And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field ... and every fowl of the air, [Hebrew, chayat (H2416) hasaadeh (H7704), "beast of the field" - i:e., domestic-as distinguished from chayat (H2416) haa'aarets (H776), "beast of the earth (Genesis 1:25) - i:e., wild animals; `owp (H5775) hashaamayim (H8064), fowl of the heavens-referring to the class of animals with which the first man was brought into most frequent and familiar observation.] Many have thought the course of the narrative interrupted here by the introduction of strangely irrelevant matter; but it is characteristic of the Semitic style of historical writing to make frequent recapitulations; and hence, Moses, instead of running off at a tangent, as has been said, to a new and totally different subject, the moment after he had announced that God was about to provide man with a companion, is proceeding in the most direct manner to describe the circumstances, when he reminds his readers that "out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air." These were the instruments by which Adam was to be led, as it were, step by step to a knowledge of his wants-from a sight of the creatures already formed to an idea of the creature that was necessary to be formed; and nothing was more natural, indeed more necessary for the right understanding of the story, than to preface it by the statement that the creatures brought to Adam were actually living in the world and "formed out of the ground." But it is only the reiteration of a fact formerly recorded respecting the creation of the beasts and birds-which is directly opposed to the development theory.
'They were called into being,' as Professor Sedgwick remarks, 'not by any known law of nature, but by a power above nature, and they were "formed" by that creative power.' But it has been urged against this narrative that it contradicts the cosmogony of the preceding chapter, by representing the formation of the animals as subsequent to that of man. The answer to this objection is, that a methodical and consecutive history of creation was not contemplated in this chapter, which is wholly occupied with a few explanatory details of what had been previously accomplished; [and accordingly the old versions generally rendered wayitser (H3335), 'and had formed,' taking it as a pluperfect, which it is not. But that the future with vau conversivum does not always indicate a continuation of action, and often describes an event that has previously taken place, is, as Arnold has shown, already clear from Genesis 2:8-9, with Genesis 2:15 (cf. Genesis 12:1 with 11:32; 24:30 with 29; also 21,27,24 with 23).]
Moreover, it is alleged that the account here given of the origin of birds is at variance with that contained in the first chapter, which affirms that they were made out of the water. The objection, which is one that no scholarly critic would make, is groundless; because the marginal reading, as has been already shown (see the note at Genesis 1:19), is the correct translation х `owp (H5775) yª`owpeep (H5774)] - 'let fowl fly,' or 'shall fly'-the verb being in that form of the imperative which Ewald has called the jussive; and there is absolutely no foundation for the inference that has been drawn from the English version. Besides, the creation neither of wild beasts nor fish is mentioned here.
Brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them. They were led by a secret impulse or instinct to flock around him, and it cannot be supposed that more were present than the principal animals that formed the fauna of the region in which he lived.
And whatsoever Adam called every living creature. The language in the original is pleonastic, and should be rendered, 'and whatsoever the man called them, the living creatures, that was their name.' If the names of things had always been the arbitrary signs that they are with us, it would have been altogether a useless and unmeaning ceremony to employ Adam in bestowing one on any or all the classes of the animal creation. But in the first and early ages of the world the name given to any creature was invariably significant of some characteristic quality in its nature, or of the uses to which it was destined; and hence, the work of naming the animals that were brought to him would consist in nothing more than designating by an appropriate word the leading features or properties by which each of them was distinguished. The thoughts which arose in his mind on seeing and hearing those animals he expressed by the utterance of a descriptive appellation.
Assuming the Hebrew to have been the primitive text, or an early and faithful reflector of the original, language, the nomenclature adopted by Adam was simple but expressive: - cuwc (H5483), a horse, so called from his leaping; showr (H7794) an ox or bullock, so called from his strength and boldness; keleb (H3611), a dog, from his barking; tsipowr (H6833), a bird, from its chirping, twittering, etc. Thus did the all-wise Creator, when about to provide a help-meet (suitable helper or corresponding mate) for the first man, cause him to go through a course of simple but important training, by which he was not only made sensible of the privation under which, as a social being, he laboured, but also qualified to appreciate the magnitude of the boon about to be conferred on him by the creation of woman, as well as prepared to communicate his thoughts and feelings to her through the medium of articulate language. Such was the object of this singular scene; and although such a design is not distinctly expressed, it is plainly implied (Genesis 2:20); for, while the males both of the brute and of the winged creation appeared with their respective mates, man alone appeared unprovided with a companion; and where, if he had been to seek one, could he have hoped to obtain the supply of that want? Not from the ranks of living creatures-for all of them, as he had seen, were immensely inferior to himself, capable of being his servants, not fit to be his companions. Therefore, one qualified to be on a level with him, and to afford him a society to engage his heart and affections, was not yet in existence. But the beneficent Creator who had taught him to know his want designed to supply it. To supply this want in the state of Adam became, so to speak, an object of the Creators attention soon after the formation of the man himself; and, while there was much condescension and kindness in the time, the paternal consideration of God toward man was even more conspicuously displayed in the manner of granting this accession to his comfort. For it is worthy of remark that the boon was not conferred at once and unexpectedly upon one who was totally unconscious of his solitary condition. The experience of Adam, however short, had made him painfully sensible of needs which he could not supply; and yet, conscious though he was of the absence of something indispensable to the full happiness of his life, he was able to discover what that something was. To lead him to make the discovery for himself, as the best way of bringing him acquainted with his own nature, and magnifying his sense of the value of the gift bestowed on him, was the object of the divine procedure in the singular scene which was forthwith enacted.