Let it be plainly understood that Gen. 2 is not a second account of creation and reconstruction, as so many people think. It is the story in detail of how God created our first parents, and how He chose a special place-the Garden of Eden-for their abode.
Throughout Genesis 1 God [Elohim, plural] is the word used to describe the Creator. In Gen. 2 two words are employed to describe Him-" The LORD [Jehovah, singular], God [Elohim, plural]. Why should there be this change in writing the name of God? Was Moses guided in this alteration? We shall see how fitting this change is, and how it only affords a fresh proof of inspiration.
It is strange that it was this very alteration that started Higher Criticism and Modernism. A profligate Frenchman, Jean Anstruc (1753), started the idea that there were two authors, one of Gen. 1, the other of Gen. 2, all because of the difference between the word for God [Elohim, plural] being used in Chapter 1, and two words being used in Chapter 2 for God-the LORD [Jehovah, singular ], God [ Elohim, plural].
Stranger still it is that this foolish idea should have caught on with many, leading to the most absurd lengths, so much so that Professor Julius Wellhausen thought he had discovered no less than twenty-two different authors of the books of Moses-all unknown.
The Revd. Dr. Hanson comments on such criticism in the following words:- "At the risk of outraging the proprieties, I venture to call it nonsense. Let a man believe in such analysis if he can; but for my part I do not hesitate to call it laborious trifling, which can only commend itself to those who have a theory to support, and impudence enough to offer it for the acceptance of thoughtful men. Such reconstruction is surely the most elaborate jest of modern times" (Invincible Certainties, p. 10).
What would be thought of criticism that insisted there were two authors of a history of Napoleon Bonaparte, because in one Chapter this great scourge of Europe was referred to as Napoleon, and in the next Chapter as Napoleon Bonaparte? We think any person capable of such reasoning would be considered mentally deficient, that it was criticism gone stark mad and childishly silly.
It is understandable why the name God [Elohim, plural] should be employed in Gen. 1. This Chapter gives an account of how this world was made suitable for the habitation of man. It is the description of how God-Father, Son and Holy Spirit, acting in perfect concert- brought everything into ordered being for His own glory, and for the blessing and support of mankind.
It is equally understandable why the name of God should be given in two words, " LORD [Jehovah, singular], God [Elohim, plural] in Gen. 2. This Chapter is not taken up with the story of creation or reconstruction as in Chapter r, but with the peculiar place man has in it, a place therefore in relation to God Himself. The name, Jehovah, is the covenant name that God takes in His relation to man. Long after this God said to Moses, " I AM THAT I AM [this is the meaning of Jehovah]: and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you " (Ex. 3:14). Evidently the name is one of covenant blessing, God acting in grace to His creature for his blessing.
Instead of finding this an occasion for throwing doubt on the inspiration of Scripture, it only confirms in a most marked way the fact that the Scriptures are Divinely inspired.
In verse 5 Moses describes the condition of things before man was created. Rain had not fallen. A mist watered the face of the earth. But there was a blank, "There was not a man to till the ground."
In verse 7 we are told that the Lord God formed man of the dust of the earth. In this connection the late F. W. Grant's translation of Psa. 139:15, 16, is interesting:- "My frame was not hid from Thee when I was made in secret, embroidered in under-parts of earth. Thine eyes did not see mine inwrapping, and in Thy scroll all [parts] were written [which] daily were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." Then a special thing happened, " The LORD God... breathed into his [Adam's] nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul " (Gen. 2:7).
This inbreathing was a special act of God, and differentiates man from the lower animal creation, which are also designated in Scripture as living souls. It is not till we come to the New Testament that we are plainly told that man is a tripartite being-" spirit, soul and body " (1 Thess. 5:23). The word of God, too, is said to divide asunder " soul and spirit " (Heb. 4:12). The soul of the beast perishes with its body at death. It ceases to exist. Man's soul survives the death of the body, and has an endless existence.
In verses 8 to 15 we have the Lord God providing a special place of abode for His creature. He planted a garden eastward in Eden. In this garden of delight He made to grow every tree that was pleasant to the sight and good for food. In addition there were two trees of special significance, the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Then there flowed a river to water the garden. As it proceeded on its way, it parted into four heads, embracing a wide area. There is no doubt that the climate at that time was different from what it now is. It must have been a perfectly delightful spot. If God chose and prepared it, it must have been most desirable.
Then we read, " The Lord God took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it " (verse 15). It is very illuminating that even in these days of man's innocence, God did not intend man to be idle. He was to dress the garden and keep it. Labor would not be irksome. The ground was not cursed for man's sin at that time. There were no thorns or thistles. Adam was given a task that was altogether pleasant, and to be desired. But God intended him to labor on the soil.
Then came the prohibition, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In the day that Adam should eat of it he would surely die. Not that he should die the very day he partook of the fruit of the tree, but that the process of death would then begin in his body, and death would inevitably ensue.
Here was a test to man's obedience. The wide range of delightful fruits made it no hardship to refrain from this one tree. Nay, further, it was a merciful hedging round of a real danger. Think for a moment. Adam knew the good. The good could only be a blessing to him. The knowledge of evil could only be defiling, and bring in its train nothing but sorrow.
Then we read that the Lord God formed the beast
of the field and the fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to be named. This he did, a marvelous tribute to his ability. Adam surely was God's masterpiece. He must have been a marvelous man, spiritually, mentally, physically, fitted to take the place designed that God intended him to fill. But, however wonderful the beasts and birds might be, there was no companion for Adam himself.