⤒🔗

Important?←⤒🔗

In the middle of Genesis' record of God's creation work we unexpectedly come across a passage about four rivers (Genesis 2:10-14). To be more precise, about one river, which divides and becomes four rivers. The names of all four rivers are given, and except for the last one, the countries where they flow are mentioned. Many readers of the Bible will have wondered why this passage is included in the story of creation. And connected with this, what can we do with it today.

We cannot brush off this part as unimportant. There are such rather unimportant side remarks in the Bible. When the Ziphites say to Saul: "Is not David hiding himself on the hill of Hachilah, which is on the east of Jeshimon." (1 Samuel 26:1)

Then this incidental mention of Jeshimon is not of great importance to us. It is no more than a geographical detail, historically correct but without special significance. But things are different in Genesis 2. Here we do not find a historical detail which is carried along in the stream of the narrative. The rivers are not mentioned in connection with another subject, they are the special subject of Genesis 2:10-14.

Actually, the river is the third main topic of Genesis 2.¹ In the preceding chapter the history has been told of the six days of creation, ending in the creation of man. Now everything had been created, and God rested, and made the seventh day a special day. Then, in Genesis 2:4, the story begins where the creation ended – man. Man was created of dust from the ground and made alive. Then follows the garden. A part of the created world was made into a garden for man to live in. And thirdly, a river was made to flow through this garden, and subsequently to divide into four rivers. The rivers from paradise deserve our special attention.

Symbolical?←⤒🔗

The identification of the rivers in this passage is very difficult. This could lead to the idea that the whole passage does not refer to a real situation, but only speaks symbolically.

The name of the main river is not given. But the names of the four rivers which branch off from it, are mentioned. The first one is called: Pishon. The name is derived from a verb which means: "to leap," and so "Pishon" could be translated as "Leaper." What feature has given rise to this name, is unknown to us. The same applies to the second river: the Gihon. This name goes back to a verb meaning: "to break out," a rendering could be: "Outbreaker."

But we do not know what rivers they were. The names of these rivers occur nowhere else in the Bible. And since they sound fancy, are they not at the same time fantasy? Do we have here a description of an existing reality?

But the rest of the text denies such an explanation. The name for the third river is in Hebrew Hiddeqel. The same word occurs in Daniel 10:4. And there is no doubt concerning the identification with the Tigris. The same is the case with the fourth river: the river mentioned is the Euphrates. Actually, this river is so well known that no further information is needed. Therefore we have to think, not of four symbolical names, but of four existing rivers.

This is confirmed by the rest of the text. About the second river is said that it flows around the land Cush, and about the third river, that it flows east of Assyria. Both remarks intend to give geographical information. They refer to a reality which could be pointed out on a map of the world.

As a matter of fact, the whole context does not speak symbolically. God really did create man, v. 7. God really did make a garden, v. 8. God did place man in the garden, v. 15. The passage speaking about the rivers must be taken just as literally as the passages about man's creation and the making of the garden.

Not Historical?←⤒🔗

But when this passage is taken as historical, the problems really grow.

• The first river, the Pishon, is said to flow around the land of Havilah. "Havilah" is then a part of Arabia (Genesis 10:7, 29; 25:18; 1 Samuel 15:7). But we do not know of such a river in that part of the world.

• The second river, Gihon, is said to flow around the land of Cush. In the Bible "Cush" usually denotes Ethiopia, south of Egypt. But again, we do not know of a river, called Gihon, there. The only river that could be meant, is the river Nile. But why is the usual biblical name for this river not used?

• The third river is said to flow "east of Assyria." However, the Tigris does not flow east of Assyria, but through the country of Assyria. This problem can be solved by assuming that "Assyria" here does not denote the country Assyria, but the city Assur.

There is, however, another problem if this part of Genesis 2 is taken as historical. The Bible speaks about one river, which then divides into four. But that is completely impossible with the rivers given in this part. The greatest problem is the fact that Tigris and Euphrates do not flow out of one river, but that they at the end of their course, come together to form one river. The opposite of what the Bible says.

The problem is only aggravated by the Gihon. That river flows in Egypt. And there is no possibility to bring together in one stream the rivers Tigris and Euphrates in Mesopotamia, and the Nile in Egypt.

And therefore we are told not to search for the exact location of the rivers and countries mentioned here. Sometimes it is said that the writer of Genesis did not know any better. We today know about the world; we have accurate maps. But they did not have such maps. The sources of the Nile were discovered in the last century. What could the people at that time know of the real origin of the rivers they had only heard about? A geography in its infancy is speaking here, we should not try to find reality behind these childlike words.²

Another approach is to say, that the writer of this passage did not attempt to give geographical information. It is an attempt on the part of the writer to link paradise with geography. He wants to show that the life arteries of all countries have their origin in the river that watered paradise. We should not spend much energy in trying to figure out how the four rivers can have been one. The text does not intend to give geographical details. The message is clear: All important rivers draw their water from the paradise river. That is why four rivers are mentioned. The number four indicates completeness. In all four directions the world receives its life from paradise.³

These solutions are not acceptable to us. They do not take into account that Scripture is not just the writing of a man with all his limitations, but that it is the Word of God. Whatever man may have known at the time, God would not have revealed something that is blatantly untrue.

And would it be true that the people at that time did not know anything at all of the map of the world? People in Mesopotamia will have known that the Tigris and the Euphrates did not come from the same stream. And those who knew of the Nile, will have known that this river, whatever its source, is located in a different country.

In fact these writers have to return to the symbolical meaning. They may deny it, but the explanation of the number four shows clearly that it is taken as a symbol for all the directions of the world.

In the exegesis of critical scholars Genesis 2:10-14 ends up as a message without fact.

Geographical?←⤒🔗

The Reformed approach is, to try to make sense of the geographical indications. In the first place, the problem of Cush can be solved. This name is usually taken as Ethiopia, and that is correct. The name refers in the Bible mostly to the country south of Egypt. But in some places (especially 2 Chronicles 14:9) it seems to indicate a part of the Arabian peninsula.

At this point we remember that the identification of Cush with Ethiopia was problematic. For the river in Ethiopia is the Nile. Why is it not called by its usual name in Genesis 2? This makes it all the more acceptable that another river is meant, in another country.⁴

This means that the four rivers are now all more or less in the same region. The Pishon is in Havilah, somewhere in Arabia. The Gihon is in Cush, also somewhere in Arabia. And the Tigris and the Euphrates are in Mesopotamia. Of course the distance between them is considerable. But we can imagine one river which separates into four rivers and then flows through Arabia and also toward the Persian Gulf.

We can imagine such a river, but we do not know of such a river. And, as already said, the problem is too, that Tigris and Euphrates do not begin as one river, but end as one river. How can this problem be solved?

The solution is usually found in the fact that the situation as it is described in Genesis 2 will have changed considerably in the course of the time. It is not uncommon for rivers to change their course. We can also think of disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes. And the disastrous consequences of the Flood should not be forgotten. The fountains of the great deep burst forth (Genesis 7:11) and the water covered the earth for about half a year. This will have caused innumerable changes in the surface of the earth.⁵

It is therefore quite possible that two of the four rivers have disappeared, and that the course of the other two have changed; or, that the latter two rivers are indicated by the names of their rough equivalents from the time after the Flood. In this connection it is noteworthy that the description of the two unknown rivers is more extensive than the description of the two known rivers.

Reformed theology can maintain the historicity of this part of Scripture. But what about the message? And here we are disappointed. Reformed exegetes have to maintain that this text is geographically possible. But this results in an exegesis which concentrates on the location of paradise. Aalders writes:

In the light of the information presently available to us, the data given in the verses 10-14 (are) not sufficient to give us a clearly specified location for the district of Eden.

And Gispen concludes: "We cannot say more than that it is probable that the garden of Eden should be sought in Mesopotamia."⁶

This is very disappointing. We had to say about the critical scholars: Here is a message without a basis in facts. But in these Reformed explanations we are left with facts without a message. What can we do with the location of paradise? What would it matter to our faith, if we could say exactly where the Garden of Eden was? What difference does it make whether paradise was located in Mesopotamia, or in Italy, or, for that matter, in Siberia?

Actually, the passage is approached with the wrong question. The text does not say something like: the garden was located north of the Pishon, or: the two rivers Tigris and Euphrates flowed around the garden. To be sure, the text has geographical implications. From it we may conclude that paradise must have been located somewhere between Turkey and Arabia. But this location cannot be the message of this passage. When we approach the text with our questions before we have listened to what it says, we silence the message. Instead, we have to listen to what the text says to us.

God Opened the World←⤒🔗

The river is the third great work of God mentioned in Genesis 2. First it says that God made man (Genesis 2:7). This is followed by the statement that God planted a garden, v. 8. God made this into a lovely dwelling place for man; the trees were pleasant to the sight and good for food. And thirdly, God made a river flow through the garden.

This is of tremendous importance, for the river is there "to water the garden" (v. 10). Imagine a garden without water. Everything would dry out. God had made paradise very beautiful, but without a continuous supply of water this garden would soon become dry as dust.

The river is not only important for the garden, but also for man. The garden was the dwelling place of the first people, and the trees gave their fruit also for man to eat. Without the river, man would have no place to live on earth. But now that God made a river flow through the garden, He not only made sure that the garden would continue to blossom and give fruit, but also that man could live there. The garden's existence and man's life in it both depended on this third great work of God.

But what happens to the river after having provided water to the garden? Then it does not disappear in the earth, as if it had fulfilled its work. It continues to flow on the surface of the earth, and it even divides into four streams, going in different directions.

This means no less than that the river which brought life to paradise, continues its life bringing work beyond paradise.⁷ And so the world became accessible to man. Adam and Eve began their life in paradise. But paradise was only a garden, a part of a province called Eden. God had told man to fill the earth, Genesis 1:28. Therefore Adam and Eve were never supposed to stay in the garden all their life, they had to go out.

How could man have left paradise without the river? It was a time without water from the tap, even without water from wells. Those discoveries would all come later. By letting the river continue beyond paradise God opened the world for man. They can stay alive outside the garden, they can drink, and also probably find food, by just following the rivers.

These rivers bring him far. He can go all the way to Havilah and Cush, two different regions of Arabia. And he can follow the Tigris and the Euphrates, and pass through Mesopotamia. The Middle East, from Turkey to Arabia, became directly accessible to man because of the rivers.

This part of Scripture, even though it does speak about location and mentions countries, is not about geography. It is very much directed toward man and his life on the earth. It shows that right from the beginning of the world, even before sin entered it, God did not want man to be locked up in paradise. He made the rivers flow outside paradise and so opened the doors of paradise for man. The first human beings were already supposed to explore the world outside. The fact that we today can live outside paradise and have spread out over the world is directly connected with it.

God made Agriculture Possible←⤒🔗

When we think of paradise, we have a mental picture of a beautiful landscape, in which man does nothing. When he needs something he plucks fruit from trees. He has nothing else to do but to praise God. This impression is wrong, however. Man had to work, already in paradise.

We can see that in v. 15, where it says that God gave man a place in the Garden of Eden "to till it and keep it." "Tilling" is not necessary for trees. If man had no more to do than plucking apples and pears from trees to eat them, he would never do any tilling. "Tilling" is done to fields, and as the result man can eat vegetables and bread (Genesis 3:18ff.) In the language of the Bible the word is also used for the work in the vineyard, resulting in a harvest of grapes and in wine.

The Garden of Eden was the place where man was supposed to work. Agriculture had to begin in paradise, by tilling, by the whole process of opening the ground, sowing, and harvesting. And all this was made possible by the river in paradise "to water the garden."

But agriculture was not meant to be limited to paradise. The Bible already mentioned in connection with the creation of man that man should till the ground of the earth (Genesis 2:4ff.). In this context we read that God did not let the river of paradise disappear after it had passed through the garden, but let it continue its course. The river even branched out in four directions.

By doing so, God made agriculture possible far beyond the borders of the garden. Man could not only leave the garden, he could also live outside the garden. He could go out into the world tilling and harvesting. This was foreseen right from creation. It is not by accident that a large part of the world can be used as farmland. The world has been created in such a way that everywhere people can eat. This should make us both obedient wherever we live, and grateful for what we have.

God gave Access to Luxury←⤒🔗

A special remark connected with the land of Havilah also deserves our attention. Verses 11 and 12 mention that gold, bdellium and onyx stone can be found in this land. This remark is often used to support the opinion that "Havilah" should be identified with Arabia, for all three can be found there. This may be true, but it cannot be the meaning of the remark. If Genesis 2:10-14 is not a lesson in geography, it must be important in itself that gold, bdellium and onyx stone can be found in Havilah.

This remark must be connected with the fact that man could leave paradise. He would follow the rivers. And where could he arrive? In a country where gold, bdellium and onyx could be found. We get the impression that these were not available in the Garden of Eden. But they were not outside man's reach: he could obtain them by following the river Pishon.

But what could man do with these things? What useful purpose does gold have? One cannot make a useful tool of gold. It can only be used for decoration. Yet the Bible says that the gold of the land is good. It comes in good, pure nuggets, which can easily be worked into jewels. "Bdellium" is a kind of resin from a plant. You cannot eat it, it is highly praised in the East as an aromatic substance. The onyx stone serves no "useful" purpose either, it is used for jewels. All three things belong to the category of luxury.

We often have a wrong idea of life in a sinless world. As if man ambled around in paradise, enjoying the beautiful landscape, eating from whatever fruit tree he came across, and praising God. But then too, life was more than that. Life in paradise involved working for daily bread: tilling the ground. But let us not limit paradise life to a life of strict utility. The rivers were made so that man could leave the garden, and find beauty. He could work the gold, bdellium and onyx into things he could enjoy. The making and use of these things too belongs to paradise life as God had intended it. God put beautiful things at man's disposal.⁸

Creation in a World of Sin←⤒🔗

But this leads to a problem. The text forms a part of the very first history, before the fall. Can it still be applied today? We live in a completely different situation. For sin has entered into the world and as a result we no longer live in a paradisal situation. Has this text something to say for our faith today? This criticism can refer to the text Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians: "I decided not to know anything among you but Jesus Christ and Him crucified." (1 Corinthians 2:2)

Should we not think and speak about Jesus Christ and our salvation instead of about creation? Recently someone said in connection with using the early chapters of Genesis: "We have to take seriously the angels who guard the entrance of paradise with the sword."⁹ Did the situation not change so radically, that our lives are no longer determined by paradise, but only by Christ?!

In answering this question we should first of all admit that we can never apply a text from Genesis 1 and 2 to our lives as if nothing happened afterwards. We have to take into account the changes brought about by sin and God's punishment of our sins. Every text should be explained and applied within the context of the whole of revelation.

But, with this proviso, we have to maintain that we today, in a world of sin, can still apply a text like Genesis 2:10-14 and, I would like to add: we should apply such texts to our lives. Several reasons can be given. For example, if we can no longer use Genesis 2:1 or because the text describes the situation preceding the fall in sin and the revelation of Christ, then neither can we do anything today with man's creation in God's image, Genesis 1:26, or with the institution of marriage, in Genesis 2:18ff.

In the second place, Scripture itself in its reasoning after the fall refers several times to the period before the fall. So does Jesus Christ in His instructions on marriage, Matthew 19:8, and the apostle Paul concerning the use of food, in 1 Timothy 4, especially v. 4.

In the third place, after the fall God punished woman and man. To Eve He said: "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing…, Genesis 3:16. In other words: God did not take away His blessing: "Be fruitful and multiply," Genesis 1:28. He made it difficult for her to bear children. In a similar way the punishment of man shows that God did not take away from man his work of tilling the ground. But He added suffering to man's work on the earth.

However, I want to emphasize especially a dogmatical reason. It is this fact, that christology should not be played out against theology. It sounds very pious: "Speak only about Jesus Christ," but in fact Jesus Christ is separated from His context. Jesus Christ did not come first; God's creation work came first. Only when man committed his atrocious sin against God, do we begin to hear about Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is not the be all and end all of God's works. He came in between. Christ should be seen in the context of a world, which began sinless but was spoiled because of our sins. Christology is undoubtedly the center of biblical revelation, but Christ is the center in a world created by God. The whole doctrine of Christ's salvation and the application of Christ's work to us hangs in the air without the doctrine of God and of creation.

For the work of Jesus Christ is basically restoration, not a new beginning. On the basis of Christ's work we are reconciled with God. And now we have to serve God again, with all our heart, soul, mind and body. As it says in Romans 12:1:

I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.

The way we should live in this world is first of all determined by God's work of creation. If we do not see Christ's work in the context of creation, we will fall into one of two traps. The first is that we separate faith and our daily life. We go to church on Sundays and worship God then. But we do not worship Him with our bodies, in our daily life. Our job and whatever work we do are not determined by obedience to God. We can do what we want in our daily life, as long as we worship God on Sundays for His salvation in Jesus Christ.

The other option is to limit our daily work as much as possible. We do want to serve God, and we cannot do that in our daily occupation. So we only earn so much money that we can live, and spend as much of our time as we can on propagating Christ's salvation work. As if presenting ourselves to God in our daily work is not spiritual worship.

Only the combination of creation and redemption gives us the right perspective on our daily lives. To put it more precisely, only Christ's redemptive work, seen within the framework of God's creation will give us the right perspective of our daily lives. We have to maintain that Genesis 1 and 2 record history. But this recognition requires of us that we also let our lifestyle be determined by God's institutions from the beginning.