John Calvin Commentary Genesis 2:10

"And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads." — Genesis 2:10 (ASV)

And a river went out. Moses says that one river flowed to water the garden, which would afterward divide itself into four heads. It is generally agreed among all that two of these heads are the Euphrates and the Tigris, for no one disputes that הידקל (Hiddekel) is the Tigris.

But there is a great controversy regarding the other two. Many think that Pison and Gihon are the Ganges and the Nile; however, the error of these men is abundantly refuted by the distance of these rivers' locations. Some are not lacking who look even to the Danube, as if indeed one man's dwelling stretched from the most remote part of Asia to the extremity of Europe.

But since many other celebrated rivers flow in the region we are discussing, there is greater probability in the opinion of those who believe that two of these rivers are indicated, although their names are now obsolete. Be this as it may, the difficulty is not yet solved.

For Moses divides the one river that flowed past the garden into four heads. Yet it appears that the sources of the Euphrates and the Tigris were far distant from each other. Some attempt to resolve this difficulty by saying that the surface of the globe may have been changed by the deluge; and, therefore, they imagine it might have happened that the courses of the rivers were disturbed and changed, and their springs transferred elsewhere—a solution that, in my opinion, is by no means to be accepted.

For although I acknowledge that the earth, from the time it was cursed, was reduced from its native beauty to a state of wretched defilement and to a garb of mourning, and was afterward further laid waste in many places by the deluge, still, I assert, it was the same earth that had been created in the beginning.

Add to this that Moses (in my judgment) accommodated his topography to the capacity of his age. Yet nothing is resolved unless we find that place where the Tigris and Euphrates proceed from one river. Observe, first, that no mention is made of a spring or fountain, but only that it is said there was one river.

But I understand the four heads to mean both the sources from which the rivers originate and the mouths by which they discharge themselves into the sea. Now, the Euphrates was formerly so joined by confluence with the Tigris that it could justly be said one river was divided into four heads, especially if we concede what is manifest to all: that Moses does not speak with precision, nor in a philosophical manner, but popularly, so that even the least informed person may understand him.

Thus, in the first chapter, he called the sun and moon two great luminaries—not because the moon exceeded other planets in magnitude, but because, to common observation, it seemed greater. Furthermore, he seems to remove all doubt when he says that the river had four heads because it was divided from that place. What does this mean, except that the channels were divided out of one confluent stream, either above or below Paradise?

I will now present a map for viewing, so that readers may understand where I think Moses placed Paradise.

Indeed, Pliny relates in his Sixth Book that the Euphrates was so obstructed in its course by the Orcheni that it could not flow into the sea except through the Tigris. And Pomponius Mela, in his Third Book, denies that it flowed out through any specific outlet, as other rivers do, but says that it diminished in its course.

Nearchus, however (whom Alexander had made commander of his fleet, and who, with his authorization, had navigated all these regions), reckons the distance from the mouth of the Euphrates to Babylon as three thousand three hundred stadia. But he places the mouths of the Tigris at the entrance of Susiana, in which region, returning from that long and memorable voyage, he met the king with his fleet, as Adrian relates in his Eighth Book of the Exploits of Alexander.

Strabo also confirms this statement with his testimony in his Fifteenth Book. Nevertheless, wherever the Euphrates either submerges or mingles its stream, it is certain that it and the Tigris are again divided below their point of confluence. Adrian, however, in his Seventh Book, writes that not only one channel of the Euphrates runs into the Tigris, but also many rivers and ditches, because water naturally descends from higher to lower ground.

Regarding the confluence, which I have noted in the map, some were of the opinion that it had been effected by the labor of the Prefect Cobaris, lest the Euphrates, by its rapid course, should damage Babylon. But he speaks of it as a doubtful matter. It is more credible that men, by art and industry, followed the guidance of Nature in forming ditches when they saw the Euphrates anywhere flowing of its own accord from the higher ground into the Tigris.

Moreover, if Pomponius Mela is to be trusted, Semiramis channeled the Tigris and Euphrates into Mesopotamia, which was previously dry—a claim that is by no means credible. There is more truth in the statement of Strabo—a diligent and attentive writer—in his Eleventh Book, that at Babylon these two rivers unite, and then each is carried separately, in its own bed, into the Red Sea. He understands that junction to have occurred above Babylon, not far from the town Massica, as we read in the Fifth Book of Pliny.

From there, one river flows through Babylon, the other glides by Seleucia—two of the most celebrated and opulent cities. If we accept that this confluence, by which the Euphrates mixed with the Tigris, was natural and existed from the beginning, all absurdity is removed.

If there is anywhere under heaven a region preeminent in beauty, in the abundance of all kinds of fruit, in fertility, in delicacies, and in other gifts, that is the region which writers most celebrate.

Therefore, the praises with which Moses commends Paradise are such as properly belong to a tract of this description. And that the region of Eden was situated in those parts is probable from Isaiah 37:12 and Ezekiel 27:23. Moreover, when Moses declares that a river went forth, I understand him as speaking of the flowing of the stream, as if he had said that Adam dwelt on the bank of the river, or in that land which was watered on both sides if you choose to take Paradise for both banks of the river.

However, it makes no great difference whether Adam dwelt below the confluent stream towards Babylon and Seleucia, or in the higher part; it is enough that he occupied a well-watered country.

How the river was divided into four heads is not difficult to understand. For there are two rivers that flow together into one and then separate in different directions. Thus, it is one at the point of confluence, but there are two heads in its upper channels and two towards the sea; afterward, they again begin to be more widely separated.

The question remains regarding the names Pison and Gihon. For it does not seem consonant with reason to assign a double name to each of the rivers. But it is nothing new for rivers to change their names in their course, especially where there is any special mark of distinction.

The Tigris itself (according to Pliny) is called Diglito near its source; but after it has formed many channels and again coalesces, it takes the name of Pasitigris. Therefore, there is no absurdity in saying that after its confluence it had different names. Furthermore, there is such an affinity between Pasin and Pison as to make it not improbable that the name Pasitigris is a vestige of the ancient appellation.

In the Fifth Book of Quintus Curtius, concerning the Exploits of Alexander, where Pasitigris is mentioned, some copies read that it was called Pasin by the inhabitants. The other circumstances by which Moses describes three of these rivers also align with this supposition.

Pison surrounds the land of Havila, where gold is produced.

“Surrounding” is rightly attributed to the Tigris on account of its winding course below Mesopotamia. The land of Havila, in my opinion, is here taken to be a region adjoining Persia.

For subsequently, in the twenty-fifth chapter (Genesis 25:1), Moses relates that the Ishmaelites dwelt from Havila to Shur, which is contiguous to Egypt and through which the road to Assyria passes. Havila, as one boundary, is contrasted with Shur as another, and Moses places this latter boundary near Egypt, on the side that lies towards Assyria. From this it follows that Havila (the other boundary) extends towards Susia and Persia.

For it must lie south of Assyria towards the Persian Sea. Besides, it is located at a great distance from Egypt, because Moses enumerates many nations that dwelt between these boundaries. Then it appears that the Nabataeans, who are mentioned there, were neighbors to the Persians. Everything Moses asserts regarding gold and precious stones is most applicable to this district.

The river Gihon still remains to be noticed, which, as Moses declares, waters the land of Chus. All interpreters translate this word as Ethiopia, but the country of the Midianites and the adjoining country of Arabia are included under the same name by Moses, for which reason his wife is elsewhere called an Ethiopian woman.

Moreover, since the lower course of the Euphrates tends toward that region, I do not see why it should be considered absurd that it there receives the name of Gihon. And thus, the simple meaning of Moses is that the garden Adam possessed was well watered, with the channel of a river passing that way, which was afterward divided into four heads.