Creation of Woman (Gen 2:18–24)

What does eating from the tree do? Most likely it has to do with choosing moral autonomy over obedience to God’s commands.

¹⁷⁶

“Good and evil” in the OT have to do with judgment between right and wrong. This judgment comes from God.

¹⁷⁷

Therefore

“good and evil” function like a yes or no answer—will you obey?

¹⁷⁸

The death that is

envisioned certainly entails physical death. The condemnation is most likely that man

would be prohibited from eating of the tree of life and obtaining immortality.

¹⁷⁹

Therefore

he would remain in his already mortal state.

¹⁸⁰

good for man.”

¹⁸¹

This “not good” is purposefully in stark contrast to the “it is good”

statements in chapter 1.

¹⁸²

The importance of a helper is brought to the forefront.

¹⁸³

The solution is declared in the second half of verse 18. Once again it is God who is providing for the man. Man is not seen here merely as one to fulfill the needs of the ANE gods; it is God who will provide a “helper according to his opposite.”

¹⁸⁴

What does this mean? She is his fitting complement; together they will form a single entity.

¹⁸⁵

Just like the familiar formula from chapter 1, God declares his intentions for making woman before he executes that command. Here, however, the tension is built up in verses 19 and 20 before the execution occurs.

Before a helper corresponding to him is made, the creatures from days 5 and 6 are formed in verse 19.

¹⁸⁶

The link here is that both man and the animals are formed (רצי) from the ground (ה ָמ ָד ֲא ָה);

¹⁸⁷

however, the animals are not a suitable helper for man.

Why? Because they do not “correspond to him.” As was seen earlier, they are not made in the image of God and do not have the breath of life in them.

¹⁸⁸

These two things appear to

181The infinitive constructתֺוי ֱהhere is functioning as the subject of the nominal clause. See GKC

§114a; Williams,Williams’ Hebrew Syntax, §192;BHRG§20.1/2;IBHS§36.2.1b; Joüon §124b. Since the subject is an infinitive, the predicate often comes first (בֺוט־אֹל). SeeIBHS§8.4.2a.

182The use ofאֹלinstead ofל ַﬠ͏shows the force of how bad it is, Cassuto,A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 1:126–27.

183Wenham,Genesis 1–15, 68.

184The LXX and Vulgate here use a first person cohortative verb, assimilating to 1:26. See Tal, תישׁ͏ארבGenesis, 7.

185Ross,Creation and Blessing, 126.

186Given my understanding of the days from chapter 1, it is not necessary to follow Cassuto who argues that in order to keep the time-line correct, the animals created in verse 19 are specific instances of the animals for the purpose of naming. See Cassuto,A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 1:128–29.

187Brian N. Peterson, “Egyptian Influence on the Creation Language in Genesis 2,”BSac174, no.

695 (2017): 286; Canon A. Phillips, “Animals and the Torah,”The Expository Times106, no. 9 (1 June 1995): 262.

188Bauckham states that the breath of life isassumedhere in 2:19, because if the animals did not have the breath of life they would not be alive, Bauckham,Bible and Ecology, 21. However, this is clearly a stretch, since nowhere isםי ִיּ͏ ַח ת ַמ ְשׁ͏ ִנused for animals, and the animals are clearly said to be living creatures

be tied to the prohibition and motivation in verses 15–17. It is only man who is party to this covenantal relationship with Yahweh. This is further seen in chapter three below.

The dominion of man that was given in chapter 1 is here borne out. Man is given the authority to name the animals. Whatever man called the living being, that was its name. God has delegated his rule over the animals of the earth to his servant-king. The man fulfills his role in verse 20 and names all the animals.

¹⁸⁹

What is the significance of his naming the animals? In this ANE context, giving something a name is a way of expressing dominion and authority over something else.

¹⁹⁰

In Mesopotamia, naming new species is a coveted creative act among the deities. In the Sumerian paradise myth, the mother goddess removes the eye from the water god because he usurped her authority to name new plants.

¹⁹¹

It is to be remembered that in chapter 1, God names the light and dark, the land and the seas. However, God does not name the living creatures. To name something is to assert sovereignty over it.

¹⁹²

By giving the responsibility to name the animals to the man here in verse 2:19, God is delegating his rule and reign over the living creatures to his vice–regent on earth. The man here is bringing the animals under his dominion and rule. Though God is sovereign over all things, here he is giving to man sovereignty over the living creatures as his royal representative. It is clear that this naming of the animals is closely tied to the fact that the man is made in God’s image with the two–fold aspect of royalty and kinship. The first outworking of this image here in 2:19 is

in Gen 1 simply from being formed from the ground (similar language to here in 2:19). Therefore this assertion is not valid.

189ארק+לis used to name something,HALOT, 1129. Even though the object is singular (ֺול), it refers to the collective mentioned earlier. See GKC §145m. The LXX uses a plural object, but then switches back to a singular at the end of the verse. See Wevers,Genesis, 87.

190Waltke, “Creation Account in Genesis 1:1–3 Part IV,” 341; Westermann,The Genesis Accounts of Creation, 29.

191Adrien Janis Bledstein, “The Genesis of Humans: The Garden of Eden Revisited,”Judaism26, no. 2 (1977): 191.

192Wenham,Genesis 1–15, 19.

a furthering of 1:28 of God’s delegation of dominion over the other living creatures.

¹⁹³

However, there was not found a suitable helper corresponding to him.

¹⁹⁴

Interestingly, ם ָד ָא is not pointed for the article in the second half of this verse. Most likely this was intentional, wanting to show that this narrative is focusing specifically on

Adam.

¹⁹⁵

What does ֺודּ͏ ְג ֶנ ְכּ͏ mean? HALOT thinks that both here and in verse 20 are an original substantive form of ד ֶג ֶנ.

¹⁹⁶

This appears to be a “concrete” usage of the term, which has a meaning of being “opposite; corresponding.” Every other time this word is used it is as a preposition, with a “metaphorical” meaning of “in front of.” Support for this comes from 2 Kings 1:13, Habakkuk 1:3, and Daniel 10:6 where the meaning is very close to “opposite him” or “in front of him.” Usages such as Genesis 21:16 and Ezekiel 40:23 as

“opposite” or “on the other side” lend even more support for this delineation. The LXX translator chose κατ᾿ αὐτόν here in verse 18, but ὅμοιος αὐτῳ in verse 20.

¹⁹⁷

Both of these translations capture the underlying meaning of that which is like man and corresponds to him.

Why is this important? The emphasis on what “corresponds” to the man is very

193Contra Brett who thinks that it cannot mean dominion, since dominion is only sinful and man has not learned good and evil yet. See Mark G. Brett, “Earthing the Human in Genesis 1–3,” inThe Earth Story in Genesis, ed. Norman C. Habel and Shirley Wurst, The Earth Bible 2 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 81.

194The conjunctive wawם ָד ָא ְלוּ͏expresses opposition. See Joüon §172a. The indefinite subject is found in the verb—“one did not find.” See GKC §144d; contra Cassuto who thinks the man is still the subject from the beginning of the verse. See Cassuto,A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 1:132–33.

195Dominique Barthélemy et al., eds.,Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project: Pentateuch, vol. 1, 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1979), 7; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 47.

196HALOT, 666. They also correctםי ִדי ִג ְנin Prov 8:6 asםי ִד ָג ְנ, the plural form ofד ֶג ֶנ, a proposition originally put forth by Grollenberg. This would have the meaning of “upright things,” as “things that are in front of your face.” However, this is unnecessary, as the original form, fromדי ַג ָנ, meaning “exalted things”

fits better in the context of Prov 8:6. See Bruce K. Waltke,The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1–15, NICOT (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2004), 387;TDOT, 192–93.

197In verse 18, Aquila usesὡς κατέναντι αὐτοῦ, “as opposite him.” Symmachus usesἄντικρυς αὐτοῦboth in 18 and 20, which also means “opposite him.” See Wevers,Genesis, 87; Wevers,Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis, 31.

important because verse 20 states that “there was no suitable helper for him.” After the animals are all brought to the man and named, no one that “corresponds” to him was found. Therefore the problem set forth in verse 18 still exists—the man is still alone. To take the LXX translation of verse 20, the animals were not like man. Therefore, even though both man and animals are both ה ָיּ͏ ַח שׁ͏ ֶשׂ͏ ֶנ, the animals do not correspond to the man.

There is enough of a distinction so that the problem of the man being alone is not solved.

In 2:15, Yahweh put the man in the garden to work and keep it, which were noted to be terms used in temple imagery for service to Yahweh. Therefore in the man’s role as image bearer, as a son of God, as the one to work and keep (as temple service) the garden, and act as Yahweh’s vice–regent on the earth, the animals were nothing like him. This point is crucial and will be returned to later when interacting with certain writers who use this verse to say something else.

Verse 21 begins the execution of the solution statement found in 2:18b. God dropped a deep sleep upon the man, and then God took a rib from his side.

¹⁹⁸

God then shuts up the flesh in its place, once again showing God’s care and concern for the man.

¹⁹⁹

God then takes the rib and in verse 22 he builds it into a woman and brings her to the man.

²⁰⁰

Where Adam was made out of the soil of the ground, the woman is made from the man’s side. In order for her to be a corresponding helper, she came from him.

At seeing the woman the man bursts into song in verse 23. “This at last” is a suitable companion, in contrast to all the animals that came before.

²⁰¹

Cassuto notes the

198The word for ribה ָל ֵצis found in verse 22; the wordת ַח ַאis found here and the fact that it is a rib is implied from the context. SeeHALOT, 30.

199The final word in this verse is a preposition,ת ַח ַתּ͏; however, it has the suffix for a verb which is rare. See GKC §103d.

200Theלpreposition onה ָשּׁ͏ ִא ְלis marking the object complement of the verb for making, specifying the product. SeeIBHS§11.4.1c.

201The article onם ַﬠ͏ ַפּ͏ ַהin exclamation shows the remnant of the article as a demonstrative pronoun. See GKC §126b; Williams,Williams’ Hebrew Syntax, §87;BHRG§24.4/4. Symmachus and Theodotion haveἅπαξ, “once for all.” See Wevers,Genesis, 88.

strophic nature of this song, which has two parts. The first half has three statements of two words, and the second half has two statements of three words.

²⁰²

Even the beginning and ending of the verse are set up chiastically: This / woman // man / this.

²⁰³

The fact that she is “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh” notes the familial relationship between the man and the woman, as these phrases are used for family relationships.

²⁰⁴

Just like mankind is as the “likeness” of God in verse 1:26, here woman and man are expressed in familial terms as well. Both man and woman are offspring of the Creator God. The woman gets her name because she was taken from the man.

²⁰⁵

Even the words used for man and woman, ה ָשּׁ͏ ִא and שׂ͏י ִא, sound the same.

²⁰⁶

This passage has both a kinship formula and a naming formula.

²⁰⁷

That the man names her shows that she is supposed to be in submission to him.

²⁰⁸

However, since she is from his side and is a helper

corresponding to him, this is not the same relationship that man has over the animals. The whole story here between the man and his wife is poetic, denoting the harmony and intimacy between the man and the woman.

²⁰⁹

In verse 24 the author is stating that creation of the man and woman is the basis for the well-known institution of marriage; it is not only as old as creation itself, but it is

202Cassuto,A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 1:135.

203Orlinsky,Notes on the New Translation of the Torah, 47.

204Gen 29:14; Judg 9:2; 2 Sam 5:1; 1 Chr 11:1. See Cassuto,A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 1:135–36.

205ה ָח ֳק ֻלhere could either be pual or qal passive;HALOThas pual. SeeHALOT, 535. However, when the form is the same and the meaning is not the passive of the piel, it should probably simply be a qal passive. See Joüon §58a, §72j;BHRG§18.11/1, 18.11/5; Wenham,Genesis 1–15, 47.

206Though they have different roots. See Cassuto,A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 1:136.

Interestingly, it appears that Symmachus tries to keep the wordplay by usingἀνδρίςfor the woman. See Wevers,Genesis, 88.

207George W. Ramsey, “Is Name-Giving an Act of Domination in Genesis 2:23 and Elsewhere?”

Catholic Biblical Quarterly50 (1988): 26.

208Wenham,Genesis 1–15, 70.

209Wenham,Genesis 1–15, 69.

based and rooted in its foundation on the created order.

²¹⁰

In a society where honoring parents was the same thing as honoring God, the command to forsake one’s parents for your wife is striking. This is the same language that is used for Israel to “cling to God” in Deuteronomy.

²¹¹

This passage therefore also sets up the imagery used later in the Old Testament about forsaking idols and clinging to Yahweh. The “one flesh” idea here, as shown in the previous verse, has to do not only with sexual intimacy, but kinship relations.

This relationship is very important, as even upon death the responsibilities do not end in

Leviticus 18 and 20.