Albert Barnes Commentary Genesis 2:15-17

"And Jehovah God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." — Genesis 2:15-17 (ASV)

נוּח (nûach): “rest, dwell.” עבד (‛ābad): “work, till, serve.” שׁמר (shāmar): “keep, guard.”

We have here the education of man summed up in a single sentence. Let us endeavor to unfold the great lessons that are taught here.

(Genesis 2:15)

The Lord God took the man. — The same omnipotent hand that made him still held him. “And put him into the garden.” The original word means “caused him to rest,” or dwell, in the garden as an abode of peace and recreation. “To dress it and to keep it.” Plants of nature, left to their own course, may degenerate and become wild through the poverty of the soil on which they alight, or the gradual exhaustion of a once rich soil.

The hand of rational man, therefore, has its appropriate sphere in preparing and enriching the soil, and in distributing the seeds and training the shoots in the way most favorable for the full development of the plant, and especially of its seed or fruits. This “dressing” was needed even in the garden. The “keeping” of it may refer to the guarding of it by enclosure from the depredations of cattle, wild beasts, or even smaller animals. It also includes the faithful preservation of it as a trust committed to man by his bountiful Maker. There was now a man to till the soil. The second need of the world of plants was now supplied. Gardening was the first occupation of primeval man.

(Genesis 2:16–17)

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying. — This is a pregnant sentence. It involves the first principles of our intellectual and moral philosophy.

1. The command here given in words brings into activity the intellectual nature of man. First, the power of understanding language is called forth. The command here addressed to him by his Maker is totally different from the blessings addressed to the animals in the preceding chapter. It was not necessary that these blessings should be understood in order to be carried into effect, since He who pronounced them gave the instincts and powers required for their accomplishment. But this command addressed to man in words must be understood in order to be obeyed.

   The capacity for understanding language, then, was originally embedded in the constitution of man, and only required to be called out by the articulate voice of God. Still, there is something wonderful here, something beyond the present grasp and readiness of human apprehension. Except for the blessing, which may not have been heard, or may not have been uttered before this command, these words were absolutely the first that were heard by man.

   The significance of the sentences they formed must have been at the same time conveyed to man by immediate divine teaching. How the lesson was taught in an instant of time we cannot explain, though we have a distant resemblance of it in an infant learning to understand its mother tongue. This process, indeed, spans two years; but still there is an instant in which the first conception of a sign is formed, the first word is apprehended, the first sentence is understood. In that instant, the knowledge of language is virtually attained.

   With man, created immediately in his full though undeveloped powers, and still unaffected by any moral taint, this instant came with the first words spoken to his ear and to his soul by his Maker’s impressive voice, and the first lesson of language was at once thoroughly taught and learned. Man is now master of the theory of speech; the conception of a sign has been conveyed into his mind. This is the passive lesson of elocution: the practice, the active lesson, will quickly follow.

   However, not only the secondary part, but at the same time the primary and fundamental part of man’s intellectual nature is here developed. The understanding of the sign necessarily implies the knowledge of the thing signified. The objective is represented here by the “trees of the garden.” The subjective comes before his mind in the pronoun “you.” The physical constitution of man appears in the process of “eating.” The moral part of his nature comes out in the significance of the words “mayest” and “shalt not.” The distinction of merit in actions and things is expressed in the terms “good and evil.” The notion of reward is conveyed in the terms “life” and “death.” And, lastly, the presence and authority of “the Lord God” is implied in the very nature of a command.

   Here is at least the opening of a wide field of observation for the emerging powers of the mind. He, indeed, must bear the image of God in perceptive powers, who shall scan with careful eye the loftiest as well as the lowest in these varied scenes of reality. But as with the sign, so with the thing signified, a glance of intelligence instantaneously begins the interaction of the susceptible mind with the world of reality around, and the enlargement of the sphere of human knowledge is merely a matter of time without end. How rapidly the process of apprehension would proceed in the opening dawn of man’s intellectual activity, how many flashes of intelligence would be compressed into a few moments of his first consciousness, we cannot tell. But we can readily believe that he would soon be able to form a just yet an infantile conception of the varied themes which are presented to his mind in this brief command.

   Thus, the susceptible part of man’s intellect is awakened. The conceptive part will quickly follow, and display itself in the many inventions that will be sought out and applied to the objects which are placed at his disposal.

2. 1. Next, the moral part of man’s nature is here called into play. Mark God’s mode of teaching. He issues a command. This is required in order to bring forth into consciousness the until now latent sensibility to moral obligation which was embedded in the original constitution of man’s being. A command implies a superior, whose right it is to command, and an inferior, whose duty it is to obey. The only ultimate and absolute ground of supremacy is creating, and of inferiority, being created. The Creator is the only proper and entire owner; and, within legitimate bounds, the owner has the right to do what he will with his own. Giving this command, therefore, brings man to the recognition of his dependence for being and for the character of that being on his Maker. From the knowledge of the fundamental relation of the creature to the Creator springs an immediate sense of the obligation he is under to obey implicitly the Author of his being.

      This is, therefore, man’s first lesson in morals. It awakens in him the sense of duty, of right, of responsibility. These feelings could not have been evoked unless the moral susceptibility had been embedded in the soul, and only waited for the first command to awaken it into consciousness. This lesson, however, is only the incidental effect of the command, and not the primary reason for giving it.

   2. The special command here given is not arbitrary in its form, as is sometimes hastily supposed, but absolutely essential to the legal adjustment of things in this new stage of creation. Before the command of the Creator, the only absolute right to all the creatures resided in Him. These creatures may be related to one another. In the great system of things, through the wonderful wisdom of the grand Designer, the use of some may be necessary for the well-being, the development, and perpetuation of others. Nevertheless, no one has a shadow of right in the original nature of things to the use of any other. And when a moral agent comes into existence, in order to define the sphere of his legitimate action, an explicit declaration of the rights over other creatures granted and reserved must be made.

      The very giving of the command proclaims man’s original right of property to be, not inherent, but derived.

      As might be expected in these circumstances, the command has two clauses — a permissive and a prohibitive. “Of every tree of the garden thou mayst freely eat.” This displays in clear terms the goodness of the Creator. “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat.” This indicates the absolute right of the Creator over all the trees, and over man himself. One tree only is withheld, which, whatever were its qualities, was in any case not necessary to the well-being of man. All the others that were attractive to sight and good for food, including the tree of life, are given to him freely. In this original provision for the vested rights of man in creation, we cannot but acknowledge with gratitude and humility the generous and considerate bounty of the Creator.

      This is not more conspicuous in the giving of all the other trees than in the withholding of the one, the participation of which would lead to evil for mankind.

   3. The prohibitory part of this rule is not a matter of indifference, as is sometimes imagined, but essential to the nature of a command, and, in particular, of a permissive act or declaration of granted rights. Every command has a negative part, expressed or implied, without which it would be no command at all. The command, “Go work today in my vineyard,” implies you must not do anything else; otherwise the son who does not work obeys as well as the son who works. The present address of God to Adam, without the restrictive clause, would be a mere license, and not a command.

      But with the restrictive clause it is a command, and equivalent in meaning to the following positive injunction: You may eat of these trees only. A permissive decree with a restrictive clause is the mildest form of command that could have been imposed for the trial of human obedience. Some may have thought that it would have been better for man if there had been no tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

      But second thoughts will correct this rash and wrong conclusion. First, this tree may have had other purposes to serve in the order of things of which we are not aware; and, if so, it could not have been absent without harm to the general good. Second, but without any supposition at all, the tree contained no evil whatever to man in itself. It was in the first instance the instrument of great good, of the most precious kind, to him. It served the purpose of revealing out of the depths of his nature the notion of moral obligation, with all the related ideas of the inherent authority of the Creator and the innate subordination of himself, the creature; of the original right of the Creator alone in all the creatures, and the complete absence of any right in himself to any other creature at all.

      The command concerning this tree thus set his moral convictions in motion, and awakened in him the new and pleasing consciousness that he was a moral being, and not a mere clod of the valley or brute of the field.

      This is the first thing this tree did for man; and we shall find it would have done a still better thing for him if he had only made a proper use of it. Third, the absence of this tree would not at all have secured Adam from the possibility or the consequence of disobedience. Any grant to him at all must have been made “with the reserve,” implicit or explicit, of the rights of all others. “The thing reserved” must in fairness have been made known to him. In the present course of things it must have crossed his path, and his trial would have been inevitable, and therefore his fall possible. Now, the forbidden tree is merely the thing reserved.

      Besides, even if man had been introduced into a sphere of existence where no reserved tree or other thing could ever have come within the range of his observation, and so no outward act of disobedience could have been committed, still, as a being of moral susceptibility, he must come to the acknowledgment, express or implied, of the rights of the heavenly crown, before a mutual understanding could have been established between him and his Maker. Thus, we perceive that even in the impossible Utopia of metaphysical abstraction there is a virtual forbidden tree which forms the test of a man’s moral relation to his Creator. Now, if the reserve is necessary, and therefore the test of obedience inevitable, to a moral being, it only remains to inquire whether the test employed is suitable and appropriate.

   4. What is here made the matter of reserve, and so the test of obedience, is far from being trivial or out of place, as has been imagined; it is the proper and the only object immediately available for these purposes. The immediate need of man is food. The kind of food primarily designed for him is the fruit of trees. Grain, the secondary kind of vegetable diet, is the product of the farm rather than of the garden, and therefore was not yet in use. As the law must be laid down before man takes something for himself, the matter of reserve and consequent test of obedience is the fruit of a tree. Only by this can man at present learn the lessons of morality. To devise any other means, not arising from the actual state of things in which man was placed, would have been arbitrary and unreasonable.

      The immediate sphere of obedience lies in the circumstances in which he actually stands. These provided no opportunity for any other command than what is given. Adam had no father, or mother, or neighbor, male or female, and therefore the second table of the law could not apply. But he had a relation to his Maker, and legislation on this could not be postponed. The command assumes the kindest, most intelligible, and convenient form for the infantile mind of primeval man.

   5. We are now prepared to understand why this tree is called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The prohibition of this tree brings man to the knowledge of good and evil. The products of creative power were all very good (Genesis 1:31). Even this tree itself is good, and productive of indescribable good in the first instance to man. The understanding of merit arises in his mind by this tree. Obedience to the command of God not to eat from this tree is a moral good. Disobedience to God by eating from it is a moral evil. When we have formed an idea of a quality, we have at the same time an idea of its contrary. By the command concerning this tree man became aware of the concepts of good and evil, and so, theoretically, acquainted with their nature.

      This was that first lesson in morals of which we have spoken. It is quite evident that this knowledge could not be any physical effect of the tree, since its fruit was forbidden. It is obvious also that evil is yet known in this fair world only as the negative of good. Hence, the tree is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because by the command concerning it man comes to this knowledge.

   6. “In the day of thy eating thereof, die surely shalt thou.” The divine command is accompanied with its solemn sanction—death. The man could not at this time have any practical knowledge of the physical dissolution called death. We must, therefore, suppose either that God made him supernaturally acquainted with it, or that He conveyed to him the knowledge of it simply as the negation of life. The latter hypothesis is to be preferred, for several reasons. First, it is the more efficient method of instruction. Such knowledge may be imparted to man without anticipating experience. He was already conscious of life as a pure blessing.

      He was therefore capable of forming an idea of its loss. And death in the physical sense of the cessation of animal life and the disorganization of the body, he would come to understand in due time by experience. Secondly, death in reference to man is regarded in Scripture much more as the loss of life in the sense of a state of favor with God and resulting happiness than as the mere cessation of animal life (Genesis 28:13; Exodus 3:6; Matthew 22:32). Thirdly, the presence and privilege of the tree of life would enable man to see how easily he could be deprived of life, especially when he began to take in its life-sustaining juices and feel the flow of vitality rushing through his veins and refreshing his whole physical nature.

      Take away this tree, and with all the other resources of nature he must eventually droop and die. Fourthly, the man would thus regard his exclusion from the tree of life as the pledge of the sentence which would come to its fullness, when the physical body would eventually sink down under the wear and tear of life like the beasts that perish. Then would follow for the dead but perpetually existing soul of man the complete loss of all the joys of life, and the experience of all the sufferings of penal death.

3. Man has here evidently become acquainted with his Maker. On the hearing and understanding of this sentence, at least, if not before, he has arrived at the knowledge of God, as existing, thinking, speaking, permitting, commanding, and thereby exercising all the privileges of that absolute authority over people and things which creation alone can give. If we were to draw all this out into distinct propositions, we should find that man was here provided with a whole system of theology, ethics, and metaphysics, in a brief sentence. It may be said, indeed, that we need not suppose all this conveyed in the sentence before us. But, in any case, all this is implied in the few words here recorded to have been addressed to Adam, and there was not much time between his creation and his location in the garden for conveying any preliminary information. We may suppose the substance of the narrative contained in Genesis 1:2-3 to have been communicated to him in due time.

   But it could not be all conveyed yet, as we are only in the sixth day, and the record in question reaches to the end of the seventh. It was not, therefore, composed until after that day had passed.

   It is to be noticed here that God reserves to Himself the administration of the divine law. This was absolutely necessary at the present stage, as man was but an individual subject, and not yet multiplied into many people. Civil government was not formally constituted until after the deluge.

   We can hardly overestimate the benefit, in the rapid development of his mind, which Adam thus derived from the presence and communion of his Maker. If no voice had struck his ear, no articulate sentence had reached his intellect, no authoritative command had penetrated his conscience, no perception of the Eternal Spirit had been presented to his understanding, he might have been long in the silent, undeveloped, and imperfectly developed state which has sometimes been ascribed to primeval man.

   But if contact with a highly-accomplished master and a highly-polished state of society makes all the difference between the savage and the civilized, what instantaneous expansion and elevation of the primitive mind, while yet in its virgin purity and unimpaired power, must have resulted from free communion with the all-perfect mind of the Creator Himself! To the clear eye of native genius a starting idea is a whole science. By the instilling of a few fundamental and foundational ideas into his mind, Adam instantly rose into the full height and compass of a master spirit prepared to scan creation and adore the Creator.