Genesis 2:5

And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

Every plant of the field before it was in the earth ... It is difficult to discover what is the exact import of this statement, as it stands, because it may convey the idea either that all the various productions of the vegetable kingdom were brought into being at first in full maturity, or that the embryo germs, the seminal principles only, were laid in the earth by the Creator, who left them to spring up into the development of their several natures and properties according to the established laws of vegetation. But the truth is, there is no room for speculation upon the subject, as the meaning of the sacred historian, which is rather obscurely and confusedly given in the English version, is, when rightly brought out from the original text, both clear and definite. According to a well-known rule of Hebrew grammar, kol (H3605), every, followed by a negative, produces the sense of none (cf. Exodus 20:10, 'Thou shalt not do every work' = 'Thou shalt do no work,' Matthew 24:22, 'All flesh would not be saved' = 'No flesh would be saved');-so that, according to this principle of interpretation "every plant of the field before it was in the earth" means 'no plant of the field was yet in the earth.'

Moreover, the proper meaning of the word х Terem (H2962)] rendered, "before" is 'not yet' (cf. Genesis 27:4, "before I die" - literally, 'while I shall not yet die; Exodus 12:34, "before it was leavened" - literally, 'while it was not yet leavened;' also Exodus 10:7; Joshua 2:8; 1 Samuel 3:3; Isaiah 65:24). If, then, we regard the title or superscription prefixed, to this section as ending at the word "created," conformably to the reading in the Septuagint version, and the second section is beginning with the words "in the day," the whole passage, as rendered by Rosenmuller, De Wette, Tuch, and others, will stand thus: 'These are the generations of the heavens and the earth, when they were created. In the day when the Lord God made earth and heaven, then no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field yet grew,' etc. In entering upon this section, it is necessary to advert to the opinion entertained in certain quarters, that it contains a separate and totally different account of creation from that which is given in the opening chapter.

Thus, Bunsen speaks of the 'double account of creation' ('Egypt's Place'), considering the two narratives as compiled from independent sources of information, which cannot be treated as an originally connected narrative; while the Rationalistic critics in Germany, and various writers among ourselves, such as Baden Powell, the anonymous authors of 'Pre-Adamite Man,' and 'The Genesis of the Earth and of Man,' regard the details here given of man's origin as the account of a younger branch of the human family, the older race of the Adamites having either become extinct, or inhabiting another and a distant region of the world. But this opinion rests on no solid basis of truth; and sound criticism leads to a very different conclusion-namely, that the narrative contained in this chapter is additional and supplementary-an appendix to the preceding account if creation, subjoined to furnish some details respecting the formation of the first pair and their primeval abode, which it was not consistent with the plan of that general record to give. That the supply of such particulars was the sole purpose contemplated by the insertion of this consecutive section is proved by a variety of considerations:

(1) Philological reasons. The title towlªdowt (H8435), as has been already shown, denotes, not the origin, but the historical development, of man. Accordingly he is spoken of as the man, previously mentioned as having been created; we are instructed as to the manner in which his nature was formed; and in the description given of his aboriginal condition, we read, not of 'the earth,' but of "the field" and "the ground" -

i.e., the alluvial soil which required cultivation-of the necessity there was for his labour to superintend and promote the growth of vegetation, and of the domestic animals that were enlisted in his service, or had their habitat in his locality.

(2) The character and style of the narrative. There is no regard paid in it to the element of time, which must have been strictly observed had the object been to describe in order the successive acts of creation, because not only are the lower animals mentioned in a very cursory manner, and, as will be afterward shown, according to the Semitic style of narration, which was characterized by frequent repetition of what had been previously stated, but the creation of the woman, without whom it was "not good" for Adam to continue, must have taken place previous to the declaration of God, that, all things which He had made was "very good," as well as to the removal of both into the garden. The contents of this chapter are miscellaneous, and the arrangement of them seems to have been regulated by the nature and importance of the matters on which minute details were necessary.

(3) The name given to the Creator. From the beginning of this section He is called Lord God, and this name continues, with little variation, to be the designation applied to Him until the end of the third chapter. Now, these two words are not synonymous. They are perfectly distinct, and are the signs of different ideas. х 'Elohiym (H430), as has been already shown (Genesis 1:1), is equivalent to our word "Deity".] It represents the Being who originated and sustains the universe, who has power to punish as well as to bless; and it was applied by the pagan to any object of religious worship and reverence: whereas the Hebrew word, inaccurately rendered in our version "Lord," from the kurios (G2962) of the Septuagint, is Yahweh (Jehovah), or rather Yahwe, "the I am," the appellation by which the God of Israel was specially distinguished. 'Elohiym (H430), Farrar says ('Bampton Lectures,' 1862) 'may be said to denote God in the abstract; and Yahweh (the LORD) describes God in His concrete relation to mankind-the revealed Deity. 'Elohiym was generic, and could be applied to any object of worship; Yahweh was specific-the covenant God of Israel. A really different moral conception was offered by Providence to the Hebrew mind through the employment of these words.'-The combination, then, of these divine names, so remarkable as the characteristic feature of a section which describes the personal relations of man to his Maker, was not an accidental circumstance. It was done deliberately, to serve an important purpose, and that purpose was to intimate the identity between the Lord who was the object of Israel's worship and the God who was the Creator of all things. The two names appear to be in apposition, and should be regarded as bearing the same import with what is more fully expressed elsewhere, (Exodus 9:30; Deut. 33:30; Psalms 18:31; Isaiah 44:6, etc.)