{"id":4357,"date":"2016-07-30T13:36:34","date_gmt":"2016-07-30T19:36:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/?p=4357"},"modified":"2023-07-02T13:35:36","modified_gmt":"2023-07-02T19:35:36","slug":"genesis-215-part-nine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/?p=4357","title":{"rendered":"Genesis 2:15 \u2014 Part Nine"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

If you were reading my blog a year ago, you may remember a series of posts on the correct interpretation of Genesis 2:15. In short, the question is whether the verse should be understood in the traditional way, as the NIV has it \u2014 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. <\/em>Or should it have been translated something like this \u2014 \u201cGod caused man to rest in the garden for the purpose of obeying and worshiping Him.\u201d<\/h3>\n

I won\u2019t rehash my entire argument again. You can read the whole thing here: Part One<\/a> \u2014 Part Two<\/a> \u2014 Part Three<\/a> \u2014 Part Four<\/a> \u2014 Part Five<\/a> \u2014 Part Six<\/a> \u2014 Part Seven<\/a> \u2014 Part Eight<\/a>.<\/h3>\n

Finally, I got a chance to discuss the issue with the Bible professor from whom I first heard the alternate \u201cobey and worship\u201d interpretation. I asked him the questions at the bottom of Part Eight. Here is his answer: (The rest of this post is his answer verbatim.)<\/h3>\n

My reasoning regarding Genesis 2:15, which in my view is truly a crucial verse with respect to properly understanding our pre- (and hence post-) Fall purpose, is as follows, in logical sequence:<\/span><\/h3>\n

1) The traditional (though not the only<\/em>, or even the oldest<\/em>) translation\/understanding of Genesis 2:15 is that \u201cthe Lord God took the man and put him<\/strong> in the garden of Eden to cultivate it and to guard it.<\/strong>\u201d<\/span><\/h3>\n

2) Premise: how one understands\/translates one of the boldface expressions inevitably influences and informs how one understands\/translates the other.<\/span><\/h3>\n

3) Observation 1: The verbal root used for \u201cput him\u201d in v. 15 (nu\u2019ah<\/em>) is not the same as the verbal root used for \u201cput him\u201d in v. 8 (sim<\/em>).<\/span><\/h3>\n

4) Observation 2: The verbal root used in v. 8 (sim<\/em>), when used with either God or man in Scripture, almost always refers to a physical \u201cputting (down) or placing.\u201d<\/span><\/h3>\n

5) Observation 3: The verbal root used in v. 15 (nu\u2019ah<\/em>), when used with God as the subject in Scripture, is predominantly used to indicate the \u201csetting at rest,\u201d which comes to represent one of the standard biblical idioms for being brought into full relationship with God.\u00a0 In the\u00a0Old Testament,\u00a0this is evident in the oft-repeated promise of God \u201cto give you [i.e., His people] rest\u201d (cf. Joshua 1:15; 2 Samuel 7:11; Psalm 95:11<\/span><\/a>) \u2014 which is clearly not simply physical \u201cputting down\u201d or even \u201cphysical\u201d at all, since He continues to hold out this \u201cgiving of rest\u201d as a yet to be realized promise even after Israel has achieved complete physical rest from war and strife under David (cf. 2 Samuel 7:1 with 7:11).<\/span><\/h3>\n

6) To be biblically consistent, therefore, it must be CONCLUDED that the use of rest in Genesis 2:15, in which God is the subject, is intended just as everywhere else when God is the subject \u2014 i.e., as an indication of Him giving spiritual rest to the specified object \u2014 in this case Adam (and later Eve).<\/span><\/h3>\n

7) This being so, it stands to reason that the rest of the verse should also be read in a \u201cspiritual\u201d context.\u00a0 I.e., if the first part of the verse establishes a significant spiritual\/theological idea, this is clearly the vein in which the rest of the verse will\/should be read.<\/span><\/h3>\n

8 ) Observation: \u201ccultivating\u201d and \u201cguarding\u201d a garden are not clearly spiritual \u2014 or spiritually significant \u2014 concepts. (This is distinct from the concept of work as valid and positive \u2014 to assume that one must be denying the value of \u201cwork\u201d to agree with this statement\/observation is a logical non sequitur.)<\/span><\/h3>\n

9) Observation: the pronominal object \u201cit\u201d after \u201ccultivate\u201d and \u201cguard\u201d is feminine (if taken as a pronominal object) \u2014 literally, \u201cher\u201d.<\/span><\/h3>\n

10) The term \u201cgarden\u201d (gan<\/em>) in biblical Hebrew is not feminine (\u201cher\u201d), but masculine (i.e., \u201chim\u201d).\u00a0 Some lexicons of biblical Hebrew suggest that the term \u201cgarden\u201d (Heb.: gan<\/em>) may in fact be both masculine AND feminine, but this is begging the question and not at all borne out by the evidence \u2014 in fact, this is circular lexical reasoning based EXCLUSIVELY on the view that garden in Genesis 2:15 is feminine and because the pronominal object on the verbs \u201ccultivate\u201d and \u201cguard\u201d is feminine \u2014 yet as I will show in following, a more consistent, grammatical, and hence natural reading is that that there is no pronominal object at all!<\/span><\/h3>\n

11) In all of the instances where the word for garden (gan<\/em>) is predicated by a verb or adjective, it is clearly treated as masculine (e.g., Isaiah 58:11, Jerermiah 31:11, Song of Solomon\u00a04:12, and Song of Solomon\u00a04:16).\u00a0 Not surprisingly, therefore, it is identified as an exclusively masculine noun in the standard Concordance of the Hebrew Bible<\/em> by A. Even Shoshan (Heb. edition [Qonqordantsya Hadasha], p. 240c).<\/span><\/h3>\n

12) The most grammatical \u2014 and therefore natural \u2014 reading of the clause in question, therefore, would be to take what has been mistakenly thought to be a pronominal object suffix (\u201cher\u201d) as in fact an alternate feminine affix to an infinitive noun \u2014 which is attested elsewhere in biblical Hebrew \u2014 and may be intended to denote emphasis.<\/span><\/h3>\n

13) This reading solves\/avoids the clear gender disagreement noted above by effectively eliminating an object<\/em> from the infinitive verbs (\u201cto cultivate \u2026 to guard\u201d).\u00a0 The verbs thus become \u201cintransitive\u201d (not taking an object) rather than \u201ctransitive\u201d (taking an object).<\/span><\/h3>\n

14) When a) used intransitively, b) used in a clearly spiritually focused context, and c) when used together, the Hebrew infinitive verbs traditionally translated \u201ccultivate\u201d and \u201cguard\u201d in fact mean \u201cworship\u201d and \u201cobey.\u201d Thus writes G.K. Beale, \u201cEden, the Temple, and the Church\u2019s Mission in the New Creation,\u201d Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society<\/em> 48\/1 (2005), pp. 7\u20138: \u201cThe two Hebrew words for \u2018cultivate\u2019 and \u2018keep\u2019 (respectively, \u2018?bad<\/em> and sh?mar<\/em>) can easily be, and usually are, translated \u2018serve and guard.\u2019\u00a0 When these two words occur together later in the Old Testament, without exception they have this meaning and refer either to the Israelites \u2018serving and guarding\/obeying\u2019 God\u2019s word\u2019 (about 10 times) or, more often to priests who \u2018serve\u2019 God in the temple and \u2018guard\u2019 the temple from unclean things entering it (Numbers 3:7\u20138; 8:25\u201326; 18:5\u20136; 1 Chronicles 23:32; Ezekiel 44:14).\u201d<\/span><\/h3>\n

15) Not only does this translation\/understanding flow smoothly from the spiritual focus of the first part<\/em> of the verse, but \u2014 contrary to the usual rendering as \u201ccultivate it and guard it\u201d \u2014 it also sets up and flows smoothly into v. 16, which proceeds to give the content of obedience \u2014 i.e., to answer the obvious, implied question with which v. 15 thus ends \u2014 to wit, \u201cSo how do I [Adam] obey?\u201d<\/span><\/h3>\n

16) This translation\/understanding is not new, but well established in early Jewish exegetical thought, as attested in a) Midrash Genesis Rabbah, xvi.5, b) Targum Jonathan ad Genesis 2:15, and c) Targum Yerushalmi ad Genesis 2:15.<\/span><\/h3>\n

17) The \u201ctraditional\u201d translation, we suspect, is a carry-over by late medieval Christian-English translators who, along with their knowledge of Hebrew, are taking this particular exegetical view from their Jewish teachers.\u00a0 In Jewish tradition, though the proper reading of \u201cworship and obey\u201d was early recognized, it was set aside in favor of the ungrammatical and contextually problematic reading \u201ccultivate it and keep it\u201d due to the essential theological emphasis of Rabbinic Judaism on fully attaining God\u2019s \u201crest\u201d (i.e., approval) through worship and obedience rather than expressing such as a result of having already been \u201cset at rest\u201d by God (thus the reason for the \u201csetting at rest\u201d coming before the \u201cworship & obedience\u201d in 2:15). This theologically motivated misreading eventually carried over into Christian English Bible translation history, was consolidated within Jewish exegetical tradition as the monolith of Pharisaically-based Judaism (i.e., Rabbinic Judaism), became entrenched over time and crystallized in the corpus of early Rabbinic literature.<\/span><\/h3>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

If you were reading my blog a year ago, you may remember a series of posts on the correct interpretation of Genesis 2:15. In short, the question is whether the verse should be understood in the traditional way, as the … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4357","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-genesis"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4357","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4357"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4357\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8052,"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4357\/revisions\/8052"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4357"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4357"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4357"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}