성경 주석서

23. This is now, &c.] The exclamation of joy and wonder is expressed in the rhythmical language of poetry. It is as if the man, after passing in review the animals, recognizes instantaneously in woman the fulfilment of his hope. “This is now” is equivalent to “here at last”; the German “Diese endlich.”

bone of my bones] A strong metaphorical phrase to denote that the woman is different from all the animals, and is absolutely one with the man. For similar expressions used of near relationship, compare Genesis 29:14, Genesis 37:27; Jdg 9:2; 2 Samuel 5:1; 2 Samuel 19:12-13; 1 Chronicles 11:1. This proverbial expression may have furnished the symbolism of the story.

she shall be called, &c.] The marg. by pointing out that the Hebrew for “woman” is Isshah, and for “man” Ish, shews the resemblance in the sound of the two words. This is fairly reproduced in the English words “Woman” and “Man”; and in Luther’s rendering “Männin” and “Mann.” The LXX is unable to reproduce it. The Latin attempts it with questionable success, haec vocabitur virago, quoniam de viro sumpta est.

Instead of “from man.” mê-ish. LXX and Targ. read “from her husband” = mê-ishâh, which adds to the resemblance in sound.

As a matter of philology the derivation is inaccurate. Probably Isshah is derived from a different root, anash. But nearly all these popular derivations of words prove to be inaccurate when judged by scientific etymology. They are based upon the assonance, or obvious resemblance in sound; and this, while it cannot fail to catch the ear and cling to the recollection of the people, is notoriously to be distrusted for supplying the real derivation.

24. Therefore shall a man, &c.] This verse contains the comment which the narrator makes upon the words of the man in Genesis 2:23. The word “therefore” introduces his inference. As in Genesis 10:9, Genesis 26:33, Genesis 32:32, a sentence beginning with “therefore” supplies the application, or relation, of the ancient narrative to later times. It is the man who is to leave “father and mother,” not “the woman.” Some compare the story in Jdg 15:1, where the woman remains with her family or clan, and Samson comes to live with her. This feature has been thought to illustrate the primitive usage of “the matriarchate.” But it is unlikely that the Hebrew narrative would contain a reference to such conditions.

Instead of “shall leave,” the full force of the tense in the Hebrew would be given by “doth leave” and “cleaveth.” The sanctity of marital relations is thus referred back to the very birthday of human society, being based on a principle laid down before the Fall.

The relation of the man to his wife is proclaimed to be closer than that to his father and mother. By the words, “shall cleave unto his wife … one flesh,” is asserted the sanctity of marriage. Polygamy is not definitely excluded; but the principle of monogamy seems to be implied in the words “cleave” and “shall be one flesh”: and this principle is upheld by the prophets as the ideal of marriage, in their representation of the relation of Jehovah and Israel under the metaphor of the married state.

This is the classical passage dealing with marriage to which our Lord appeals, Matthew 19:4-6, Mark 10:6-8, in His argument against divorce.

St Paul quotes it in 1 Corinthians 6:16, in condemnation of unchastity, and in Ephesians 5:31, when describing the ideal relationships of Christ and His Church.

and they shall be one flesh] Lit., as LXX καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν, Lat. erunt duo in carne una, where the addition of “the two” is supported by the Syriac Peshitto, the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan, and the quotations in the N.T., Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:8; 1 Corinthians 6:16.

25. This verse by one simple illustration describes the condition of the man and the woman in the garden. It is not that of moral perfection, but that of the innocence and ignorance of childhood. The untried innocence of the child does not possess the sense of shame: the depravity of vice forfeits it. The sense of shame is the shadow which temptation to sin throws across the pathway of purity.

NOTE ON THE COSMOGONIES OF GENESIS

The Book of Genesis contains two Cosmogonies: (1) the earlier and simpler one, that of Genesis 2:4 b–25 J, (2) the later and more systematic one, that of Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:4 a P.

(1) The distinctive features of the earlier one suggest a scene familiar to dwellers in the desert. The earth is barren and dry: there is as yet no rain to make it fruitful, no man to till it (Genesis 2:5). A stream1[5] issues “from the earth”; it irrigates “the whole face of the ground” (Genesis 2:6). Jehovah forms “man” out of the dust, and breathes life into him (Genesis 2:7). He causes him to dwell in a garden of rich soil and fruitful trees (Genesis 2:8-17). He forms “the beasts of the field” and “the fowls of the air” to be man’s companions (Genesis 2:18-20). But they give no true companionship: and Jehovah, casting “man” into a deep sleep, takes out of him a rib, and forms “woman” to be man’s companion (Genesis 2:21-25).

[5] “Stream”: R.V. “mist.” See note in loc.

The process of formation is orderly: (1) dry earth, (2) water, (3) man, (4) vegetation, (5) animals, (6) woman. Jehovah is the maker of all. Man is, in all, the object of Jehovah’s care and solicitude. The scene of the garden is that of an oasis teeming with life and vegetation.

(2) The later and more elaborate Cosmogony (Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:4 a) is, undoubtedly, ultimately derived from the alluvial region of Babylonia. At the first, there is a primordial watery chaos, over which “broods” the quickening “spirit of God” (Genesis 2:2). Then ensue six days of Creation. On the first, God creates the light, causing day and night (Genesis 2:3). On the second, He “makes” the “firmament, or solid expanse of heaven, which parts asunder the waters above and the waters below (Genesis 2:7). On the third day, God collects the lower waters into seas, and makes the earth appear, and clothes it with vegetation (Genesis 2:9-13). On the fourth day, He makes the sun, moon, and stars; and “sets” them in the “firmament,” to rule over the day and the night (Genesis 2:14-19). On the fifth day, He causes the water and the air to bring forth water-animals and winged things (Genesis 2:20-23). On the sixth day, God “makes” the animals of the earth; and, finally, “creates” man, “male and female,” “in the image of God” (Genesis 2:24-25).

In this Cosmogony there are certain points of resemblance to the Babylonian Cosmogony contained in the Seven Tables of Creation, in which Marduk, the god of light, overthrows Tiamat, the dragon-goddess of the watery chaos, sets up the luminaries of heaven, and makes Man 1:2[6]. The following table, taken from Gordon’s Early Traditions of Genesis (p. 51), will shew all the chief points of resemblance, and will also make it clear that the Biblical story is not a mere reproduction of the Babylonian myth.

[6] See Appendix A (book comments).

Genesis 1.  Seven Tables.

i. The emergence of light (Genesis 1:3 f.).  i.  The appearance of Marduk, god of light (ii. 97).

ii. The division of primaeval chaos into heaven and earth (Genesis 1:6 ff.).    ii.  The splitting in two of Tiamat, to form heaven and earth (iv. 135 ff.; cf. Berosus)1[7].

[7] See Appendix A (book comments).

iii.  The growth of herbs and trees from earth (Genesis 1:11 f.).  iii.  The setting up of the sun, moon, and stars in heaven, as images of the great gods, to “rule” the day and night, and determine the seasons (Genesis 2:1 ff.).

iv.  The placing of the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament of heaven, to “rule” the day and night, and to serve as “signs” of seasons, &c. (Genesis 1:14 ff.).    iv.  The creation of plants (not found in our present text, but evidently an original element of the Epos—prob. in Tab. v., after the setting up of the heavenly bodies) (cf. vii. 1 f., 21 ff.).

v.  The creation of the animals (Genesis 1:20 ff.).    v.  Creation of the animals (also missing from our present text, but authenticated by Berosus—its place also, probably, in Tab. v., after creation of plants).

vi.  The creation of man in God’s image (Genesis 1:26 ff.).  vi.  Creation of man from Marduk’s blood mixed with earth (Tab. vi. 5 ff.; cf. vii. 29, and Berosus).

It will be observed that, except for the exchange in the position of the creation of the plant world and the heavenly bodies, the same general order is followed. In the details of the account, the division of the waters above and below the firmament seems to correspond closely to the cleaving of Tiamat into two pieces, to form the heaven and the earth; and the setting of the heavenly bodies as “signs,” for the determining of seasons, days, and years, and for ruling the day and night, presents a feature of striking similarity to the Babylonian story.

The Genesis Cosmogony has dispensed with the grotesque and often unlovely and confusing details of the Babylonian mythology. For example, whereas man is made out of the compound of Marduk’s blood and the dust of the earth, the truth, which underlies this crude representation, is stated by the Hebrew writer in the simple words, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26).

The two main ideas that run through this Hebrew Cosmogony are:

(1) God is the One Almighty Creative Power; whether calling into being light (Genesis 1:3), the firmament (Genesis 1:6-7), the heavenly bodies (Genesis 1:16-17), and man (Genesis 1:27), or causing vegetation to come forth from the earth (Genesis 1:11-12), fish from the water (Genesis 1:20-21), animals from the earth (Genesis 1:24-25).

(2) The sequence in the creative acts is an orderly ascent from one stage to another, progressing from amorphous chaos to man as the crown of creation. At first, there is darkness and watery mass. Light displaces darkness; a solid dome of heaven separates the waters; the waters are collected; earth emerges, and out of the earth vegetation; the heavenly bodies are bearers of light; the waters and the air produce their living creatures; and, lastly, the earth produces the beasts; and, to crown the whole work, God creates man.

It is progress from chaos to order; from elemental to complex; from inorganic to organic; from lifeless matter to vegetable; from vegetable to animal, and, finally, to human life.

The Six Days

The most distinctive feature in the Hebrew Cosmogony of Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:4 a is the scheme of Six Days Creation. The orderly arrangement of chronological material is characteristic of the style of P. The stages of the Divine Creative work lent themselves to be distributed over Six Days. But, according to the religious thought of the devout Israelite, the Seventh Day must from the first have been a day of rest, and the Divine example alone could have communicated to the observance of the Sabbath its supreme seal of sanctity.

It is noteworthy that the only two passages in the Old Testament in which reference is made to the “six days work” of Creation, are Exodus 20:11; Exodus 31:17, both of which are probably based upon P’s narrative. (See Commentaries by McNeile and Driver, in loc.) The Six Days Creation, followed by the Seventh Day of Rest, are distinctively Israelite and not Babylonian features. There is nothing corresponding to them in the Babylonian myth. The Seven Tables of Creation are not arranged in any sequence of days.

The Creative works of the Six Days have been classified in different ways.

(1) Thomas Aquinas divided them into three “opera distinctionis” and three “opera ornatus.”

Opera distinctionis.  Opera ornatus.

1st Day.  Light.  4th Day.  Heavenly Bodies.

2nd Day.  The Firmament.  5th Day.  Fishes and Birds.

3rd Day.  Sea, Land, and Vegetation.  6th Day.  Cattle, Beasts, and Man.

(2) Many modern scholars, e.g. Wellhausen and Gunkel, suggest that the Cosmogony originally told of eight creative works, and that these have been arranged in P’s scheme of “six days”:

Elements.  Inhabitants.

1.  Light.  5.  Luminaries.

2.  Heaven.  6.  Fishes.

3.  Sea.  7.  Birds.

4.  Vegetation.  8.  Animals and Man.

(3) The endeavour to find any exact symmetry of parallelism between the works of the first three days and the works of the second three days must be abandoned. Roughly speaking, it may suffice to say, to quote Driver, that “the first three days are days of preparation, the next three are days of accomplishment.” But the following facts are noteworthy. (a) Each group of three days contains four creative acts: (b) the third day, in each group, has two creative acts assigned to it: (c) the creation of light on the first day has corresponding to it on the fourth day the creation of the “light-bearers,” or heavenly bodies: (d) the separation of the waters, on the second day, by the making of the firmament, seems to correspond with the creation, on the fifth, of the creatures of the sea and of the fowls “that fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven” (Genesis 1:20): (e) whereas, on the third day, the dry land appears, and vegetable life is made, it is on the sixth day that the animals of the earth, and man, are created; while the herbs, grasses, and fruits of the third day’s creation are the appointed food (Genesis 1:30), both of animals and of mankind.

1st Day.  Light.

2nd Day.  The Firmament, separating between the waters above and below.

3rd Day.  (a) Formation of the Sea and the Earth, and (b) of the Vegetable World.

4th Day.  Heavenly Bodies.

5th Day.  Fowls of the Air, and Water Animals.

6th Day.  (a) Animals of the Earth, (b) Mankind.

The Cosmogonies and Science and Religion

Every Cosmogony expresses, under the form of imagery, the childlike answers of a people in its earliest phases of civilization to the questionings of the human mind as to the origin of the world and of life. No Cosmogony, therefore, can be expected to give any but naïve, crude, and simple explanations of the deep mysteries of the universe.

The Biblical Cosmogonies only differ from other Cosmogonies in this respect. They reproduce the early beliefs of the Israelite people respecting the Origin of the World and of the Human Race in the form of narrative which, however simple and childlike, is devoid of any taint of polytheism or degrading superstition, and is capable of conveying the profoundest truths respecting God, the Universe, and Mankind.

Unquestionably, they present to us the physical science of their age. And, by comparison with other Cosmogonies, the statement, contained in the first two chapters of Genesis, surpasses in dignity, lucidity, and simplicity that which is to be found in any other ancient literature. It is no exaggeration to say that the picture, which the first chapter of Genesis presents of the orderly progress out of primordial chaos, and of the successive stages in the creation of vegetation, fishes, birds, mammals, and man, is unrivalled for its combination of simplicity, grandeur, and truth. It contains, in principle, though, of course, without exactitude in detail, the thought which is contained in the modern idea of evolution.

Judged by the standards of modern knowledge, the Cosmogonies of Genesis are wholly defective. They present to us pictures, accounting for the origin of things, which vividly corresponded with the Semitic thought of their age and country, but which from the point of view of science are devoid of any value.

For instance, in Genesis 2, the formation of man out of the dust of the earth, and of woman out of man’s rib, is the symbolism of primitive legend, not actual fact.

In Genesis 1, the conception of the universe, as in the O.T. generally, is geocentric. The sun, moon and stars are formed after the earth, and attached to the “firmament.” The “firmament” of the heaven is a solid dome above which are vast reservoirs of water. The vegetation of the earth appears before the formation of the sun. “Six Days” account for the origin of the whole universe. Two days are assigned for the formation of all forms of animal life and of mankind.

These are ideas which, however beautifully expressed, belong to the childhood of the enquiring thought of mankind. They have had their value in helping to supply the science of the Christian world in pre-scientific days. In this respect they have served their time. We derive our knowledge of the structure of the globe, of the universe, of the stars, of the succession of animal life, of the antiquity of man, not from these two chapters of Genesis, but from the continually progressive teaching of modern science. Modern science is based upon the skilled and minute observations of men of genius and highly trained intellect. The astronomical discoveries of Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton, reinforced by the philosophical teaching of Bacon’s Novum Organon, have revolutionized the natural sciences. The pre-Copernican conception of the universe has passed for ever away.

It is to be remembered that to the Israelite writers “the realm of natural sciences,” as we call them, had no existence. The universe had come into being by the Will of God. The phenomena of Nature were the manifestations of His handiwork. God was the immediate fashioner of all from the beginning. The religion of Jehovah had chased away the Nature Deities of the heathen nations. The Spirit of God is the source of all life: every law of Nature is the direct fulfilment of Divine command. To the Israelite writer “religion” and “science” are one. The gaps in human knowledge are filled up with the poetry of primitive imagination; but this is never allowed to conflict with the pure monotheism of Israel. Neither the world, nor any creature, nor the heavenly bodies, are identified with the Divine Being. Nothing in the universe has any existence save through the Will of God. There is no independent, no hostile, deity. God has willed and made all; and, therefore, He is able to pronounce all to be “very good.” The Hebrew Cosmogonies testify to a God who is not only omnipotent, but whose works proclaim His praise as the God of order, of progress, and of love.

Ch. 3. (J.) The Story of Paradise (cont.): 2. The Fall of Man (1–24)

1–5.  The Temptation.

6–8.  The Fall.

9–13.  The Enquiry.

14–19.  The Sentence.

20–21.  Man’s Clothing.

22–24.  The Expulsion from the Garden.

1. Now the serpent] The abrupt mention of the serpent is characteristic of this narrative. Vivid and picturesque as it is, the story leaves many things omitted and unexplained. The present verse is an illustration. It makes no mention of time; whether the interval between the Creation and the Fall was one of days, months, or years, is not stated. The serpent is brought upon the scene without explanation, though he is gifted with speech and is able, by means of knowledge superior to that of the woman, to tell her what will be the results of eating of the forbidden fruit; cf. Genesis 3:5 with Genesis 3:22.

Ch. 3, though one of the same group of narratives as ch. Genesis 2:4 b–25, has no appearance of being the immediate continuance of ch. 2, but rather of being a distinct and independent story. The connecting link is the mention of the tree “in the midst of the garden.”

The serpent is (1) one of “the beasts of the field” (cf. Genesis 2:19), “formed out of the ground”; (2) more “subtle” than any of them; (3) not identified with a spirit, or any personal power, of evil. For this development of the narrative, belonging to a late period of Jewish literature, cf. Wis 2:23, “by envy of the devil death entered into the world,” Revelation 20:2, “the dragon, the old serpent, which is the Devil and Satan.”

more subtil] i.e. more sly, clever, and mischievous. For the wisdom of the serpent, cf. the proverbial expression quoted by our Lord, “Be ye wise (φρόνιμοι) as serpents,” Matthew 10:16. Here the LXX has ὁ δὲ ὄφις ἦν φρονιμώτατος πάντων τῶν θηρίων.

Yea, hath God said] The serpent, in order to secure success, addresses the woman, who (a) was the weaker, (b) was apparently alone, and (c) had not herself received the Divine command respecting the fruit of the tree (Genesis 2:16).

Observe that in the serpent’s mouth the general name, “God” (Elohim), is used, and not the sacred name “Jehovah” (Lord), and that the woman replying takes up the serpent’s words.

The method which the serpent adopts is insidious. He knows the prohibition; he feigns ignorance, and asks to be instructed. The question suggests a doubt of Divine goodness. It takes the tone of indignant surprise at the injustice and harshness of a prohibition which had forbidden the man and the woman to eat of any tree of the garden. Such a suggestion, however easily refuted, might instill into the mind of the unsuspicious woman a grain of doubt, whether even any limitation was consonant with perfect justice and kindness. Compare the first temptation: “If thou art the Son of God,” Matthew 4, Luke 4:3.

The versions, misunderstanding the Hebrew particles, give a slightly different turn to the serpent’s question: LXX τί ὅτι, Lat. cur, making the serpent ask, not as to the fact, but as to the reason of the prohibition.

2. the woman, &c.] The woman is quick to correct the error into which she fancies the serpent has fallen, and to defend the generosity of the Lord.

3. of the fruit of the tree, &c.] The woman speaks of only one tree, and that one is in the midst of the garden. She does not mention it by name. In Genesis 2:9, where two trees are mentioned, the one which is described as “in the midst of the garden” is the tree of life. Here the woman speaks of the tree, which is “in the midst of the garden,” as the tree of knowledge.

neither shall ye touch it] This is an addition to the prohibition contained in Genesis 2:17, either an element omitted in the previous chapter, or an exaggeration expressive of the woman’s eagerness.

4. Ye shall not surely die] The words are very emphatic, “by no means shall ye die.” The serpent directly contradicts the statement of the penalty of death, and thus craftily removes the cause for fear, before dwelling upon the advantages to be obtained from defiance of the Divine decree.