The Vineyard Option

Lamech’s words in Genesis 5:29 refer to Noah’s planting of the vineyard in Genesis 9:20. No connection is made to Genesis 8:21 (Held by Wenham, Waltke; held as a possibility by Hamilton).

Videtur quod sic [arguments in favor]

1. The growth of a vineyard shows the fertility of the ground.

2. The text says “Out of the ground that the Lord has cursed, this one shall bring us relief.” Noah planted a vineyard and the wine that comes from the vineyard is a relief to man in a fallen world.

[Wenham and Waltke do not give argumentation, so the above are possible arguments in favor of this interpretation]

Sed contra [arguments to the contrary]

1. Mathews notes that verse 29 does not say the comfort comes from the ground, as this interpretation seems to presuppose. The mere growth of a vineyard does not indicate relief from the curse. Doubtless vines and plants also grew before the Flood.

2. The argument that wine itself provides man relief from runs contrary to the Scripture’s teaching that seeking comfort or relief from toil in wine is folly.

Respondeo dicendum [response & conclusion]

This is one of the weaker interpretations. It possibly rests on a misreading of the verse and, depending how it is framed, may stand contrary to biblical teaching about wine.

The Flood Option

Lamech’s words in Genesis 5:29 refer to the Flood. Lamech’s “wish” becomes a “nightmare.” “Comfort (nḥm) does come with Noah, but it is a different kind of comfort. What comes is the Lord’s repenting desire (nḥm) to destroy humanity. Thus Lamech’s wish turns into a nightmare" (Hamilton). Thus 5:29 connects with 6:6-7. No connection is made with 8:21

Videtur quod sic [arguments in favor]

נחם occurs only here and in 6:6-7 in this part of Genesis. It does not occur again until chapter 24. It is thus likely that there is a play in words intended here.

Sed contra [arguments to the contrary]

נחם is used in 5:29 in a different sense than in 6:6-7. The recurrence of the same word in a different sense doesn’t necessarily indicate a connection between the two passages. In addition Noah does bring blessing, so it would be more likely to understand Lamech’s words as fulfilled positively rather than negatively.

Respondeo dicendum [response & conclusion]

This is also one of the weaker interpretations. The arguments to the contrary are stronger than the arguments in favor.

The Remnant Option

Lamech hoped for relief from the curse. He does not receive his wish. However, Lamech’s desire finds an analogue in the preservation of the Sethite line that Noah achieves through the ark and the new beginning given to the human race (Wenham, Mathews). There is a loose connection to 8:21 in that there the preservation of the post-flood world is promised.

Videtur quod sic [arguments in favor]

1. Lamech’s words are not prophecy but a hope. Lamech’s hope is fulfilled but not in the way he wishes. What Noah actually does is not remove the curse from the ground but preserve the line of Seth, and brings a new covenant relation between man and God as a ‘new Adam.”

2. This interpretation is able to maintain a natural interpretation of both Genesis 5 and Genesis 8. It does not attempt forced readings of either passage.

Sed contra [arguments to the contrary]

1. The attempted connection between preservation of a remnant and hope for removal of the curse is rather tenuous.

2. An interpretation that demonstrates coherence between Lamech’s words and Noah’s life is to be preferred over an interpretation that posits a divergence between the two accounts.

3. Biblical narratives are economical. If Lamech’s words have little to nothing to do with the Noah narrative that follows, why are they given? This is especially relevant since Lamech’s words are embedded in a genealogy. The other comments added to the genealogy are those about Seth being in Adam’s image and those about Enoch’s translation.

Respondeo dicendum [response & conclusion]

This is a viable, but unlikely, option. It should be preferred if attempts to show Lamech’s words are fulfilled prove to be exegetically untenable. If the fulfillment of Lamech’s words are demonstrated to be exegetically plausible, this interpretation should not be preferred.

The Covenant Option

The covenant with Noah creates a “new . . . relationship between God and mankind,” and one that touches on the land. It is the Noahic covenant that fulfils Lamech’s words (Leupold).

Videtur quod sic [arguments in favor]

The nature of the Noahic covenant is to set bounds on the curse so that God’s plan of redemption can be worked out in the world. The culmination of the redemption made possible by the Noahic covenant is the removal of the curse. In this way Noah plays a significant role in God’s plan to bring the earth relief from the curse.

Sed contra [arguments to the contrary]

The covenant with Noah itself does not bring relief from work or painful toil.

Respondeo dicendum [response & conclusion]

This is a viable option. Lamech has a hope or a prophecy about the curse in relation to Noah and God made a covenant with Noah that limited the curse that God would bring on the world. The weakness is that Lamech’s hope for relief from painful toil and the promises of the Noahic covenant don’t align precisely. The covenant preserves the world until that hope is fulfilled on the New Earth.

The Mitigation of the Curse Option

Lamech says that Noah will bring relief from the agonized labor brought by the cursed ground. The next passage in which the language of cursing appears in 8:21 (though the Flood itself as a curse on the ground does intervene). If 8:21 is translated, “I will never curse further the ground because of man” (Wenham), it would indicate that God will not add to the curse of Genesis 3:17. An implication of this view is that the curse had intensified from Genesis 3 until the time of the Flood and that this intensification would be arrested and reversed after the Flood.

Videtur quod sic [arguments in favor]

1. The account of Cain and the Flood itself demonstrate that the curse of Genesis 3 could be added to because of additional sin.

2. It seems from 8:10, 12 that the translation of עוד as “further” is viable.

3. This interpretation results in the closest harmony between 5:29 and 8:21, which is preferable.

Sed contra [arguments to the contrary]

1. The implication that God had been adding to the curse of Genesis 3:17 until the time of the Flood is speculative.

2. The translation of עוד as “further” is not attested in key lexicons such as CHALOT.

Respondeo dicendum [response & conclusion]

This is a viable option.

1. The speculation necessary for making this interpretation work is reasonable given the evidence in Genesis 4 and the Flood account itself that the curse may be intensified. However, the speculation could be avoided by adopting the previous solution.

2. More work should be done, but the usage of עוד within Genesis 8 seems to allow for the translation, “further.”

3. An interpretation of coherence between 5:28 and 8:21 is to be preferred. Whether this position with its tighter coherence but greater speculation or the previous position with its looser coherence and less speculation is to be preferred is an open question. I lean toward this position.

This section of Scripture contains a number of difficulties. Some of these difficulties have to do with the relation of this text to other passages of Scripture or to attempts to correlate the opening chapters of Genesis with evolutionary cosmologies. Critical scholars have claimed that these verses begin a second creation account that conflicts with the first because it teachers that no plants existed at the time that mankind was created in contrast with Genesis 1:11-13, which teaches that the plants were created on the third day.[1] Some Analogical Day theorists argue that these verses teach a functional hydrological cycle was already in place before the creation of man (thus indicating that the creation of humans occurred sometime after the first historical week of the earth’s existence).[2] Other difficulties arise from the text itself. Does אֶרֶץ mean “earth” or “land” in 2:5, what are the “bush of the field” and the “plant of the field” (esv) and most significantly, what is the אֵד of 2:6?

The central conundrum of this passage is why no rain is given as the reason that the bush and small plant of the field have not yet sprung up (2:5) given that the אֵד is “watering the whole face of the ground” (2:6). A number of proposals have been made. Kidner suggests that 2:4 and 6 refer to the period of Genesis 1:2. Verse 5 is a parenthesis that looks forward to the creation of plants and man.[3] אֵד on this reading carries the sense of flood or ocean. This approach alleviates the apparent contradiction between plants not growing because of lack of rain and ground that is well watered both due to the nature of the watering (an ocean that covers all the land) and the its timing (before the emergence of dry land).

Proponents of the Framework Hypothesis and Analogical Day Theory propose another reading. On this reading a particular land was at the end of the dry season (hence the lack of rain in 2:5) but a rain cloud is rising from the earth, and it will water the ground. אֵד on this interpretation carries the sense of mist or water vapor. The takeaway for proponents of this view is that seasons, the water cycle, and “ordinary providence” is already functioning at the creation of man. Thus man was not created in the historical first week of the earth’s existence.[4] This view alleviates the apparent contradiction between 2:5 and 6 by connecting 2:5 to one season and 2:6 to another. It also provides one reason for why “no bush of the field was yet in the land,” namely, no rain and why “no small plant of the field had yet sprung up,” namely, no man to cultivate them. Verses 6 and 7 then provide the solution: rain clouds and the creation of man.

These two approaches suffer from a number of defects. It is not at all apparent that verse 5 is a parenthesis between verses 4 and 6, as Kidner’s view requires. Furthermore, why stress the existence of the primordial ocean in the account of the creation of man? The Framework/Analogical Day approach does a better job at showing how the passage coheres, but it depends heavily on a contested meaning of אֵד.[5] It also fails to present a compelling case for why the author would emphasize that man was created at the end of the dry season.[6]

The best interpretation of this passage recognizes that with Genesis 2:4 Moses shifts from the broad account of Genesis 1 to a more specific account of the creation and placement of man within the world.[7] In this context it makes sense for אֶרֶץ to refer to a particular land rather than to the earth as a whole (see the esv; hcsb).[8] This understanding alleviates the tension between 1:11-13 and 2:5. Moses is not saying in chapter 2 that no plant life existed on earth before the creation of man. He is saying that in a particular land particular kinds of plants had not yet begun to grow. The עֵשֶׂב (“small plant,” esv) probably refers to edible plants that a farmer cultivates.[9] The field (שָׂדֶה) does not always refer to cultivated fields, but it often does. This is seems to be the best sense in this context.[10] שִׂיחַ is a much more difficult term to define. It occurs only four times in Scripture, and in the other occurrences it seems to refer to a desert kind of shrub. It may be that an allusion exists here to Genesis 3:18. In that passage both cultivated plants (עֵ֫שֶׂב) and thorns and thistles appear. Thorns cannot be mentioned here, since they did not exist before the Fall. Perhaps שִׂיחַ is mentioned as the kind of plant that became thorny after the Fall.[11] Two reasons are given for why these plants are not growing in this land. First, God has not made it rain there. This seems to refer to the type of climate that this land has; it is not the kind of land that receives rainfall.[12] Second, there is no man to work the ground. Verse 6 does mention the אֵד which waters the whole face of the land. This probably refers to the river mentioned in 2:10, which is said to water the garden.[13] It rises from the ground and inundates the whole land like the Nile of Egypt. But for this inundation to be beneficial for the plants mentioned in 2:5, the inundation must be managed. Hence 2:7 and God’s creation of man.

This interpretation makes good sense of all the pieces of the passage. The main thrust is that a man is needed to cultivate the land in which God will place him. In fact, God ordered the land in which he will place the man to be of such a nature that it requires human cultivation. Thus the opening of this second major section in Genesis picks up the theme of the climax to the previous section—Genesis 1:26-30.

This is a complex passage. Several of the terms have a wide semantic range that leave them open to other interpretations, and several other terms are rare which means certainty about their senses is not possible and that several competing senses have been proposed. Nonetheless, the above interpretation is grammatically plausible and makes the best literary sense.

---

[1] S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis, 4^th ed. (London: Methuen & Co., 1905), 35-36.

[2] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2006), 111; for a framework hypothesis approach to this text, see Mark D. Futato, “Because It Had Rained: A Study of Gen. 2:5-7 with Implications for Gen. 2:4-25 and Gen. 1:1-2:3,” Westminster Theological Journal 60, no. 1 (Spring 1998): 1-21.

[3] Derek Kidner, "Genesis 2:5, 6: Wet or Dry?" Tyndale Bulletin 17, no. 1 (1966): 110.

[4] Collins, 125-27; Futato, 14-15.

[5] The word אֵד occurs only in Genesis 2:6 and Job 36:27. Those who favor the translation “mist” or “rain cloud” appeal to Job (Collins, 104, n. 6): “For he draws up the drops of water; they distill his mist [אֵד] in rain, which the skies pour down and drop on mankind abundantly” (Job 36:27-28, ESV). The idea of mist and rain make sense in the context of the Job passages. However, this is not the only way of translating the Job passage. The NIV translates “He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams [אֵד]; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind.” Kidner notes, “‘Flood’ or ‘sea’ however would suit the context [in Job] equally, as in M. H. Pope’s translation: ‘He draws the waterdrops that distil rain from the flood’ (treating it as a modification of Accadian edû, and the preposition as meaning ‘from’ (cf. RV as in Ugaritic).” Kidner, 110; cf. John Hartley, The Book of Job, New International Commentary on the Old Testament, ed. Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 479; Thomas Aquinas, The Literal Exposition on Job: A Scriptural Commentary Concerning Providence (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 404. Research in other Semitic languages points away from the translation “mist” and toward something like “flood.” Tsumura argues that it is related to the Akkadian edû “flood.” He concludes that “Both ‘ēd and its allomorph ‘ēdô mean “high water” and refer to the water flooding out of the subterranean ocean (1989:115).” David T. Tsumura, "Genesis and Ancient Near Eastern Stories of Creation and Flood: An Introduction Part II," 9, no. 2 Bible and Spade (Winter 1996): 37; cf. Kinder, 110. The ancient translations also favor understanding אֵד as a river that emerges from the earth and inundates the land. Young notes the following translations: “LXX, πηγή; Aquila, ἐπιβλυσμός; Vulgate, fonts.” The Syriac is also in line with these other ancient translations. E. J. Young, “The Days of Genesis: First Article.” Westminster Theological Journal 25, no. 1 (November 1962): 20, n. 50; U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961), 1:103 (Cassuto does note, however, that the Targums favor “mist”). The context, with its mention in verse 10 of a river that waters the garden, also fits the flood/inundation understanding better than the mist understanding.

[6] Futato says that the passage serves as a polemic against Baal worship for pre-exilic Israel. The point is “Yhwh God of Israel has been the Lord of the rain from the beginning!” Futato, 20. It is not clear, however, that the primary purpose of the opening chapters of Genesis are designed to serve as a polemic against pagan theology. There is certainly nothing explicit in the text that indicates this is the point of these verses. In contrast, the interpretation argued for here connects to the major themes of these chapters that are explicitly found in the text.

[7] Richard Hess, "Genesis 1-2 in Its Literary Context," Tyndale Bulletin 41, no. 1 (1990): 143-53; Collins 110-111; Young, 18-19. Note that the interpretation offered here agrees with the interpretations critiqued above at various points.

[8] Collins, Genesis 1-4, 110-111.

[9] Gordon D. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. David A. Hubbard (Waco: Word, 1987), 58; Kenneth A. Matthews, Genesis 1-11:26, New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Holman, 1996), 194; Robert V. McCabe, "A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account (Part 2 of 2), Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, 11, no. 1 (Fall 2006): 88-89.

[10] BDB, s.v. שָׂדֶה 1a, 2a. It should be noted, however, that the use of this term in 2:19-20 is likely broader.

[11] “We will show, however, that 2:5-6 is best related to the judgment oracles of 3:8-24, indicating what the world was like before and after sin. . . . The purpose of this tōlědōt section is its depiction of human life before and after the garden sin; the condition of the ‘land’ after Adam’s sin is contrasted with its state before the creation of man. Genesis 2:5-7 is best understood in light of 38-24, which describes the consequences of sin. This is shown by the language of 2:5-6, which anticipates what happens to the land because of Adam’s sin (3:8-24). When viewed this way, we find that the ‘shrub’ and ‘plant’ of 2:5 are not the same vegetation of 1:11-12. ‘Plant (‘ēśeb) of the field’ describes the diet of man which he eats only after the sweat of his labor (3:18-19) after his garden sin, whereas ‘seed-bearing plants’ (‘ēśeb mazŕia’ zera‘), as they are found in the creation narrative, were provided by God for human and animal consumption (1:11-12, 29-30; 9:3). . . . The ‘shrub [śiaḥ] of the field’ is a desert shrub large enough to shield Hagar’s teenage son (Gen 21:15) and those seeking its protection (Job 30:4,7). Since ‘plant’ is best defined by its recurrence in the judgment oracle (Gen 3:18), shrub probably parallels Adam’s ‘thorns and thistles,’ which are the by-product of God’s curse on the ground (3:17-18).” Matthews, 1:193-94; cf. Cassuto, 1:101-2; Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, New International Commentary on the Old Testament, ed. Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 1:154; McCabe, 88-89.

[12] Harris, R. Laird. "The Mist, the Canopy, and the Rivers of Eden," Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 11, no. 4 (Fall 1968): 178. Similar, but somewhat different interpretations, found in Cassuto, 103-4 and John H. Walton, Genesis, NIV Application Commentary, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 165, 180.

[13] Harris, 178; Cassuto, 104.

I recently spent some time studying Genesis 2:10-14, looking at all my commentaries from Origen, Theodoret, and Augustine all the way up through 21st century commentators. Almost every commentator spent his time discussing the possible location of Eden.

(In my opinion Luther [along with Leupold] was the most sensible of any; he argues Eden was obliterated by the Flood. This explanation didn’t seem to occur to ancient commentators, and modern commentators shy away from this explanation because it seems to support young-earth creationism–though it would seem even a flood confined to the region of the Middle East that did the half of what Genesis said it did would have destroyed Eden and reshaped the rivers. Calvin was a bit disappointing on this matter. He grants the global Flood, but he says that he doesn’t think it changed the earth and that in any event, Moses was locating Eden according to post-Flood geography.)

But aside from patristic and medieval allegorists, almost no one addressed the issue of why the passage is included in Genesis 2. Liberal scholars claim the passage doesn’t fit the chapter and was therefore a later addition to the J source. While this is nonsensical on one level, it does raise the issue of why Moses included the text. Only two of the commentators I consulted attempted at an answer.

Oecolampadius says: “There are some who try to bring in different allegories for these rivers. Some bring forth the four evangelists, others the four doctors of the church [Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and Gregory the Great]. Avoid such trifles. It is much safer just to know that God wished humankind well, and that he gave all the resources of this world in order that we might enjoy them to his glory.” Johannes Oecolampadius, In Genesim, 34r-v cited in John L. Thompson, ed., Genesis 1-11, Reformation Commentary on Scripture, ed. Timothy George (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2012), 86.

And Kidner says, “There is a hint of the cultural development intended for man when the narrative momentarily (10-14) breaks out of Eden to open up a vista into a world of diverse countries and resources. The digression, overstepping the bare details that locate the garden, discloses that there is more than primitive simplicity in store for the race: a complexity of unequally distributed skills and peoples, even if the reader knows the irony of it in the tragic connotations of the words ‘gold,’ ‘Assyria,’ ‘Euphrates.’” Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1982), 61.

Kidner’s explanation fits well in the overall context of the passage. This passage links the Creation Blessing of chapter 1 to the more specific task given to Adam of keeping and tending the garden (2:15). Alan Jacobs notes, “Gardening marks, as clearly as any activity, the joining of nature and culture. The gardener makes nothing, but rather gathers what God has made and shapes it into new and pleasing forms. The well-designed garden shows nature more clearly and beautifully than nature can show itself” (“Gardening and Governing,” Books and Culture [March/April 2009]: 18.) A garden is a plot of earth over which someone has exercised dominion. God starts man off in a garden. He is told to tend it, but the Creation Blessing reveals that he is to extend it as well. The geography lesson about the location and topography of Eden reveals that the building blocks of society are already close at hand. The four rivers are highways into the world. And these rivers lead to lands in which important natural resources can be found.