Rivers of Blessing – Genesis 2:10-14

Genesis 2 is a zoomed-in look at the sixth day of creation, focused on man and woman’s creation.  But right at the outset Moses includes a brief discussion of the rivers that flowed of Eden, and the lands they watered, and the precious stones of these lands.  Why?

10 A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Cush. 14 And the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. (Genesis 2:10–14, ESV)

The mention of this river that flows out of Eden to water the garden God placed there has been the source of much discussion and debate by commentators.  The Tigris and Euphrates Rivers we recognize, but it is hard to identify the Pishon and Gihon Rivers.  It is difficult to recognize the land of Havilah, and even though it would seem we know where Cush is, most do not think it refers to the Cush of Africa.

Two rival perspectives on the interpretation of Genesis with regard to creation, Answers in Genesis (Ken Ham) and Reasons to Believe (Hugh Ross), have had a bit of a knock-down over it, the former accusing the latter of distorting Scripture in his description of this passage:

In my book Navigating Genesis, I explained how the four great rivers described in Genesis 2 all joined together in the Garden of Eden, then split apart and emptied into the Indian Ocean. My explanation has drawn public rebukes from young-earth proponents, specifically those associated with the organization Answers in Genesis (AiG)…

In an article on AiG’s website, prominent young-earth leader Danny Faulkner argued that Genesis 2:10–14 “clearly states that the four rivers parted from a single source in Eden, not that the four rivers flowed together in Eden. Here Ross has freely reversed the statement of Genesis 2:10 to fit his selection for Eden’s location being in the Persian Gulf.”1 Faulkner concluded, “My early accusations and those here against Ross are damning.”

Ross retorts:

The Bible mentions Asshur and Cush many times and Genesis 2:11–12 supplies identifying details about the land of Havilah. These three locations are separated from one another by many hundreds of miles; therefore, the source for all four rivers cannot reside in the same location. It makes sense, then, to claim that the four rivers flowed into Eden from three widely separated geographical regions, joined together to become one river within the Garden of Eden, and thence divided into separate rivers to empty into the Indian Ocean.

Ross’s explanation may be a little too easy, but it is certainly not a distortion.  It is tenuous at best to conclude that we know where these rivers came from and went to.  The Answers in Genesis view that they have been completely rearranged by the flood does not make sense, because Moses is mentioning them to his readers as if they know what rivers he is talking about and he is writing after the flood.  It will have to remain a bit of mystery.

But the question remains, why did Moses want readers to know this.  And the answer seems to be that Moses wanted to show that the river that brought prosperity to the garden also brought prosperity to the regions it flowed into.  It is not as critical to know the exact details of the rivers as it is to know that the garden was a blessed place that exuded blessing to the areas around it.  This is where God chose to put Adam and Eve and is what makes the disobedience we will see in chapter 3 all the more unjustifiable.