Chapter 2

1 The first sabbath. 4 The manner of the creation. 8 The planting of the garden of Eden, 10 and the river thereof. 17 The tree of knowledge only forbidden. 19, 20 The naming of the creatures. 21 The making of woman, and institution of marriage.

1. Were finished. The first three verses of the second chapter, and half of v. 4, are actually an unbroken continuation of the creation narrative of the first chapter. Verse 1, in solemn retrospect, links the work of the preceding six days with the Sabbath rest that followed. When God “ended his work” He left no unfinished business (see Heb. 4:3). The word “host,” s\abaХ, here denotes all created things.

2. On the seventh day. Various attempts have been made to solve the seeming difficulty between v. 1 and v. 2, the one stating that God’s work was finished on the sixth day, and the other on the seventh day. The LXX, Samaritan, and Syriac versions have chosen the easiest way to solve the problem, by substituting for the word “seventh” of the Hebrew text, where it is first used, the word “sixth.” Some commentators agree with this change, thinking that the word “seventh” of the Hebrew text is a copyist’s error. In doing so, however, they transgress one of their own basic rules of textual criticism, that the more difficult of two possible readings is usually the original one. “Ended,” yekal. Some scholars, beginning with Calvin, have translated yekal as “had finished,” which is grammatically possible. Another interpretation considers the creation work finished only after the institution of the Sabbath day. The completion consisted negatively in the cessation of the work of creation, and positively in the blessing and sanctifying of the seventh day. The cessation itself formed part of the completion of the work.

He rested. The verb “rested,” shabath, means literally “to cease” from labor or activity (see Gen. 8:22; Job 32:1; etc.). As a human artificer completes his work when he has brought it up to his ideal, and thus ceases to work upon it, so in an infinitely higher sense God completed the creation of the world by ceasing to produce anything new, and then “rested.” God did not rest because He needed it (see Isa. 40:28). Therefore God’s rest was the result of neither exhaustion nor fatigue, but a cessation from previous occupation.

Because the expected phrase “evening was, morning was, the seventh day,” does not appear in the Sacred Book, some Bible expositors have claimed that the period of resting did not continue for only 24 hours, like each of the preceding six days, but began at the close of the sixth creation day and is still going on. But this verse refutes such a view. This is not the only text of Scripture that impresses the unbiased reader with the fact that the resting of God took place only during the seventh day, for the Decalogue itself states plainly that God, having worked six days, rested on the seventh day of creation week (Ex. 20:11).

The six creation days, according to the words of the text, were earthly days of ordinary duration. In the absence of any clear light to the contrary, we must understand the seventh in the same way; and that all the more, because in every passage in which it is mentioned as the foundation of the earthly Sabbath, it is regarded as an ordinary day (Ex. 20:11; 31:17).

3. God blessed the seventh day. An explanation of the meaning and importance of this day of rest is added. Here the Sacred Record closely relates the weekly Sabbath to God’s work of creation and His resting on the seventh day, just as the fourth commandment does. The blessing on the seventh day implied that it was thereby declared to be a special object of divine favor and a day that would bring blessing to His creatures.

And sanctified it. The act of sanctification consisted in a declaration that the day was holy, or set apart for holy purposes. As afterward Mt. Sinai was sanctified (Ex. 19:23), or, for the time being, invested with sacredness as the residence of God, and Aaron and his sons were sanctified, or consecrated, to the priestly office (Ex. 29:44), and the year of jubilee was sanctified, or devoted, to the purpose of religion (Lev. 25:10), so here the seventh day was sanctified, and as such proclaimed to be a holy day. This act of blessing the seventh day and declaring it holy was done in the interest of the human race, for whose benefit the Sabbath day was instituted. The weekly seventh-day Sabbath has frequently been considered an institution of the Jewish dispensation, but the Inspired Record declares that it was instituted more than two millenniums before the first Israelite (a descendant of Jacob-Israel) was born. We have, furthermore, the word of Jesus declaring, “The sabbath was made for man” (Mark 2:27), which indicates clearly that this institution was not ordained for the Jews only but for all mankind as well.

Because that in it he had rested. God could have had no higher reason for enjoining upon man rest on the seventh day than that by so resting man might enjoy the opportunity of reflecting upon the love and goodness of his Creator, and so become like Him. As God worked through six days and rested on the seventh, so man should toil through six days and rest on the seventh. This weekly Sabbath is a divine institution given to man by God, the Creator, and its observance is required by God, the Lawgiver. For man, therefore, to withhold any part or all of this holy time is to be guilty of disobedience against God and robbery of God as the original proprietor of man’s powers and of his time. As an institution of God’s appointing, the Sabbath deserves our honor and esteem. Neglect to render this, God counts a sin.

The Sabbath calls for abstention from common bodily labor and for the devotion of mind and heart to holy things. The Israelites were admonished to use it for holy convocations (Lev. 23:3). The Gospels attest that it was so used by Christ and the apostles (Luke 4:16; Acts 17:2; 18:4; etc.), and that it should continue to be observed by Christians after the completion of Christ’s earthly ministry (Matt. 24:20).

The fact that the Sabbath will still be celebrated in the new earth as a day of worship (Isa. 66:23) is a clear indication that God never intended to have its observance transferred to another day. The weekly Sabbath day is the memorial of creation, reminding man each week of God’s creative power and of how much he owes to a merciful Creator and Provider. A rejection of the Sabbath is a rejection of the Creator, and opens wide the door for all manner of false theories. “It is a constant witness to His existence and a reminder of His greatness, His wisdom, and His love. Had the Sabbath always been sacredly observed, there could never have been an atheist or an idolater” (PP 336).

4. These are the generations. The word “generations,” toledoth, is usually used in reference to a man’s family history, that is, to the birth of his sons (see chs. 5:1; 6:9; 11:10; etc.). Here occurs the only instance where this word is used of other than human relationships, that is, of “the heavens and of the earth,” a phrase that is reminiscent of chs. 1:1 and 2:1. One commentator suggests that “generations” refers properly to “the history or account of their production.” The Jewish Encyclopedia says with reference to this word: “The process of creation of heavens and earth is viewed in ch. 2:4 as a genealogical history” (art. “Generation”). “Each day was called a generation, because that in it God generated, or produced, some new portion of His work” (PP 112).

When they were created. Thus closes the creation narrative that began with Gen. 1:1, These words have been interpreted in various ways. They are a translation from behibareХam, which should not be translated “after they were created,” as has sometimes been done. Meaning literally, “in their creation,” the whole clause, “these are the generations,” etc., is best rendered, “This is the history of the origin of the heavens and the earth as they were created.”

In the day. These words introduce the account of Gen. 2. Many commentators are inclined to consider chs. 2:4 to 3:24 as a second and different creation record originating from another pen at a later time than that of chs. 1:1 to 2:4. Regarding this untenable theory see the Introduction to Genesis. A study of the contents makes it clear that ch. 2 can in no sense be considered another version of the creation narrative of the preceding chapter. Its purpose is to place Adam and Eve at home in the Garden of Eden, and this it does by providing additional information, most of which does not properly belong with the creation story as such. It is descriptive of the Eden home after it had been created. Without this information, not only would our account of this earth in its Edenic state be sadly incomplete, but the events of Gen. 3—the Fall of man—would hardly be intelligible. This chapter (Gen. 2) includes further details on the creation of man, a description of his Eden home, the test of his allegiance to God, or moral right to his home, the test of his intelligence, or mental qualifications for ruling over the created works of God, and circumstances surrounding the establishment of the first home.

5. Every plant. Verses 4–6 anticipate the creation of man in v. 7 by describing briefly the appearance of the surface of the earth, particularly with respect to vegetation, just prior to the time when he was brought into being upon the sixth day of creation week. Here was Paradise, perfect except for the presence of someone “to till the ground.” All nature, vibrant as it were with expectancy, awaits the appearance of its king, just as the members of a symphony orchestra, instruments all in tune, await the coming of their conductor.

6. A mist. The Hebrew word translated “mist,” Хed, is of somewhat doubtful meaning, because outside of this text it occurs only in Job 36:27. Scholars have compared it with the Assyrian eduЖ, “flood,” and applied this meaning to the two Biblical passages where it occurs. But the word “flood” does not fit the context of either of these texts, whereas the word “mist” or “vapor” makes good sense in both instances. Ancient translations usually rendered the word “spring,” which rendering reveals that they did not understand it. The improbability that one spring could have watered the earth plainly shows that “spring” cannot be the right translation of Хed. “Mist” seems to be the best translation, and in this instance we may think of “mist” as synonymous with “dew” (PP 96).

The fact that the people of Noah’s time scoffed at the idea that rain from heaven could bring destruction to this earth in the Deluge, and that Noah is praised for believing “things not seen as yet” (Heb. 11:7), indicates that rain was unknown to the antediluvians (see PP 96, 97). Only Noah’s eye of faith could picture water falling from heaven and drowning all living beings who would not seek refuge in the ark he built. The fact that the rainbow was instituted after the Flood (Gen. 9:13–16), and seems not to have existed earlier, lends additional weight to the observation that rain had been unknown prior to that event.

7. God formed man. Additional important details about Adam’s creation are given. We are allowed to peer, as it were, into the workshop of God and to watch His hand performing the mysterious act of creation. The word “to form,” yas\ar, implies an act of molding and fashioning into a form corresponding in design and appearance to the divine plan. The word is used in describing the activity of the potter (Isa. 29:16; 49:5; etc.), of the goldsmith fashioning idols (Isa. 44:9; Hab. 2:18), and of God, who fashions various things, among others, the light (Isa. 45:7), the human eye (Ps. 94:9), the heart (Ps. 33:15), and the seasons (Ps. 74:17).

Of the dust of the ground. That man is composed of materials derived from the ground, the elements of the earth, is confirmed by science. Decomposition of the human body after death bears witness to the same fact. The major elements making up the human body are oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen. Many others exist in smaller proportions. How true that man was made of “the dust of the ground,” and also that he shall “return to the earth” whence he was taken (Eccl. 12:7).

The breath of life. “Breath,” neshamah. From the Source of all life the life-giving principle entered the lifeless body of Adam. The agency by which the spark of life was transferred to his body is said to be the “breath” of God. The same thought appears in Job 33:4, “The breath [neshamah] of the almighty hath given me life.” Imparted to man, the “breath” is equivalent to his life; it is life itself (Isa. 2:22). At death there is “no breath [neshamah, life] left in him” (1 Kings 17:17). This “breath of life” in man differs in no way from the “breath of life” in animals, for all receive their life from God (Gen. 7:21, 22; Eccl. 3:19). It cannot therefore be the mind or intelligence.

A living soul. When the lifeless form of man was infused with this divine “breath,” neshamah, of life, man became a living “soul,” nephesh. The word nephesh has a variety of meanings: (1) breath (Job 41:21), (2) life (1 Kings 17:21; 2 Sam. 18:13; etc.), (3) heart as the seat of affections (Gen. 34:3; S. of Sol. 1:7; etc.), (4) living being (Gen. 12:5; 36:6; Lev. 4:2; etc.), and (5) for emphasizing the personal pronouns (Ps. 3:2; 1 Sam. 18:1; etc.). Note that the nephesh is made by God (Jer. 38:16), and can die (Judges 16:30), be killed (Num. 31:19), be eaten (metaphorically, Eze. 22:25), be redeemed (Ps. 34:22), and be refreshed (Ps. 19:7, Heb.). None of this applies to the spirit, ruach, indicating clearly the great difference between the two terms. It is obvious from the above survey that the translation “soul” given by the KJV to the nephesh of ch. 2:7 is not appropriate, if the commonly used expression “immortal soul” be implied. Although popular, this concept is completely foreign to the Bible. This passage may rightly be translated: “Man became a living being” (RSV). When “soul” is considered synonymous with “being,” we gain the Scriptural meaning ofnephesh in this text.

8. God planted a garden. The location of Eden is unknown. The Flood so altered the original physical features of the earth as to make present identification of former localities impossible. We commonly refer to this garden as “Paradise,” a word of Persian origin meaning “park.” The Hebrew word for paradise, pardes, occurs a few times in the OT (Neh. 2:8; Eccl. 2:5; S. of Sol. 4:13), but in reference to trees rather than as a name for the Garden in Eden. The word “paradise,” Greek paradeisos, was originally applied to the home of our first parents by the translators of the LXX.

9. Every tree. In the preparation of man’s wonderful abode attention was given to ornamentation as well as to utility. Every species of vegetation that could minister to his needs and his pleasure was provided. Flowers, trees, and shrubs regaled his senses with their fragrance, delighted his eye with their exquisite form and enchanting color, and pleased his palate with their luscious fruit. For all time, Eden became man’s highest concept of earthly excellence.

The tree of life also. The sequence in which these words appear, as if they were an afterthought, seems strange to us in a modern language. This has led some critical scholars to claim that the last half of v. 9 is either a later addition or a corruption of the original. But this arrangement, which seems unusual when translated into English, is common in Hebrew. It provides no excuse whatever for doubting the purity of the text as we have it. For example, ch. 12:17 reads literally, “The Lord plagued Pharaoh with great plagues, and his house.” Other examples of the same sentence structure, though not so recognizable in the English version, may be found in Gen. 28:14; Num. 13:23; Deut. 7:14.

In eating of the tree of life Adam and Eve were to have the opportunity of expressing their faith in God as the sustainer of life, just as by keeping the Sabbath they demonstrated faith in and allegiance to their Creator. To this end God had endowed the tree with supernatural virtue. Its fruit being an antidote for death and its leaves for the sustaining of life and immortality, men would continue to live just so long as they should eat of it (8T 288; PP 60).

One of the trees was called the tree of “life,” literally, “the life,” hachayyim. The fact that this word is plural in form is explained by recognizing it as a plural of abstraction, the definite article indicating that this tree had something to do with “the” life as such, that is, that life would be obtained or preserved through the use of its fruit. However, the other trees of the garden being “good for food” were also destined to sustain life. If one tree is distinguished from the others by the extraordinary name “tree of life,” its fruit must have had the purpose of sustaining life in a way differing from and exceeding in value that of the other trees. The statement that the eating of the fruit of this tree would enable man to “live for ever” (ch. 3:22) shows that the value of this tree was entirely different from that of the many other useful trees of the garden.

The name of the second tree can more accurately be translated “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” “The” before the word “knowledge” signifies that the tree could not provide any and every kind of knowledge, but only a certain sad knowledge of “evil” in contrast with “good.”

The names of these trees are important. In both cases the word “tree” is connected with abstract terms, life and knowledge. This provides no reason for declaring that these two trees did not exist, but attributes to them, rather, spiritual implications. Although the “ark of the covenant” was a real piece of temple furniture, it too received a name that had religious import. The blood of atonement spilled by the Saviour on our behalf was also a very real substance. The two trees must likewise be considered as actual trees that had significant purposes to fulfill, these physical and moral purposes being indicated by their names.

10. A river. Much scholarly effort has been put forth in an endeavor to clarify vs. 10–14, but a satisfactory explanation will probably never be found, because the surface of the earth after the Flood bore little resemblance to what it had been before. A catastrophe of such magnitude as to elevate lofty mountain ranges and to form the vast areas of ocean could hardly have left such lesser surface features as rivers untouched. We therefore cannot hope to identify antediluvian geographical terms with present-day surface features of the earth, except as Inspiration may do so for us (see PP 105-108).

11. Pison. The name of the first river, Pison, is unknown from any non-Biblical sources, and even in the Bible itself this river is nowhere else mentioned. The opinions of scholars identifying this river with the Indus or Ganges in India, the Nile in Egypt, or rivers in Anatolia are of no value.

Havilah, where there is gold. In other texts where the same proper name appears, it refers to postdiluvian times. These texts are thus of no help in locating the “Havilah” of ch. 2:11.

12. There is bdellium. According to Pliny, bdellium was the transparent and odoriferous resin of a tree native to Arabia, India, Persia, and Babylonia. Whether this was the same as the bdellium of antediluvian days, we do not know.

The onyx stone. This must be one of the precious or semiprecious stones, probably of a red color. The ancient versions vary in their translations between the onyx, sardonyx, sardius, and beryl; hence, it is not certain that the translation “onyx” is correct.

13. Gihon. See on v. 10 in comment on this and v. 14.

15. To dress and to keep it. God, having prepared an abode for man, whom He had created, placed him in this garden home with the definite commission “to dress and to keep it.” This command teaches us that the perfection in which all creation came forth from God’s hands did not exclude the need of cultivation, that is, of human labor. Man had to use his physical and mental faculties to preserve the garden in the same perfect state in which he had received it. The fact that physical labor will be a delightful feature of life in the new earth (Isa. 65:21–23) indicates that work was not intended to be a curse.

The commission given to Adam “to keep” the garden may perhaps be a veiled hint that dangers threatened to wrest it from him should he not be watchful. The verb “to keep,” shamar, means “to guard,” “to watch,” “to preserve,” “to observe,” and “to hold fast.” It is certainly unreasonable to think that Adam was asked to guard the garden against attacks of wild beasts, as some commentators have interpreted this text. No enmity existed on earth before the Fall, either among the animals themselves or between man and beast. Fear and enmity are the results of sin. But another and very real danger threatened to snatch from man his rulership over the earth and his possession of the garden. On the other hand, “to keep” the garden may simply be synonymous with “to dress” it.

We have the assurance that God does nothing affecting man without first informing him with regard to His intentions (Amos 3:7). If God, who does only that which is beneficial for man, deems it necessary to inform us of His purposes, it is certain that He must have kept Adam informed of the danger threatening this earth (PP 36, 52, 53).

16. Of every tree of the garden. The commandment related in these verses presupposes that man understood the language God spoke and the distinction between “thou shalt” and “thou shalt not.” The command begins positively, granting permission to eat freely from all the trees of the garden—with the exception of one. The right to free enjoyment of all the other trees is made emphatic by the intensive idiom “eating thou shalt eat,” Хakol toХkel; to a divine prohibition there is even a positive aspect.

17. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So much the more precise, therefore, is the limitation of this freedom. Man was not to eat from the one tree bearing the name “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (see on v. 9). It is futile to speculate what kind of fruit it may have borne, inasmuch as this has not been revealed. The very presence of this tree in the garden revealed that man was a free moral agent. Man’s service was not forced; he might either obey or disobey. The decision was his.

The fruit itself was harmless (Ed 25). But God’s explicit commandment to refrain from eating it set this tree apart as the testing ground of man’s loyalty and obedience. As a moral being, man had God’s law written upon his conscience. But, as if to clarify the principles of that law by applying it to a specific situation, and thus to make a fair test of man’s allegiance to his Maker, an injunction was laid upon him. God was the real owner of all things, even of those that Adam held in trust, and this gave Him the right to reserve any part of the creation for Himself. It would not have been unreasonable for Him to reserve a great share of this earth for Himself and to allow Adam the use of only a small portion of it. But no, man could use freely of everything that was in the garden—except one tree. No other purpose, evidently, was to be served by refraining from eating the fruit of this tree than to give clear proof of allegiance to God.

In the day that thou eatest thereof. The prohibition was accompanied by a severe penalty for transgression, namely, death. Some have thought that the wording of the penalty required its execution upon the very day when the command was violated. They see a serious discrepancy between the announcement and its fulfillment. However, the divine pronouncement, “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” literally, “dying thou shalt die,” means that upon the day of transgression sentence would be pronounced. Man would pass from the status of conditional immortality to that of unconditional mortality. Just as prior to his fall Adam could be certain of immortality, vouchsafed to him by the tree of life, so now, subsequent to that catastrophe, his mortality was just as certain. This, more than immediacy of physical death, is what the language implies. God required of man that he make a choice of principles. He was to accept the will of God and subject himself to it, confident that he would fare well as a result, or he would by his own choice sever connection with God and become, presumably, independent of Him. But separation from the Source of life could inevitably bring only death. The same principles are still valid. Punishment and death are the certain results of man’s free choice to indulge in rebellion against God.

18. An help meet for him. Appropriate, that is, to his needs; to complement him. Animals had been created in swarms or in groups, but man as a solitary individual. However, it was not God’s purpose for him to be alone for long. Loneliness would be detrimental to man’s well-being, and God would therefore make a companion for him.

19. Every beast of the field. The thought expressed by some Bible expositors, that God made several unsuccessful attempts to provide man with a companion by creating various animals, is a misapprehension of the purpose of this part of the narrative. It is not the time, but simply the fact, of the creation of the animals that Moses records. The Hebrew verb form rendered “formed” in the KJV may correctly be translated “had formed,” thus referring back to the creative acts of the fifth and early sixth days. The first part of the verse, then, is given by way of providing a preface to that which immediately follows.

Brought them unto Adam. Adam was to study these animals and to engage in the important exercise of giving appropriate names to them, for which task he would require an understanding of them and their habits. This would qualify him or, perhaps, prove him qualified to rule over them. At the same time he would become aware of the family life they enjoyed and so of his own lack of companionship. Recognizing also that God had created him infinitely higher than the animals, he would realize that he could not choose a companion from them. If the formation of woman was to meet fully the purpose of the Creator, Adam must come to sense his own incompleteness and to feel his need of companionship—that “it was not good,” in other words, that he should remain alone.

20. Adam gave names to all cattle. It is evident that man was created with the faculty of speech. This ability Adam now employed to express the observations made in his study of the animals. He was introduced thus to the natural sciences, and by naming the animals began his dominion over them. Cattle may be mentioned first because they were to stand nearer to man in their future relations than other animals. The birds, which man loves so much and of which some species were to become most helpful to him, are given second place in the enumeration. It is impossible to discover what these names were, inasmuch as it is not known what language Adam and the antediluvian world spoke.

Not found an help meet. Adam’s study of the animal creation supplied him with considerable knowledge, but did not satisfy his longing for companionship with another being, his equal. This fact indicates the equal partnership that the woman should enjoy with the man. No real companion could be found for Adam among creatures inferior to him.

21. A deep sleep. God, planning to create Adam’s companion from his body, caused him to fall into a deep sleep that may be compared to unconsciousness under anesthetic. And surgery indeed it was that God performed on Adam during his sleep, taking out one of his ribs and filling its place with flesh. The Hebrew word s\elaФ, meaning elsewhere in the Bible “side,” “door leaf,” “wing” (of a building), and “panel” (of a wall covering), has here the meaning “rib.” This traditional translation, taken over in modern Bibles from the LXX and the Vulgate, has more recently been proved correct from cuneiform records. In the Assyrian language, which was closely related to Hebrew, the word for rib was seЖlu.

22. Made he a woman. Moses had a ready command of the Hebrew language and knew how to use it to impress his readers. To describe the creative activity of God, he employed in the narrative in ch. 1 the verbs “to create” (ch. 1:27), “to make” (ch. 1:26), and “to form” (ch. 2:7). Now he adds to these more or less synonymous terms the verb “to build.” Each of these has its own distinct shade of meaning. Adam’s rib formed the basic material from which his companion was “built.” The woman was formed for inseparable unity and fellowship of life with the man, and the mode of her creation was to lay the actual foundation for the moral ordinance of marriage. She was “to stand by his side as an equal, to be loved and protected by him” (PP 46). Marriage is a type of the fellowship of love and life that exists between the Lord and His church (Eph. 5:32).

Brought her unto the man. God Himself solemnized the first marriage. After making the woman He led her to Adam, who by that time must have awakened from his deep sleep. As Adam was the “son of God” (Luke 3:38), so Eve could properly be called the daughter of God; and as her Father, God led her to Adam and presented her to him. The marriage covenant, therefore, is appropriately called the covenant of God (Prov. 2:17), a name implying His authorship of that sacred institution.

23. This is now bone of my bones. Adam, recognizing in her the desired companion, welcomed her joyfully as his bride and expressed his joy in a poetic exclamation. The words, “this is now,” reflect his pleasant surprise as he saw in the woman the fulfillment of his heart’s desire. His thrice-repeated “this” (as in the Hebrew) vividly points to her upon whom, in joyful astonishment, his eye now rested with the intense thrill of first love. Instinctively, or as the result of divine instruction, he recognized in her part of his own being. He was henceforth to love her as his own body, for in loving her he loves himself. The apostle Paul stresses this truth (Eph. 5:28).

She shall be called Woman. The name Adam gave his newly created companion reflected the manner of her creation. The Hebrew word Хishshah, “woman,” is formed of the word Хish, “man,” with the feminine ending. The English word “woman” (Anglo-Saxon, wife-man) is similarly related to the word “man.” The same is true in various other languages.

24. Leave his father and his mother. The words of this verse cannot be regarded as a prophetic utterance of Adam, but rather as the words of God Himself. They are part of the declaration made by God at the marriage ceremony (see Matt. 19:4, 5; MB 99). These words express the deepest physical and spiritual unity of man and woman, and hold up monogamy before the world as the form of marriage ordained by God. These words do not recommend a forsaking of filial duty and respect toward father and mother, but refer primarily to the fact that a man’s wife is to be first in his affections and that his first duty is toward her. His love for her is to exceed, though certainly not to supersede, a very proper love for his parents.

They shall be one flesh. The unity of husband and wife is expressed in unmistakable words, existing as they do in a unity of bodies, a community of interests, and a reciprocity of affections. It is a significant fact that Christ uses this very passage in His strong condemnation of divorce (Matt. 19:5).

25. They were both naked. Adam and Eve had no need of material clothing, for about them the Creator had placed a robe of light, a robe symbolic of His own righteous character, which was reflected perfectly in them. When the moral image of their Maker is again reflected in His earthly sons and daughters, He will return to claim them as His own (see Rev. 7:9; 19:8; COL 69, 310). This white robe of innocence is the garment with which the saved of earth will be clad as they enter the gates of Paradise.

Ellen G. White comments

1-25PP 45-51

1 DA 769

1-3GC 455; PK 180; PP 47, 336; 9T 212

2 GC 453; ML 140

2, 3 EW 217; GC 52; MM 215; PP 111; SR 145; 8T 197

3 DA 281; MB 99; 4T 147, 247

4 PP 112

6 PP 96; SR 66

7 MH 415; PP 56; 2T 300; 8T 264

8 AH 27; ML 136; PP 46; SR 58; 3T 77, 153

8, 9 Ed 20

8-17MYP 364

9 AH 27; Ed 23; PP 47, 48, 84; 6T 368; 8T 288

15 AH 27; CD 396; CT 147; Ed 21; FE 314, 327, 419, 512; LS 355;MH 261; ML 112; PP 47, 50; SR 24; 1T 568; 3T 77, 153; 4T 410

16 3T 50

16, 17 CH 108; Ed 23; 3T 72; 4T 11

17 CS 65; CT 12; EW 125, 147; GC 532; MH 449; PP 48, 53, 60; SR 24; 2T 561; 5T 365; 6T 386

18 AH 25; PP 56

18-20PP 46

19, 20 PP 51

21-23PP 56

22 AH 99; 3T 484

23 MB 99

23-25COL 310; FE 141

24 AH 25, 341; MB 99; PP 46

25 PP 445; SR 38