in Homer: kai\ oi]da e[kasta, E0 sqla/ te
kai\ ta_ xe/reia: pa/roj de/ te nhp/ ioj ha] ; I knew all things, which things
are good, which things are evil; I am not now young as before.2 Prudence is to
Zeno of Citium:3 The knowledge of good things, evil things, and indifferent
things. Plutarch, Concerning Common Notions: ti/ deino\n, etc.; What
would it harm, if, with evils removed, there would be no prudence; then we
might have another virtue in the place of it, which would be the knowledge,
not of good things and of evil things, but of good things alone (Grotius’
Concerning the Law of War and Peace4 2:2 in the annotations). Man does not
carry in himself the knowledge, neither is he, therefore, miserable. So that
Euripides5 dared to say:

0En tw|~ maqein~ ga_r oud0 e\n hd3 istoj bi/oj,
3Ewj to\ xai/rein kai\ to\ lupeis= qai ma/qh|j.
Life is transacted more pleasantly by learning nothing,
as long as thou learnest to rejoice and to mourn.
Who also elsewhere said:
9O mhde\n ei0dwj_ ou0de\n ec0 amarta/nei.
He who has learned nothing does nothing wrongly.
Cicero, in Concerning the Nature of the Gods6 3, says that prudence consists of
the knowledge of good things, evil things, and things neither good nor evil: but
to whom there is no evil, to him there is no need to discriminate between good
and evil. And afterwards he says that very few men make good use of the skill,

1 Telemachus, appearing in the Iliad and the Odyssey, is the son of Odysseus and
Penelope. Telemachus’ search for his father is something of a coming-of-age story,
as the boy passes into manhood.
2 Odyssey 18:228-229.
3 Zeno of Citium (333-264 BC) was the founder of the philosophical school of
Stoicism.
4 De Jure Belli ac Pacis.
5 Euripedes (c. 480-406) was a Greek playwright, one of the great tragedians.
6 De Natura Deorum.

145

who themselves are nevertheless often oppressed by those evilly using it;
however, innumerable men make ill use of it: so that it appears that this gift
was given to men for deceit, and not for honesty. But, by nature, man,
although he is not fully cognizant of, yet he is reaching after, all knowledge,
even that which is not necessary, often not useful. Therefore, at that time,
with everything else abounding, no more effective temptation was able to be
applied to man (Grotius). Question: Of what sort was the fruit? Response:
An apple, Song of Songs 8:5, but different from all ours (Tirinus, Menochius);
or a fig (Menochius). Nothing can be asserted with certainty. From this he was
commanded to abstain. He was admonished, lest he should have an appetite to
taste1 more than was fitting, and lest, confident in his own perception, with the
yoke of God shaken off, he should set himself up as arbitrator and judge of good
and evil; lest he should create the former or the latter danger by testing his own
prudence (Vatablus): lest he should embrace his own counsel and put
confidence in himself (Fagius). God requires obedience from the man in the
matter of the tree, even, as it were, the cultivation of his devotion. And if
Adam had not sinned, this tree would have been as a kind of temple, unto
which men would have gathered (Munster).

The tree of knowledge of good and evil; so called with respect, either,
1. To God, who thereby would prove and make known man’s good or evil, his
obedience and happiness, or his rebellion and misery; or rather, 2. To man,
who by the use of it would know, to his cost, how great and good things he did
enjoy, and might have kept by his obedience, and how evil and bitter the fruits
of his disobedience were to himself and all his posterity. So it seems to be an
ironical denomination: q.d. You thirsted after more knowledge, which also the
devil promised you; and you have got what you desired, more knowledge, even
dear-bought experience.

Verse 10: And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from
thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

[And a river, rhfnwF :] Here, river is put for a great abundance of waters.
For, otherwise, there are four rivers. It is clear that, on account of two, not
doubtful, rivers, the Euphrates and the Tigris, these gardens were in those
places (Grotius, Estius on verse 8). Curtius,2 in his History of Alexander the
Great3 5 (amidst Tigris, etc.), and Pliny, in his Natural History 5:26 and 18:17
(nevertheless, Babylon, etc.), praise the fertility of it alone as the greatest.
Jerome observes that in Mesopotamia sheep give birth twice as much. Hence

1 The Latin word, sapere, can mean either to taste or to understand.
2 Quintus Curtius Rufus (d. 53) was a Roman and a historian. History of Alexander
the Great is his only surviving work.
3 Historiæ Alexandri Magni.

146

that entire region has the name Eden, that is, h9donhj~ /hedones/pleasure, 2
Kings 19:12 and Ezekiel 27:23 (Grotius). Certain interpreters maintain that
there is an enallage, and river is put for rivers.1 So it is with Vatablus in his
own lectures [which you will search for in vain in those notes of Vatablus which
are in the volumes Of Critical Interpreters, but you will find in his own
Annotations in Tigurinus Bible. Picherel, frequently mentioned by name
previously, follows him.]. For, says he, Moses would not have passed over in
silence the name of so singular a river, if it was singular, or he would certainly

have prefixed the article h to it, which article is not in the Greek translators
either. Now, not only will the enallage prevail here, but also in the
immediately following words, it was parted and it became. Thus the rivers
were flowing into the Edenic region and diverse tracts of it out of various lands,
being separated by their origins and flowing separately, which rivers, this way
and that way, were running through and flowing around the garden, not
collapsed into one place or channel only, but through diverse tracts and
territories. Those rivers, having slipped through the garden, separated
themselves again in different directions, which four were the chief rivers of
those regions. Picherel sets forth these things. Concerning the rivers and the
gems there are great discrepancies among the authors (Fagius). The source of
those four rivers really was in Paradise, although they have now for a long time
been separated; for they were able, after long stretches of years and lands, to
plunge themselves underground, and afterwards to emerge in their own places
(Menochius).

[It was going out from the place, NdE(m' ' )c'yO] Moving out from Eden
(Montanus). They understand it either, 1. of its original source, that is, they
were springing from Paradise, or (according to others) out of the region of
Eden in which was Paradise (Bonfrerius). Thus Danæus2 and Alsted’s3
Encyclopedia 20:11; so also our native Carver in A Discourse of the Terrestrial
Paradise 3. Now, the source of the Euphrates is in the northern portion of
Greater Armenia; therefore, Paradise is there (Carver). Or, 2. of its progress:
it passed out of Eden, although it does not spring from thence; flowing into
Eden, continuously from thence it proceeds in four channels (Junius). This
does not satisfy Carver. For )cfyF properly signifies to go out, like children
from a mother; the Nmi denotes motion from a place, not flowing through or to

1 This is an enallage, or substitution, of the singular for the plural.
2 Although the reference is unclear, it is probably referring to Lambert Danæus (c.
1530-1596), a French minister and theologian. He labored as a pastor and Professor
of Divinity at Geneva, and then at Leiden.
3 John Henry Alsted (1588-1638), a German Protestant, labored as Professor of
Philosophy and Divinity at Herborn. The breadth of his learning led to the production
of three encyclopedias.

147

a place (Carver’s A Discourse of the Terrestrial Paradise 3).
A river, or, rivers, by a common enallage. Eden, the country in which

Paradise was; where those rivers either arose from one spring, or met together
in one channel.

[Which from there was parted into four heads] From there, that is,
when it was beginning to flow into the garden. The heads signify both the
beginnings from which the rivers spring and the mouths in the sea (Vatablus).
Picherel thus translates this passage: Which [namely, the rivers] from it were
separated, I say, the four chief rivers of those regions. Hebrew: And a river
was; that is, and rivers were, into four heads.1 In the same way, what comes
into one flesh, Genesis 2:24,2 is one flesh, Matthew 19:6. However, I disjoin
these things from the preceding phrase, and it was parted, or, they were
parted; that they might be the same four rivers, which, having gone out from
Eden, after they had flowed together into Paradise, the same flowing out of
Paradise again, were parting. For, Which from thence is parted into four is not
in the Hebrew, but, And from thence it was divided and it was into four. The
Zaqeph-qaton accent over drp" y%f ,I it was parted, makes for my disjunction, one
of the class of disjunctive accents. Now, head often denotes the chief, the first
in rank, etc. I insert the word, rivers, calling the word back from what
immediately follows, where the word is, pointing it out, as it were, before the
express mention of the rivers. I also insert the words, of those regions. For
there are also other famous rivers, like the Ganges and the Nile, which do not
flow along that path (Picherel).

From the garden, it was divided into four principal rivers, concerning
which there are now many disputes. But it is no wonder if the rise and
situation of these rivers be not now certainly known, because of the great
changes, which in so long time might happen in this as well as in other rivers,
partly by earthquakes, and principally by the general deluge. And yet
Euphrates and Tigris, the chief of these rivers, whereof the other two are
branches, are discovered by some learned men to have one and the same
original or spring, and that in a most pleasant part of Armenia, where they
conceive Paradise was. See the Synopsis portion.

Verse 11: The name of the first is Pison (Ecclus. 24:253): that is it
which compasseth the whole land of Havilah (Gen. 25:18), where there is gold.

[Pison4] So called from the fertility of the fish, or the land; for it

1 Hebrew: My#i)$ rF h(fb@rf :)la ; hyhF fw.:
2 Hebrew: dxf)e r#bof fl; w@yhfw.:
3 Ecclesiasticus 24:25: “He filleth all things with his wisdom, as Phison and as Tigris
in the time of the new fruits.”
4 Hebrew: NwO#$yp.%i

148

signifies abundance (Lyra), from h#pfo f%, to increase, to be spread (Rabbi
Salomon in Fagius); from the increase (Oleaster, Ainsworth, Malvenda) and
abundance of waters (Ainsworth). To others, it is the Nile (Rabbi Salomon,
Fagius, Arabic); to others, Ganges (Jerome and Eusebius in Fagius, Lyra,
Menochius, Tirinus on verse 8, Bonfrerius, Malvenda). To others it is the
channel of Euphrates, which is called The Royal River, or Naharmalca1
(Junius), basi/leioj potamoj\ , The Royal River (Piscator). This does not
satisfy Carver. For this channel was established long after the time of Moses,
wrought by the art and labor of kings, indeed by the governor Gobares2
(namely, of the King of the Persians), as Pliny testifies in Natural History 6:26,
in whom Scaliger places his confidence (Carver). To others it is the Pasi-
tigris,3 so called by Pliny (instead of Piso-tigris [Carver]) because it was joined
to the Tigris: inhabitants call it Phasin. Curtius mentions it in History of
Alexander the Great 5 (Grotius, Vatablus, Carver’s A Discourse of the
Terrestrial Paradise 13). See Pliny’s Natural History 6, and Strabo’s
Geography 15. It is called Physcus by Xenophon,4 an amusing blunder5
(Carver). The land adjoining to that river is called Pison on account of it
(Procopius’ The Secret History of the Court of Justinian 1). The place called
Pison borders on the west of Martyropolis6 (not far from the headwaters of the
Tigris) (Carver, A Discourse of the Terrestrial Paradise 13).

Pison, an eminent branch of the river Tigris, probably that called by
others Pasi-tigris, or Piso-tigris.

[Which compasses7] Either, 1. by a long winding of paths it was
flowing down through the entire length of the region (Junius); or, 2. it flowed
past (Piscator). It signifies, not to encircle, but to glide along and to traverse
(Lapide, Ainsworth). Thus it is in Joshua 15:3;8 16:69 (Ainsworth) and

1 Naharmalca was a channel cut between Euphrates and Tigris, just north of the city
of Babylon.
2 Gobares was appointed as satrap of Babylonia by Cyrus the Great in 535 BC. He is
remembered for his work in building and repairing canals.
3 The Pasi-tigris ran roughly parallel to the Tigris, just east of the Tigris. It ran
through Susiana into the Persian Gulf.
4 Anabasis (The Expedition) 2:4. Xenophon (c. 427-355 BC) was a mercenary
soldier, who traveled extensively in the East. He was also an acquaintance and
admirer of Socrates.
5 Physcus could be related to the verb, fuw/ , which would carry the idea of fertility, or
it could be related to the noun, fus/ koj, which means sausage.
6 Martyropolis was located about ninety miles northwest of modern-day Baghdad, on
the Tigris.
7 Hebrew: bb'sh@o a.
8 Joshua 15:3b: “. . . and it passed along to Hezron, and went up to Adar, and fetched
a compass (bsna Fw:) to Karkaa.”
9 Joshua 16:6: “And the border went out toward the sea to Michmethah on the north