010142《Expository Notes on the Whole Bible - Genesis》(Thomas Constable)
.doc
School
Dalian American International School**We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
ENG 13
Subject
Religion
Date
Jan 10, 2025
Pages
290
Uploaded by CorporalRabbit4868
《Expository Notes on the WholeBible – Genesis》(Thomas Constable)CommentatorDr. Thomas Constable graduated from Moody Bible Institute in 1960 and later graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary.Dr. Constable is the founder of Dallas Seminary's Field Education department (1970) and the Center for Biblical Studies (1973), both of which he directed for many years before assuming other responsibilities.Today Dr. Constable maintains an active academic, pulpit supply, and conference-speaking ministry around the world. He has ministered in nearly three dozen countries and written commentaries on every book of the Bible.Dr. Constable also founded Plano Bible Chapel, pastored it for twelve years, and has served as one of its elders for over thirty years.01 Chapter 1 Verse 11. An initial statement of creation 1:1There are three major views concerning the relationship of Genesis 1:1to the rest of the creation account.1. Genesis 1:1describes an original creation of the universe. God began fashioning the earth as we know it in Genesis 1:2or Genesis 1:3. This view may or may not involve a gap in time between Genesis 1:1-2. [Note: Advocates of this view include Kidner; C. F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: Pentateuch, vol. 1; G. H. Pember, Earth's Earliest Ages and Their Connection with Modern Spiritualism and Theosophy; Thomas Chalmers, Posthumous Works of the Rev. Thomas Chalmers, vol. 1; Arthur Custance, Without Form and Void; et al.] Some advocates of this view believe that the original creation became chaotic as a result of divine judgment. More information on this theory follows in my comments on Genesis 1:2.
2. Genesis 1:1describes part of what God did on the first day of creation (Genesis 1:1-5). It is a general statement followed by specific details. [Note: Martin Luther, Commentary on Genesis; Wenham; John Davis, From Paradise to Prison; et al.] 3. Genesis 1:1describes what God did on all six days of creation (Genesis1:2-31). It is a topic sentence that introduces the whole creation account that follows. [Note: George Bush, Notes on Genesis; Edward J. Young, Studies in Genesis One; Bruce K. Waltke, Creation and Chaos; idem, Genesis; Ross; Hamilton; et al.] I prefer this view.The "beginning" is the beginning of the creation of the cosmos, not the beginning of all things (cf. Mark 1:1; John 1:1). This appears to be clear from the context. Genesis has been called "the book of beginnings" because it records the beginning of so many things. Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe it as a book of foundations.The Hebrew word translated "God" ('elohim) is a plural noun. The plurality simply adds intensification to the name El, as does the personal pronoun "us" in Genesis 1:26. Hebrew is the only ancient Semitic language that intensifies nouns and pronouns by making them plurals. The writers of Scripture used 'elohimas a title of honor. Though it is a plural in form, it is singular in meaning when referring to the true God. This name represents the Creator's transcendent relationship to His creation."The Hebrew word translated 'God' ('elohim) may be used as a plural noun and be translated 'gods.' But when this word is used of true God, then it is not a plural but is an intensified noun, exhausting the meaning of the underlying root ('alah) which means 'to be powerful.' He 'us.' When used of God, this is not really a plural (despite the common translation); it is a similar intensification of the pronoun which describes God." [Note: E-mail from Ronald B. Allen, August 31, 2006.] The "heavens and earth" refer to the universe as we know it (i.e., the sky above with all that is in it and the earth below). There is no one word in Hebrew for "universe." This is a figure of speech (merism) for totality; God created everything. The translators often rendered the Hebrew word 'eres(earth) as "land." By translating it this way here we can see that Moses wanted his readers to realize that God created and therefore owned all land (cf. Genesis 12:7and all subsequent references to the Promised Land; Psalms 24:1). [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 19.]
This verse is important because it contradicts six popular philosophies:1. Atheism-God does exist.2. Pantheism-God is distinct from His creation.3. Polytheism-"Created" is singular in the text. An obvious difference between the biblical account of creation and those of other ancient Near Eastern cultures is that the biblical account is monotheistic.4. Radical materialism (matter is eternal)-Matter had a supernatural origin (emphasis on origin).5. Naturalism (evolutionism)-Creation took place when someone outside nature intervened (emphasis on process).6. Fatalism-A personal God freely chose to create.God created the universe from nothing (Latin ex nihilo). While the text does not state this fact per se, the reader can deduce it from the following evidence. The phrase "in the beginning" implies it, as do the Hebrew word for "create" (bara) and the expression "formless and void." New Testament passages also support this conclusion (e.g., John 1:3; Romans 4:17; and Hebrews 11:3). [Note: See Jack Cottrell, "The Doctrine of Creation from Nothing," The Seminary Review 29:4 (December 1983):157-75.] The emphasis in this verse is on the origin of the universe. God created it. [Note: Walter C. Kaiser Jr.'s article, "The Literary Form of Genesis 1-11," in New Perspectives on the Old Testament, pp. 48-65, is of great value in understanding and responding to the major critical attacks on Genesis 1-11.] He alone is eternal, and everything else owes its origin and existence to Him. [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 20.] Verses 1-3A. The story of creation 1:1-2:3God created the entire universe and then formed and filled it in six days. He brought order and fullness for humankind to enjoy and to rule over. He then blessed and set apart the seventh day as a memorial of His creative work. [Note: Ross, Creation and Blessing, has influenced this and subsequent introductory and concluding summaries of the major sections of the text, though I have not always footnoted his views, as I have done here.] The God of Israel, the deliverer of His people, is the creator of all that exists.". . . Genesis 1:1to Genesis 2:4a is clearly recognizable as a unit of historical narrative. It has an introduction (Genesis 1:1), a body (Genesis 1:2to Genesis 2:3) and a conclusion (Genesis 2:4a)." [Note: John H. Sailhamer,
"Exegetical Notes: Genesis 1:1-2:4a," Trinity Journal 5 NS (Spring 1984):74. This article outlines some principles to use in finding the writer's intent and purpose in selecting the events he chose to record in historical narratives. It provides an excellent introduction to the interpretation of historical narrative. ] Historical narrative is one of several biblical types of literature (French genre). Other genreinclude genealogy, poetry, epistolary, and apocalyptic. [Note: See Steven D. Mathewson, "Guidelines for Understanding and Proclaiming Old Testament Narratives," Bibliotheca Sacra 154:616 (October-December 1997):410-35, for help in preaching narrative portions of the Old Testament.] "Genre is of crucial importance, since the reader's identification of a text's genre directs his or her reading strategy ..." [Note: Longman and Dillard, p. 29. See ibid., pp. 29-31, for clarification of genre.] "For the most part, its [the Old Testament's] contents may be described under two rubrics: stories and poems." [Note: Ibid., p. 25.] "The creation account is theocentric, not creature centered. Its purpose is to glorify the Creator by magnifying him through the majesty of the created order. The passage is doxological as well as didactic, hymnic as well as history. 'God' is the grammaticalsubject of the first sentence (Genesis 1:1) and continues as the thematicsubject throughout the account." [Note: Mathews, p. 113.] "The prose narratives of the Old Testament are multifunctional. Most intend to impart historically accurate information while leading the reader to a deeper theological understanding of the nature of God and his relationship with his people." [Note: Longman and Dillard, p. 34.] Verses 1-26I. PRIMEVAL EVENTS 1:1-11:26Chapters 1-11 provide an introduction to the Book of Genesis, the Pentateuch, and the whole Bible."What we find in chaps. 1-11 is the divine initiation of blessing, which is compromised by human sin followed by gracious preservation of the promise: blessing-sin-grace." [Note: Mathews, p. 60.] "His [Moses'] theological perspective can be summarized in two points. First, the author intends to draw a line connecting the God of the Fathers and the God of the Sinai covenant with the God who created the world. Second, the author intends to show that the call of the patriarchs and the Sinai covenant
have as their ultimate goal the reestablishment of God's original purpose in Creation." [Note: Sailhamer, p. 19. Cf. Mathews, p. 77.] "Evidently an interest in the way in which the world and humankind came into existence and in the history of the earliest times was characteristic of the ancient civilized world. At any rate, various 'origin stories' or 'creation myths' about the activities of a variety of creator-gods are still extant in what remains of the literatures of ancient Egypt and ancient Mesopotamia. But the combination of such accounts with narratives about more recent times testifies to an additional motivation. The aim of such works was to give their readers-or to strengthen-a sense of national or ethnic identity, particularly at a time when there was for some reason a degree of uncertainty or hesitation about this...."The placing of Genesis 1-11 as a prologue to the main body of the work also afforded the opportunity to express certain distinctively Israelite articles of faith which it would have been more difficult to introduce into the later narratives, particularly with regard to the doctrine of God." [Note: Whybray, pp. 36-37. See Gordon H. Johnston, "Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths," Bibliotheca Sacra 165:658 (April-June 2008):178-94.] "Genesis 1-11 as we read it is a commentary, often highly critical, on ideas current in the ancient world about the natural and supernatural world. Both individual stories as well as the final completed work seem to be a polemic against many of the commonly received notions about the gods and man. But the clear polemical thrust of Genesis 1-11 must not obscure the fact that at certain points biblical and extrabiblical thought are in clear agreement. Indeed Genesis and the ancient Near East probably have more in common with each other than either has with modern secular thought." [Note: Wenham, p. xlvii.] Verse 22. Conditions at the time of creation 1:2Genesis 1:2probably describes what we now call the earth before God created it. Here "earth" refers to the whole planet, though the same English word also refers to the earth and the heavens (when combined with "heaven," Genesis1:1), and to dry land (Genesis 1:10).". . . no clear biblical text testifies to the origins of chaos or of the Serpent, nor to the reason for their existence." [Note: Bruce K. Waltke, An Old Testament Theology, p. 181.]
"Deep" (tahom) describes the world. In the Old Testament tahomrefers to the ocean, which the ancient world regarded as symbolic of chaos and evil that needed overcoming and which Yahweh overcame. However its use in the Pentateuch helps us understand the writer's intent in using this term here.". . . he calls the global ocean (the 'deep') in Genesis 1:2a 'desert.' This is not apparent in the English translation 'formless,' but the NASB notes it in the margin as a 'wasteland.'... Moses uses this term (Deuteronomy 32:10) to describe the desert wasteland where Israel wandered for forty years. Why call an ocean a desert? What better way to teach the people that the God who will lead them out of the wildernessand give them the promised landis the same God who once prepared the landfor them by dividing the watersand producing the 'dry land'? The God of the Pentateuch is One who leads his people from the wasteland to the promised land." [Note: Sailhamer, "Exegetical Notes . . .," pp. 80-81.] Some scholars believe that references to the Spirit of God in the Old Testament indicate the power or influence of God, not the third person of the Trinity. Some conservative scholars believe that, though the Spirit was really the third person of the Trinity, people living during the Old Testament period did not associate the Spirit with God Himself. They thought of the Spirit as a power or influence of God. However there are several indications in the Old Testament that informed Israelites identified the Spirit as God (cf. Genesis 1:2; 2 Kings 2:9; Psalms104:30; Ezekiel 3:12-14; Ezekiel 11:1; Zechariah 4:6). [Note: See Leon J. Wood, The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, and idem, The Prophets of Israel, pp. 85-87.] "Waters" is also capable of being interpreted the same way as "deep." It probably refers to what covered the earth, but it also suggests chaos.Here we learn that the earth was "formless and empty" (a hendiadys meaning unorganized, unproductive, and uninhabited) before God graciously prepared it for human habitation (cf. Jeremiah 4:23-27). A hendiadys is a figure of speech in which the writer expresses a single complex idea by joining two substantives with "and" rather than by using an adjective and a substantive.Moses pictured the Spirit as a wind-the words are identical in Hebrew-moving over the unorganized creation. As God did His work of creating by means of His Spirit, so believers are to do our work by His Spirit (Zechariah 4:6; Romans 8; Ephesians 5:18).
"Hitherto all is static, lifeless, immobile. Motion, which is the essential element in change, originates with God's dynamic presence." [Note: Nahum Sarna, Understanding Genesis, p. 7.] Genesis 1:2seems to me to describe conditions that existed before God created the earth. Whereas Genesis 1:1explains the creation of the universe, Genesis1:2pictures its pre-creation condition. Genesis 1:3-31explain the process of creation by which God formed what was formless and filled what was void.There are two basic theories of the creation process that have grown out of interpretations of Genesis 1:2.The gap theoryStatement: The classicstatement of this theory contains the following ideas, though there have been many variations on this theory.1. There is an indefinite time gap (hence the name of the theory) between Genesis 1:1and Genesis 1:2.2. Genesis 1:1reveals the creation of a perfect heaven and earth very different from what we see around us now.3. A preadamic race of humans inhabited this original creation.4. Lucifer (unfallen Satan), whose "headquarters" was in the Garden of Eden, ruled over this race of people.5. When Lucifer rebelled-many advocates see this in Isaiah 14 and or Ezekiel 28 -sin entered the world.6. Part of God's judgment of this rebellion was the destruction of the earth with a flood (in Noah's day) followed by a global ice age, which accounts for the fossils. [Note: For a creationist explanation of the ice ages, see Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Wieland, The Answers Book, pp. 12-13, 77-87.] History:This is a very old theory that certain early Jewish writers and some church fathers held. Thomas Chalmers promoted it in 1814. [Note: See his Daily Scripture Readings, 1:1.] Chalmers' purpose was to harmonize Scripture with Scripture, not Scripture with science. [Note: Waltke, Creation and . . ., p. 20.] Darwin's Origin of Speciesfirst appeared in 1859, but Chalmers published his theory in 1814. Franz Delitzsch supported it in 1899. [Note: Franz Delitzsch, A System of Biblical Psychology, p. 74-76.] G. H. Pember's book Earth's Ancient Ages(1907) gave further impetus to this view. Many Christian geologists favored the view because they saw in it "an easy explanation for the fossil strata." [Note:
John Whitcomb and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood, p. 92.] Harry Rimmer supported it [Note: Modern Science and the Genesis Record, 1941.] as did Arthur W. Pink. [Note: Gleanings in Genesis, 1922 ] L. S. Chafer held it [Note: Systematic Theology, 1947-48, 6:67.] but did not emphasize it. Arthur Custance is one writer who has defended it fairly recently. [Note: Without Form and Void, 1970.] Arguments and Responses:1. The first word in Genesis 1:2(Heb. waw, "and") is a conjunction that indicates consecutive occurrences. (This verbal form, by the way, is the basic characteristic of narrative in the Hebrew Bible. [Note: Longman and Dillard, p. 54.] ) It introduces something that happened after what precedes. Response. The verb tense and word order in this sentence do not permit this use of this conjunction (Genesis 1:1-2). Rather here, as is normal, the conjunction indicates a break in the consecutive order of events and introduces a circumstantial (independent) clause (Genesis 1:2) that describes something in a preceding clause (Genesis 1:1). This is a wawdisjunctive, not a wawconsecutive. A better translation of the waw would be "now." In short, the Hebrew grammar does not support a chronological gap between Genesis 1:1-2.2. The verb (hayata, "was") can and should read "became." The translators have rendered it this way in many other places in the Old Testament. Response. This is a legitimate translation, but "became" is not always the best translation (cf. Jonah 3:3; Zechariah 3:3). Here the translation should be "was."3. The chaos (tohu wa bohu, "waste and void," perhaps another hendiadys) describes an evil condition (cf. Isaiah 24:1; Isaiah 45:18; Jeremiah 4:23). Response. This is usually the case, but not always (cf. Deuteronomy32:10; Job 6:18; Job 12:24; Job 26:7; Psalms 107:40). It is not so here.4. "Darkness" is a symbol of evil in Scripture (cf. 1 John 1:5). This supports the badness of the condition that resulted from Satan's rebellion. Response. This is true in some cases, but not always (cf. Psalms 104:19-24). Furthermore evening was part of the days God declared good.5. The two primary words for "create" (baraand asahused respectively in Genesis 1:1and Genesis 1:25) refer to two different kinds of creativity. Barausually refers to primary creative activity. Since Moses used barain Genesis 1:1this was the original creation and not just a general
description of the process that follows (in Genesis 1:3-5or Genesis 1:3-31). If Genesis 1:1was a general description he would have used asah since some of what God created in the six days He formed out of previously existing material (e.g., man and woman). Response. These two words are not so distinct. For example, Moses used baraof the creation of man out of previously existing material (Genesis 1:27), and he used asahof the whole creation as the primary creative activity of God (Exodus 20:11). Furthermore, he used baraof the creation of some animals (Genesis 1:21) and asahof the creation of other animals (Genesis1:25). The real difference between these two words is that Moses used baraonly of divine activity, and he used asahof both divine and human activities. [Note: See Thomas J. Finley, "Dimensions of the Hebrew Word for 'Create' (bara)," Bibliotheca Sacra 148:592 (October-December 1991):409-23.] Thus, baraand asahare very close together in meaning. We should not distinguish them on the basis of baradescribing primary creative activity and asahreferring to the reforming of previously existing material.6. Adam was to "replenish" the earth (Genesis 1:28, AV) implying a previous race. Response. The Hebrew word used means "fill," not "refill." Many modern English translations so render it.Summary:Though many evangelicals still hold the gap theory, few Hebrew scholars do because the Hebrew grammar does not favor a chronologically sequential reading of Genesis 1:1-2. Rather, Genesis 1:2in some way clarifies Genesis 1:1. [Note: For a good explanation of the gap theory, as well as the atheistic evolution, theistic evolution, progressive creation, and fiat creation views, see James M. Boice, Genesis , 1:37-68. See also Henry M. Morris, "The Gap Theory," Creation Ex Nihilo 10:1 (December 1987-February 1988):35-37; and Ham, et al., pp. 16, 157-75.] The no-gap theoryThe crux of the Genesis 1:2interpretive problem lies in the identification of the chaos (tohu wa bohu, "formless and void") mentioned. There have been three primary views concerning the chaos referred to in this verse.1. The chaos was a condition that resulted afterGod judged the earth that He had originally created good. [Note: Chalmers, Keil and Delitzsch, Pember, Scofield, Custance, et al., favored this interpretation.]
Explanation: Genesis 1:1refers to God's original creation of the universe. Genesis 1:2is a reference to the form He gave it thereafter. Genesis 1:3refers to the beginning of the process of reforming the judged earth into the form in which we know it.Vocabulary: We should translate the first word in the verse (waw) "and" or "then" (not preferable grammatically) and the verb (hayeta) "became" (possible but not preferable). We should interpret the chaos (tohu wa bohu) as an evil condition (not necessarily so).Sequence: This interpretation permits, but does not require, a gap in time between Genesis 1:1and Genesis 1:2.2. The chaos was the condition that characterized the earth whenGod created it good. [Note: Luther; Young; Davis; Ross; J. Dwight Pentecost, Thy Kingdom Come, p. 29; Mark F. Rooker, "Genesis 1:1-3: Creation or Re-Creation?" Bibliotheca Sacra 149:595 (July-September 1992):316-23; and 596 (October-December 1992):411-27; Targum Neofiti; et al.; favored this view. See Gary Anderson, "The Interpretation of Genesis l:1 in the Targums," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52:1 (January 1990):23. The Targums are expanded translations of the Old Testament made during the Babylonian captivity in the Aramaic language.] Explanation: Genesis 1:1states the creation of the universe as we know it, and it is a general statement of some kind. Genesis 1:2describes the earth at the time of its creation. Genesis 1:3describes God bringing order out of chaos, which continued through the six creative days.Vocabulary: We should translate waw"now" (better) and hayeta"was" (also better). We should also take tohu wa bohuto mean either unformed or evil.Sequence: This interpretation involves no gap in time between Genesis 1:1and Genesis 1:2.3. The chaos existed beforeGod began creating the earth good. [Note: Bush; Waltke, Creation and . . .; idem, Genesis; Ross; Sailhamer, "Genesis;" et al.; advocated this view.] Explanation: We should take Genesis 1:1the same as in view 2. Genesis 1:2describes conditions as they existed before creation. We should also take Genesis 1:3the same as in view 2.Vocabulary: Advocates translate and interpret the key Hebrew words the same as in view 2.
Sequence: This interpretation involves no gap in time between Genesis 1:1and Genesis 1:2.". . . the disjuncture at Genesis 1:2is employed by the author to focus his creation account upon the land." [Note: Sailhamer, "Exegetical Notes . . .," p. 77.] The more popular theory among evangelicals now is the no-gap theory in either one of the last two forms described above. Let me restate these last two views.1. View 2 above: God created the earth in a formless and void state. He then proceeded to give it form and to fill it. [Note: Young, et al.] "We would affirm that the first verse serves as a broad comprehensive statement of the fact of creation. Verse two describes the earth as it came from the hands of the Creator and as it existed at the time when God commanded the light to shine forth. The first recorded step in the process of fashioning the earth into the form in which it now appears was God's remarkable utterance, 'Let there be light' [Genesis 1:3]." [Note: Ibid., p. 14.] Problem: It seems unusual that God would create the earth formless and then form it. It seems more likely and consistent with His activity in Genesis 1:3-31that He would create it fully formed. [Note: Brevard S. Childs, Myth and Reality in the Old Testament, p. 30.] Answer: The whole process of creation in Genesis 1:3-31is a movement from a more primitive to a more advanced stage of existence. I prefer this view.2. View 3 above: Before God created the earth there was nothing where it now exists, and Genesis 1:2describes that nothingness. [Note: Waltke, et al.] Problem: Some terms in Genesis 1:2(darkness, surface, deep, waters) imply that something existed at this time, suggesting some creative activity before Genesis 1:3.Answers: Genesis 1:1may be part of the first day of creation. Moses may have used these terms to describe, in terms that we can begin to understand (i.e., figurative terms), a condition that is entirely foreign and incomprehensible to us.Verse 3The world came into being by God's word (cf. Psalms 33:9; Hebrews 11:3). Each of the six creative days began with God speaking. God's ten pronouncements in this chapter anticipate His ten commandments at Mt. Sinai (Exodus 20:2-17). All but one of Jesus Christ's miracles occurred immediately after He spoke. The exception occurs in Luke 8:25when He laid His hands on a blind man. Jesus
Christ, the Word of God, was the Creator (John 1:3). The theme of God's word (spoken, written, or incarnate) continues through the Bible. His word is consistently powerful, as here. Fiat(the Latin word for "Let there be") creation means creation that came into being by God's word."The idea of creation by the word preserves first of all the most radical essential distinction between Creator and creature. Creation cannot be even remotely considered an emanation from God ... but is rather a product of his personal will." [Note: Gerhard von Rad, Genesis, pp. 51-52.] The "light" might not have been sunlight (cf. Genesis 1:14). Perhaps it came from a source fixed at a distance from the earth such as the shekinah, the light that manifests God's glory (cf. Revelation 22:5). [Note: Hamilton, p. 121.] Perhaps God created the sun on the first day, but it became visible on the fourth day. [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 26.] A third view is that God created the sun, moon, and stars on the first day and assigned them their specific functions on the fourth day (cf. Genesis 1:14-18). [Note: Ibid., pp. 33-34.] Verses 3-5The first day 1:3-5Verses 3-313. The six days of creation 1:3-31Cosmic order consists of clearly demarcating the various elements of the universe. God divided light and darkness, waters and dry land, the world above from the world below. Likewise people should maintain the other divisions in the universe. [Note: See Mathews, p. 124.] In three "days" God made the uninhabitable earth productive, and in three more "days" He filled the uninhabited earth with life. The process of creation, as Moses described it, typically follows this pattern for each day of creation: announcement, commandment, separation, report, naming, evaluation, and chronological framework. [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 56.] One writer sought to retain six literal days of creation and to harmonize them with an old age earth model, allowing a long period of time (possibly billions of years) between Genesis 1:2-3. [Note: Gorman Gray, The Age of the Universe: What Are the Biblical Limits?] However, this explanation does violence to the Hebrew text. [Note: For a critique of this book, see Douglas C. Bozzung, "An Evaluation of the Biosphere Model of Genesis 1," Bibliotheca Sacra 162:648 (October-December 2005):406-23.] Verse 4
Darkness was not a creation like light but the absence of light (cf. Genesis 1:2). Darkness (Heb. hosek) in Scripture often connotes evil (cf. Exodus 10:21-23; 1Samuel 2:9; Job 3:4-5; Psalms 35:6; Joel 2:2).Moses presented God as knowing what was good for man (wise) and as providing that for him (loving). This not only reveals aspects of the Creator's character, but it also prepares the reader for the tragedy of the Fall (ch. 3).Verse 5God named things as well as creating them. Having a name equals having existence, in biblical thought, and the act of giving a name meant the exercise of a sovereign right (cf. Genesis 41:45; 2 Kings 24:17; Daniel 1:7). In this chapter naming or blessing follows some act of creation seven times. The Hebrews regarded the number seven as connoting a complete, divine act, as will become clear later.The terms day, night, evening, and morning imply the beginning of the earth's rotation on the first day. [Note: See my further comments on 2:3.] The use of the Hebrew word 'ehad("one" day, cf. "second day," "third day," etc.) as an ordinal number also supports this view. [Note: See Andrew E. Steinmann, "'ehad as an Ordinal Number and the Meaning of Genesis 1:5," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45:4 (December 2002):577-84. Ordinal numbers express order (e.g., first, second, third, etc.) whereas cardinal numbers are used in counting (e.g., one, two, three, etc.).] The Jews reckoned the beginning of a day with the evening rather than the morning."A few years ago in England some Christians became excited about the Big Bang theory, thinking that it favored Christianity. But they really missed the point-either the point of Scripture or the Big Bang theory or both. The simple fact is that what is given in Genesis 1:1has no relationship to the Big Bang theory-because from the scriptural viewpoint, the primal creation goes back beyond the basic material or energy. We have a new thing created by God out of nothing [Lat. ex nihilo] by fiat, and this is the distinction." [Note: Frances Schaeffer, Genesis in Time and Space, pp. 28-29.] Nevertheless, though it is not the same, "The Big Bang theory sounds very much like the story that the Old Testament has been telling a long time." [Note: Lance Morrow, Time (Feb. 5, 1979), p. 149.]
From the beginning God made divisions. He later divided the clean from the unclean, the holy from the profane, the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies, and Israel from the nations. This shows His sovereignty (i.e., ultimate authority).Verse 6The "expanse" refers to the heavenly vault above the earth. Moses called it the "firmament" (AV) or "sky" (NIV). God placed the sun, moon, and stars in it (Genesis 1:16-17). The ancients grouped the stars and planets together referring to the former as fixed stars and the latter as wandering stars (cf. Judges 1:13).Verses 6-8The second day 1:6-8Verse 7God separated the waters so some of them remained on the earth and some were above the earth in the atmosphere. Before He made this division there may have been a dense fog over the whole surface of the earth. [Note: See my comments on the "canopy theory" at 2:4-6.] Verse 8"Heaven" is the same as the "expanse." Moses used it here as a general term to describe everything above the earth from man's viewpoint (Genesis 1:8).Verse 9"Seas" (Heb. yammim) probably refers broadly to all bodies of water, not just oceans.Verses 9-13The third day 1:9-13Verse 10"Good" indicates beauty as well as purpose and order. [Note: See von Rad, p. 50.] It was only when the land was ready for man that God called it good. This shows God's loving concern for human beings. It was good for people. A good God provided a good land for good people.The separation of water from the land so that man could enjoy the land prepares us for the stories of the Flood (chs. 6-9) and the Red Sea crossing (Exodus 14-15). God later used the waters as His instrument to judge those who opposed His will. The waters were an obstacle to man's enjoying the land, so God removed them from the land.Verse 11Since God created plants with seeds in them, the original creation evidently had the appearance of age. He created trees with rings and Adam an adult. [Note:
See Whitcomb and Morris, pp. 232-39.] Why did Moses mention only shrubs and trees that bear seeds and fruits? Perhaps he did so because these are the ones that provide food for man. He created others, of course, but Moses was stressing God's care for humans.Some feminists have restricted the use of "man" to males, but this is not the primary meaning of the English word. Its primary meaning is "human being" or "human race," according to the standard Oxford dictionaries. Likewise "mankind" normally means "the human race" or "humanity" unless it is in contrast to "womankind." The Hebrew word adamalso has a broad range of meaning, from "the human race" to "Adam." Consequently I have used these English words trusting that the reader will interpret them in harmony with their customary meanings.Verse 12"Kind" (Heb. min) is not a biologically exact term. It indicates that God created several different families of plants as separate acts of creation (cf. Genesis 1:21; Genesis 1:24-25; Genesis 6:20; Genesis 7:14; Leviticus 11:14-29; Deuteronomy14:13-18). All plants, therefore, did not evolve from one. Creationists generally affirm microevolution (the development of different varieties of plants and animals through crossbreeding) but deny macroevolution (the development of all plants from one plant, animals from plants, and humans from animals)."With the conclusion of the third day yet another color is added to God's cosmos. To the basic white and black of day and night has been added the blue of sky and sea. Now the canvas is adorned with green. The golden-yellow sun and the reddish human being will complete this rainbow of colors." [Note: Hamilton, p. 126.] Note that on the first and second days God did one work each day. He created light and the firmament. On the third day He did two works. He created the land and vegetation. Similarly, on the fourth and fifth days God did one work. He created the lights' functions on the fourth day and the birds and fish on the fifth day. Then on the sixth day He again did two works. He created the land animals and man. [Note: Ibid., p. 125.] On the first three days He gave form to what was formless, and on the last three days He filled what was void."Both vegetation and humanity, symbolizing the fertility of life, were considered pinnacles of creation in the ancient Near East. The first triad [of days] ends climactically with the creation of vegetation; the second, the creation of humanity." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 36.]
Verses 14-19The fourth day 1:14-19The luminaries served four purposes.1. They distinguished day from night.2. They provided signs.3. They distinguished the seasons.4. They illuminated the earth."The narrative stresses their function as servants, subordinate to the interests of the earth....This differs significantly from the superstitious belief within pagan religion that the earth's destiny is dictated by the course of the stars." [Note: Mathews, p. 154.] "Here is a stern warning for our times for any who would seek the stars in charting their lives." [Note: Ibid., p. 155.] "The term 'signs' has been given special attention by the author elsewhere in the Pentateuch. For example, the so-called 'plagues' of Egypt are, in fact, called 'signs' by the author of the Pentateuch (e.g., Deuteronomy 29:2-3). The meaning given this term in the Exod account ... is that the acts of God in the bringing of disorder upon the Egyptians were 'signs' that God was more powerful and majestic than the Egyptians' gods. This sense of the term 'signs' fits well in Genesis 1:14. The author says that not only are the sun and moon to give light upon the land but they are to be visual reminders of the power and majesty of God. They are 'signs' of who the God of the covenant is. The [sic] are 'telling of the glory of God,' as the psalmist puts it (Psalms 19:1). Not only does the term 'signs' serve as a reminder of the greatness and glory of God for the author of the Pentateuch, 'signs' are also a frequent reminder in the Pentateuch of his grace and mercy (Genesis 4, 9, 17)." [Note: Sailhamer, "Exegetical Notes . . .," p. 79.] Moses did not mean that they were the signs of the zodiac or astrological signs. Why did Moses use the terms greater and lesser lights to describe the sun and moon (Genesis 1:16)? He probably did so because these Hebrew words, which are very similar in other Semitic languages, are also the names of pagan gods. [Note: Hamilton, p.127. See G. Hasel, "The Polemical Nature of the Genesis Cosmology," Evangelical Quarterly 46 (1974):81-102.] He wanted the Israelites to appreciate the fact that their God had created the entities their pagan neighbors worshipped as gods.
"This, the fourth day, is the only day on which no divine word subsequent to the fulfillment is added. On days 1-3 this divine word names the created objects (Genesis 1:5; Genesis 1:8; Genesis 1:10); on days 5-6 the creatures are blessed (Genesis 1:22; Genesis 1:28). The omission may be just elegant stylistic variation, or it may be a deliberate attempt to avoid naming 'sun' and 'moon' with their connotations of deity." [Note: Wenham, p. 23.] The Hebrew word translated "seasons" appears elsewhere in the Pentateuch. It means "appointments," but the translators have also rendered it "feasts" in Leviticus."They [the sun and moon] were not mere lights or reminders of God's glory, they were, as well, calendars for the celebration of the covenant. The world is made for the [Mosaic] covenant. Already at creation, the land was being prepared for the covenant." [Note: Sailhamer, "Exegetical Notes . . .," p. 80.] The writer's perspective throughout is geocentric rather than heliocentric. He used phenomenological language (of appearance) that is very common in the Old Testament. Even modern scientific textbooks use such language without fear of being criticized as unscientific when they refer to sunrise, sunset, etc. Perhaps God created light on the first day (Genesis 1:3), but then on the fourth day the sun, moon, and stars appeared distinctly for the first time. [Note: Idem, The Pentateuch as Narrative, p. 93.] Creationists have proposed several solutions to the problem of how light from stars that are millions of light years away could get to Adam if the universe was only days old. These explanations are too involved to discuss here, but I have included some sources for further study in the following footnote. [Note: D. Russell Humphreys, Starlight and Time, discussed five creationist models. See also Ham, et al., pp. 18, 187-95; "'Distant Starlight' Not a Problem for a Young Universe" DVD featuring Dr. Jason Lisle.] I think the best explanation is the appearance of age. As God created humans, plants, and animals fully formed, so He created the light from distant stars already visible on the earth.Verses 20-23The fifth day 1:20-23"Great sea monsters" (Heb. tauninim, Genesis 1:21) were large fish, whales, squid, and all large creatures living in the water. The pagans worshipped these, but they are under God's authority. The Old Testament writers adopted pagan imagery, but not pagan theology.
Note that Moses wrote that God created both marine animals and birds on the same "day". Evolution claims that birds evolved from reptiles and that this process took millions of years."The blessing of God is one of the great unifying themes of Genesis. God blesses animals (Genesis 1:22), mankind (Genesis 1:28), the Sabbath (Genesis 2:3), Adam (Genesis 5:2), Noah (Genesis 9:1), and frequently the patriarchs (Genesis 12:3; Genesis 17:16; Genesis 17:20, etc.). God's blessing is most obviously visible in the gift of children, as this is often coupled with 'being fruitful and multiplying.' But all aspects of life can express this blessing: crops, family, and nation (Deuteronomy 28:1-14). Where modern man talks of success, OT man talked of blessing." [Note: Wenham, p. 24.] Birds and fish rule their respective realms by multiplying. [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 63.] Verse 24-25"Creature" translates the Hebrew word nephesh, which is usually translated "soul" (e.g., Genesis 2:7). This Hebrew word and the English "soul" imply conscious life, in contrast to plants that have unconscious life. So in the sense of having conscious life, animals as well as people have souls."Cattle" refers to domesticated animals (that man could tame) and "beasts" to wild animals.What happened to the dinosaurs? Conservative Bible interpreters generally believe they existed but became extinct before the Flood or after it."Before the Flood, dinosaurs and man lived together on our planet. Extinction of the great marine reptiles, along with the majority of all other types of sea creature, would have been caused by the violent upheavals of the Flood, many being buried and preserved as fossils." [Note: Ham, et al., p. 10. See also pp. 21-39.] Verses 24-31The sixth day 1:24-31Verse 26-27"Us" is probably a plural of intensification (see my comment on Genesis 1:1above), though some regard it as a plural of self-deliberation (cf. Genesis 11:7; Psalms 2:3). [Note: E.g., Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11 : A Commentary, p. 145.] Others believe that God was addressing His heavenly court (cf. Isaiah 6:8). [Note: The NET Bible note on 1:26.] This word involves "in germ" the doctrine of the Trinity. However, we should not use it as a formal proof of the Trinity since
this reference by itself does not prove that one God exists in three persons. [Note: See Ross, Creation and . . ., p. 112; Wenham, pp. 27-27; Oswald Allis, God Spake by Moses, p. 13.] "Although the Christian Trinity cannot be derived solely from the use of the plural, a plurality within the unity of the Godhead may be derived from the passage." [Note: Mathews, p. 163.] The theological controversy in Moses' day was not between trinitarianism and unitarianism but between one self-existent, sovereign, good God and many limited, capricious, often wicked gods. [Note: Hamilton, p. 133.] "First, God's deliberation shows that he has decided to create man differently from any of the other creatures-in his image and likeness. God and man share a likenessthat is not shared by other creatures. This apparently means that a relationship of close fellowship can exist between God and man that is unlike the relationship of God with the rest of his creation. What more important fact about God and man would be necessary if the covenant at Sinai were, in fact, to be a real relationship? Remove this and the covenant is unthinkable."Secondly, in Genesis 1, man, the image bearer, is the object of God's blessing. According to the account of creation in Genesis 1, the chief purpose of God in creating man is to bless him. The impact of this point on the remainder of the Pentateuch and the author's view of Sinai is clear: through Abraham, Israel and the covenant this blessing is to be restored to all mankind." [Note: Sailhamer, "Exegetical Notes . . .," p. 80.] "Man" refers to mankind, not Adam individually (Genesis 1:27). "Them" indicates this generic significance. God created (cf. Genesis 1:1-2) mankind male and female; they did not evolve from a lower form of life (cf. Matthew 19:4; Mark10:6). Adam was not androgynous (i.e., two individuals joined physically like Siamese twins) or bisexual (i.e., one individual possessing both male and female sexual organs). There is no basis for these bizarre ideas in the text. God formed Eve from Adam's rib, not from half of his body or from his genitals."The image is found in the type of relationship that was designed to exist between male and female human beings, a relationship where the characteristics of each sex are valued and used to form a oneness in their identity and purpose. When God created human beings as male and female he formed them to exhibit a oneness in their relationship that would resemble the relationship of God and his heavenly court.
"By ruling as one, male and female fulfill the purpose of God for which they were created. United as one humanity, male and female are one with God and his heavenly court. And it is this unity between male and female, and between humanity and God, that is destroyed in the Fall described in Genesis 3." [Note: Henry F. Lazenby, "The Image of God: Masculine, Feminine, or Neuter?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30:1 (March 1987):67, 66.] As a husband and wife demonstrate oneness in their marriage they reflect the unity of the Godhead. Oneness involves being in agreement with God's will and purposes. Oneness is essential for an orchestra, an athletic team, and a construction crew, as well as a family, to achieve a common purpose. Oneness in marriage is essential if husband and wife are to fulfill God's purposes for humankind. (Generally speaking, women feel a marriage is working if they talk about it, but men feel it is working if they do not talk about it.)God created man male and female as an expression of His own plurality: "Let us make man..." God's plurality anticipated man's plurality. The human relationship between man and woman thus reflects God's own relationship with Himself. [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 38.] "Image" and "likeness" are essentially synonymous terms. Both indicate personality, moral, and spiritual qualities that God and man share (i.e., self-consciousness, God-consciousness, freedom, responsibility, speech, moral discernment, etc.) These distinguish humans from the animals, which have no God-consciousness even though they have conscious life (cf. Genesis 1:24). Some writers have called the image of God man's "spiritual personality." [Note: E.g., Keil and Delitzsch, 1:63. See Wenham, pp. 27-28; Charles Feinberg, "The Image of God," Bibliotheca Sacra 129:515 (July-September 1972):235-246, esp. p. 237; Boice, 1:77-79; Mathews, pp. 164-72.] In another sense man isthe image of God (e.g., he rules and creates [procreates] as God does, thus reflecting God). [Note: See James Jordan, "Rebellion, Tyranny, and Dominion in the Book of Genesis," Christianity and Civilization 3 (Summer 1983):38-80. See also Merrill, pp. 14-16.] The Fall obscured but did not obliterate the image of God in man. [Note: See John F. Kilner, "Humanity in God's Image: Is the Image Really Damaged?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 53:3 (September 2010):601-17.] Does the image of God in man include his body?
"Most theologians have recognized that that [sic] we cannot interpret it [i.e., the phrase 'the image of God'] literally-that is, that man's physical being is in the image of God. Such an interpretation should be rejected for at least four reasons. In the first place, we are told elsewhere that God is a spirit (John 4:24; Isaiah 31:3) and that he is ubiquitous (1 Kings 8:27). In the second place, a literal interpretation would leave us with all sorts of bizarre questions. If man's physical being is in the image of God we would immediately wonder what, if any organs, God possesses. Does he have sexual organs, and if so, which? Does he have the form of a man, or of a woman, or both? The very absurdity that God is a sexual being renders this interpretation highly unlikely. Thirdly, it seems unlikely that man's dignity above the rest of the animals (Genesis 9:5f.; James 3:7-9) is due to his slight physiological differences from them. Is it credible that animals may be killed but that man may not be killed because his stature is slightly different? Finally, a literal interpretation seems not only contradictory to the rest of Scripture, and unlikely, but also inappropriate, Gardener aptly observed: 'But our anatomy and physiology is demanded by our terrestrial habitat, and quite inappropriate to the one who inhabits eternity.' For these reasons, theologians have concluded that the statement in Genesis 1:26-28must be metaphorical of man's spiritual or immaterial nature." [Note: Bruce K. Waltke, "Reflections from the Old Testament on Abortion," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 19:1 (Winter 1976):8. His quotation is from R. F. R. Gardener, Abortion: The Personal Dilemma. See also Waltke's helpful discussion of image and likeness in Genesis, p. 65-66. For the view that the image of God includes the body, see Jonathan F. Henry, "Man in God's Image: What Does it Mean?" Journal of Dispensational Theology 12:37 (December 2008):5-24.] Genesis 1:27may be the first poem in the Bible. If so, the shift to poetry may emphasize human beings as God's image bearers. There is some disagreement among Old Testament scholars regarding what distinguishes biblical poetry from biblical prose. [Note: See Tremper Longman III, Song of Songs, pp. 9-54, for a discussion of the subject.] Verse 28Note that God's blessing of man finds expression in terms of posterity that connotes the ideas of seed and life, two prominent themes as Genesis and the whole Bible unfold. [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 38.] God's blessing enables
humanity to fulfill its twofold destiny: to procreate in spite of death and to rule in spite of enemies. "Blessing" denotes all that fosters human fertility and asists in achieving dominion. [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 67.] Interpreters have generally recognized the commands to "be fruitful and multiply" as commands to Adam and Eve (and later to Noah, Genesis 9:1) as the heads of the human race, not simply as individuals. That is, God has not charged every human being with begetting children. This seems clear from the fact that God has made many men and women incapable of reproducing. [Note: For a good book on childlessness, see Vicky Love, Childless Is Not Less.] Consequently one should not appeal to this command as a support for the theory that God wants all people to bear as many children as they possibly can. This verse is a "cultural mandate," not an individual mandate. It was to Adam and Eve as heads of the human race that God gave this command."This command, like others in Scripture, carries with it an implicit promise that God will enable man to fulfill it." [Note: Wenham, p. 33.] Sexual union is God's ordained method of implementing His command to multiply descendants. Consequently sex is essentially good. When God gave this command Adam and Eve were in an unfallen condition. Therefore the descendants they would produce would be godly. It is particularly a godly seed that God has charged the human race to raise up. Likewise He commanded Noah and his wife, who were both righteous, to be fruitful (Genesis 9:1).God did not make men or women emotionally, spiritually, or physically capable of raising children without a marriage partner. Consequently single parents struggle. As children observe both godly parents modeling a harmonious marriage they learn to appreciate their own sexual identity, the roles of husband and wife, and unconditional love. Unconditional love is necessary for a harmonious marriage."Subdue" and "rule," the second aspect of this mandate, imply a degree of sovereignty and control that God delegated to man over nature. [Note: See Eric Sauer, King of the Earth. Cf. Hebrews 2:8-9.] This constitutes God's "Magna Charta" for all true scientific and material progress. God commanded Adam and Eve to acquire knowledge so they could master their material environment, to bring all its elements into the service of the human race."The dominion which man enjoyed in the Garden of Eden was a direct consequence of the image of God in him." [Note: Davis, p. 81.] For a married couple oneness in marriage is necessary to manage God's creation effectively.
"Our Christian proclamation of hope has antecedents in the theological soil of three divine programmatic expectations first heard in Genesis: (1) God will bless the human family with procreation and dominion (Genesis1:26-28); (2) he will achieve victory over mankind's enemy (Genesis 3:15); and (3) he will bring about both through the offspring of Abraham (Genesis12:1-3)-namely, the one man Jesus Christ." [Note: Mathews, p. 22.] We have in this verse the three essential elements of a dispensation (stewardship, household rule): a divine revelation of God's will for human conduct, consequent human responsibility, and a period of time during which God tests people as to their obedience to this responsibility. A dispensation is a period of time during which God tests man in relation to his obedience to a specific revelation of God's will. The dispensations constitute a progressive, connected revelation of God's dealings with humankind. God gave them to the whole human race or to a part of it (e.g., Israel). They are not separate ways of salvation; in each dispensation man is saved by God's grace because of the work of Jesus Christ. Before the Cross, people were saved in prospect of Christ's sacrifice, as on credit so to speak, by believing a revelation given to them by God. After the Cross, people are saved in retrospect of Christ's sacrifice, by believing the revelation that He satisfied God's just demands against sinners (1John 2:2). Whereas specific human responsibilities change as divine revelation unfolds and dispensation succeeds dispensation, people have a continuing responsibility to live in the light of previous revelation. For example, even though the dispensation of the Mosaic Law has ended, Christians are helped to discharge our responsibilities to God by being aware of what God required of the Israelites under the Law (cf. Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). The purpose of each dispensation has been to place people under a specific rule of conduct, not as a condition for salvation but to demonstrate that people always fail to live up to God's standards and so need to accept salvation that God extends to them as a gift. I believe that seven dispensations are distinguishable in Scripture. These are Innocence (Genesis 1:28), Conscience (Genesis 3:7), Human Government (Genesis 8:15), Promise (Genesis 12:1), Law (Exodus 19:1), Church (Acts 2:1), and Kingdom (Revelation 20:4).This verse marks the first dispensation: Innocence. God created man innocent, placed him in a perfect environment, subjected him to a simple test, and warned him of the consequences of disobedience. Adam did not have to sin but chose to do so. The serpent deceived Eve (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:3), but Adam sinned
deliberately (cf. 1 Timothy 2:14). This dispensation ended when God judged Adam and Eve guilty and expelled them from the Garden of Eden (Genesis3:24). Verses 29-31God gave man authority and responsibility to regulate nature and to advance civilization. Nature was to serve man, not vice versa. This does not give man the right to abuse nature, however. [Note: See Gina Hens-Piazza, "A Theology of Ecology: God's Image and the Natural World," Biblical Theology Bulletin 13:4 (October 1983):107-110.] Neither does it justify giving animals and plants the "rights" of human beings."Man is the climax of creation, and instead of man providing the gods with food, God provided the plants as food for man (Genesis 1:29)." [Note: Wenham, p. xlix.] Genesis 1:29suggests that man was originally a vegetarian. After the Flood, God told man that he could eat animals (Genesis 9:3). The animals may also have been herbivorous at first (Genesis 1:30). [Note: See Ham, et al., pp. 29-30.] Genesis 1:27-31are a general account of human creation. The more detailed account of the creation of Adam and Eve follows in Genesis 2:4-25. These two accounts do not necessarily reflect a two-document composition of the creation story, but they illustrate the writer's purpose. In chapter 1 He wanted to emphasize the creation of humankind in the larger context of the cosmic creation.There are three majorviewpoints regarding the origin of man as recorded in Genesis 1:26-31; Genesis 2:7; and Genesis 2:21-25.1. "Evolution" (both Darwinian and neo-Darwinian) asserts that all living organisms arose from a single, simple cell through a process that took millions of years. This first cell resulted from the accumulation of chemical and protein elements that came together because of unknown change factors over a long time period. This view contradicts Scripture, and it is not scientifically demonstrable. [Note: See John C. Hutchison, "Darwin's Evolutionary Theory and 19th-Century Natural Theology," Bibliotheca Sacra 152:607 (July-September 1995):334-54.] 2. "Theistic evolution" attempts to blend Scripture and scientific theories. It holds that God ordered and directed the evolutionary process. This view fails to explain specific statements in the text of Scripture adequately; it accommodates the text to scientific theory. The major problem with this view is that it is not completely true to either science or Scripture but is
inconsistent. [Note: Representative evangelicals who hold this view include Kidner; Waltke, An Old . . ., p. 202; and Edward J. Carnell, An Introduction to Christian Apologetics. See David H. Lane, "Special Creation or Evolution: No Middle Ground," Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March 1994):11-31; and idem, "Theological Problems with Theistic Evolution," Bibliotheca Sacra 151:602 (April-June 1994):155-74, for refutations of this view.] 3. "Special creation" asserts that God produced the world and all life forms through a series of supernatural acts. Some special creationists believe He did this in a relatively brief period of time. Others, such as progressive creationists, believe the creation process took thousands of years. This view gives primacy to the text of Scripture and interprets it more literally, historically, and grammatically. [Note: Representatives include Bush, Davis, Schaeffer, Young, et al. See Warren H. Johns, "Strategies for Origins," Ministry (May 1981), pp. 26-28, for good brief explanations of the evolutionary theories and eight creationist theories of origins. David L. Willis, "Creation and/or Evolution," Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 29:2 (June 1977):68-72, set forth criticisms of both creationism and evolutionism. Every Christian who accepts evolution should read Charles C. Ryrie, "The Bible and Evolution," Bibliotheca Sacra 124:493 (January-March 1967):66-78; and Kenneth A. Ham, The Lie: Evolution. See also idem, Genesis and the Decay of the Nations, for an explanation of the effects of evolutionary teaching on humanity. Jobe Martin, The Evolution of a Creationist, is also helpful.] "Progressive creationism" teaches that God created the universe in several acts of creation that time periods of indefinite duration separated. The process of evolution was at work within these eras and accounts for the development of phyla, species, etc. [Note: See Hugh N. Ross, Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy. For a critique of the claims in this book, see Mark Van Bebber and Paul S. Taylor, Creation and Time: A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross.] The following quotation distinguishes theistic evolution from progressive creationism."I do not believe in theistic evolution. Theistic evolution means simply that God guided the evolutionary process so that it is not to be explained on a purely naturalistic basis. It assumes that all living things, including man, are biologically
descended from a common ancestor. By contrast with theistic evolution, Scripture indicates that God made different basic kinds of beings and that all existing plants and animals are not descended from a common ancestor." [Note: Russell L. Mixter, "A Letter to President Edman, March 26, 1962," Bulletin of Wheaton College (May 1962), p. 5. See also Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture; Pattle P. I. Pun, "A Theology of Progressive Creationism," Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 39:1 (March 1987):9-19); and W. I. LaSor, "Biblical Creationism," Asbury Theological Journal 42:2 (1987):7-20.] I do not believe that Scripture supports progressive creationism, as these notes will explain.02 Chapter 2 Verse 1Moses probably meant everything that existed above the earth and on the earth when he wrote "their hosts." The "host" of heaven usually refers to the stars in the Old Testament (e.g., Deuteronomy 4:19) more than the angels (e.g., 1 Kings22:19), so the sun, moon, and stars are probably in view here.Verses 1-34. The seventh day 2:1-3"Genesis 2:1-3echoes Genesis 1:1by introducing the same phrases but in reverse order: 'he created,' 'God,' 'heavens and earth' reappear as 'heavens and earth' (Genesis 2:1) 'God' (Genesis 2:2), 'created' (Genesis 2:3). This chiastic pattern brings the section to a neat close which is reinforced by the inclusion 'God created' linking Genesis 1:1and Genesis 2:3." [Note: Wenham, p. 5.] The mood of the narrative also returns to what it was in Genesis 1:1-2. Silence and calm prevail again. [Note: Michael Fishbane, Text and Texture, p. 9.] Verse 2"Seventh" comes from a Hebrew root meaning "to be full, completed, entirely made up." [Note: Bush, p. 46.] "Rested" means ceased from activity (cf. Exodus40:33). There is no implication that God felt fatigued by His creative activity and needed to rest. He simply stopped creating.Verse 3
God "blessed" the seventh day in that He set it apart as different from the other days of creation. It was a memorial of His creative work. Note the unique threefold repetition of "seventh day," highlighting its special significance.". . . according to one Babylonian tradition, the seventh, fourteenth, nineteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days of each month were regarded as unlucky: Genesis, however, declares the seventh day of every week to be holy, a day of rest consecrated to God (Genesis 2:1-3)." [Note: Wenham, pp. xlix-l.] Note that God did not command Adam to abstain from work on the Sabbath; this came later with the Mosaic Law. However, Scripture does teach the importance of periodic rest (cf. Exodus 20:8-10; Exodus 23:10-12; Leviticus 25:2; Leviticus25:4; Deuteronomy 15:1-18; Hebrews 4:1-11; et al.). Part of bearing the likeness of God involves resting as He did after completing His work. [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 39.] "In the first six days space is subdued; on the seventh, time is sanctified. This day is blessed to refresh the earth. It summons humanity to imitate the pattern of labor and rest of the King and so to confess God's lordship and their consecration to him. On this day they cease to subdue the earth." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 67.] The writers of Scripture used the Sabbath to anticipate the hope of Messianic redemption throughout the Old Testament.In the creation account the Sabbath points forward to the time when God will bring, ". . . a perfect and complete cosmos out of chaos....The weekly rest-experience of the Sabbath [under the Mosaic Law] served to epitomize the future peace and rest of the Messianic age." [Note: Samuele Bacchiocchi, "Sabbatical Typologies of Messianic Redemption," Journal for the Study of Judaism 17:2 (December 1986):155, 165.] The sabbatical and jubilee years in ancient Judaism also pointed to the liberation Messiah would provide for His people. [Note: See John F. Alexander, "Sabbath Rest," The Other Side 146 (November 1983): 8-9; and Gerhard Hasel, "The Sabbath in the Pentateuch," in The Sabbath in Scripture and History, pp. 21-43.] The structure of Genesis 1:1to Genesis 2:3bears the marks of literary artistry, as does the structure of the rest of Genesis."The correspondence of the first paragraph, Genesis 1:1-2, with Genesis 2:1-3is underlined by the number of Hebrew words in both being multiples of 7. Genesis 1:1consists of 7 words, Genesis 1:2of 14 (7 x 2) words, Genesis
2:1-3of 35 (7 x 5) words. The number seven dominates this opening chapter in a strange way, not only in the number of words in a particular section but in the number of times a specific word or phrase recurs. For example, 'God' is mentioned 35 times, 'earth' 21 times, 'heaven/firmament' 21 times, while the phrases 'and it was so' and 'God saw that it was good' occur 7 times." [Note: Wenham, p. 6.] These characteristics of repeating important words or phrases in multiples of seven and using them to bracket sections of the narrative continue throughout Genesis, though not consistently. They help the reader of the Hebrew text to identify discrete sections of the text as such.How long were the six days of creation? This is a problem because the inspired writers used "day" (Heb. yom) in various ways in the Old Testament."The simple fact is that dayin Hebrew (just as in English) is used in three separate senses: to mean (1) twenty-four hours, (2) the period of light during the twenty-four hours, and (3) an indeterminate period of time. Therefore, we must leave open the exact length of time indicated by dayin Genesis." [Note: Schaeffer, p. 57.] Moses used "day" these three ways in Genesis 1, 2 : (1) a 12-hour period of daylight (Genesis 1:5; Genesis 1:14; Genesis 1:16; Genesis 1:18), (2) a 24-hour day (Genesis 1:14), and (3) the entire seven-day period of creation (Genesis2:4). A few scholars have argued that the sequence of days is not chronologically ordered at all. [Note: E.g,. D. A. Sterchi, "Does Genesis 1 Provide a Chronological Sequence?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:4 (December 1996):529-36; and M. Throntveit, "Are the Events in the Genesis Account Set Forth in Chronological Order? No," in The Genesis Debate, pp. 36-55.] They believe that Moses numbered the days on the basis of content rather than sequence in time. This view has not enjoyed wide acceptance. Other scholars believe there is some dischronologization in the text. [Note: E.g., Waltke, Genesis, pp. 75-78; and H. Blocher, In the Beginning, p. 78.] There are four major views as to the length of the days of creation.1. The literal 24-hour day theory. The normal conclusion one would most likely draw from the terminology in the text (e.g., evening, morning, day, night, etc.) is that God created the world in six 24-hour days. This view is most consistent with the principles of literal, historical, and grammatical interpretation. The fact that the number of days corresponds to the number of weekdays also favors this view. Furthermore, whenever "day"
(yom) occurs with a numeral in the Old Testament, as here, it refers to a 24-hour period. Some advocates cite Exodus 20:11as support also. [Note: See Ham, et al., pp. 13-14, 89-101.] The main problem with this view is that the activity of some days (e.g., the sixth) seems to some to require more than 24 hours. [Note: See Ross, Creation and . . ., p. 109.] 2. The day-age (or geologic day) theory. This view interprets the terminology less literally. Advocates argue that the events recorded seem to require more than 24-hour days (e.g., Genesis 2:12). They also point out that solar days may not have begun until the fourth day. Some advocates of this theory are theistic evolutionists. Others are progressive creationists. Progressive creationists generally seek to correlate the geologic ages with the six days of creation. The main problem with the day-age theory is that it interprets terms that seem to have obvious literal meaning figuratively.3. The literal days with intervening ages theory. This view regards each day as a time of completion of creative activity only. It is an attempt to take the "morning and evening" references seriously but still allow the time that seems necessary within the days (e.g., Genesis 2:12). It is a combination of the two preceding views. However, it strains the text. Also, Moses could have described this method of creation more clearly than he did if long ages interspersed the six days. Few scholars have adopted this view.4. The revelatory day theory. The least literal interpretation holds that God revealed, rather than accomplished, creation in six days. A major problem with this view is Exodus 20:11where Moses says God made, not revealed, His creation in six days. A variation of this view understands the days as "structures of a literary framework designed to illustrate the orderly nature of God's creation and to enable the covenant people to mime the Creator." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 61.] Presuppositions are extremely important in this controversy. If one believes that scientific "facts" are true, he or she may try to make the Bible fit these. On the other hand, if one believes in an inerrant Bible he or she will give priority to statements in the text. If one believes both are true, he or she will soon learn that both cannot be true. For example, the text says God created the trees before marine life (Genesis 1:11; Genesis 1:20), but most evolutionists believe that trees developed after marine life. Also, the Bible implies that marine life and birds came into existence about the same time (Genesis 1:20), but evolutionists hold
that they evolved millions of years apart. [Note: See John Klotz, Modern Science in the Christian Life, pp. 111-12.] No theory explains the conflict between biblical statements and scientific statements adequately. In the end one really comes down to the question, Do I put more confidence in what God says or in what scientists say? [Note: See Duane T. Gish, "Evolution-A Philosophy, Not a Science," Good News Broadcaster (March 1984), pp. 34-37.] One's presuppositions will also affect whether he or she interprets more or less literally.Belief in the inerrancy of Scripture does not obviate the problem of the age of the earth, however. Several evangelical scholars who are competent scientists and affirm inerrancy believe the proper interpretation of Scripture results in an old earth model of creation. [Note: E.g., Davis Young, Creation and the Flood and Christianity and the Age of the Earth; Robert Newman and Herman Eckelmann Jr., Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth; and Daniel Wonderly, God's Time-Records in Ancient Sediments; Hugh Ross.] Other equally qualified inerrantists see a young earth model in the Bible. [Note: E.g., John Klotz, Genes, Genesis, and Evolution; Robert Kofahl and Kelly Segraves, The Creation Explanation; Henry Morris, Science, Scripture and the Young Earth; John Whitcomb, The Early Earth; and John D. Morris, The Young Earth.] One writer gave biographical information about Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656), whose chronology appeared first in the 1701 edition of the AV and later in the margin of the original Scofield Reference Bible. He also gave an explanation of how Ussher arrived at his dates and a table listing the dates of the more important events in Old Testament history contained in Ussher's chronology. [Note: James Barr, "Why the World was Created in 4004 B.C.: Archbishop Ussher and Biblical Chronology," Bulletin of John Rylands University Library of Manchester 67:2 (Spring 1985):575-608.] "Clearly a difference between these positions at this precise point of the relationship between science and Scripture is clear and unmistakable. The old-earth view is built on the position that an old universe and an old earth is an established factual base. Thus the Bible at the true meaning level mustbe interpreted to show that it is not out of harmony with this fact. The young-earth model is based on the position that the scientific dataused to establish the concept of an old earth can be interpreted differently and that, strictly speaking, there is no need to defend an old earth. Thus the Bible is approached without this a prioridemand for an old earth, and the differences are markedly clear, in this writer's opinion." [Note: Frederic Howe, "The Age of
the Earth: An Appraisal of Some Current Evangelical Positions, Part 2," Bibliotheca Sacra 142:566 (April-June 1985):121. Both parts 1 and 2 of this fine article are very helpful. On the importance of having the correct concept of origins, see Ralph E. Ancil, "Is Creation More Than a Biological Model of Origins?" Creation Social Science and Humanities Review 5:2 (Winter 1982):3-13. See also Ernest Lucas, "Miracles and natural laws," Christian ARENA (September 1985):7-10.] Evangelicals who believe in a young earth normally do so because they believe that the biblical genealogies in Genesis 5, 11 are complete or very nearly complete. That is the impression the text gives. These genealogies argue for a young earth. I favor the young earth view. [Note: See Appendix 1 at the end of these notes for a summary of five popular views of Creation.] Where did the names we use for the days of the week come from? They received their names in honor of seven pagan gods whom the ancients associated with the five major planets plus the sun and moon. The names of Germanic (Teutonic) gods replaced those of some Roman gods as time passed. The early church, following Jewish custom, numbered the days of the week to avoid using the names of pagan gods (e.g., Luke 24:1; Acts 20:7). [Note: See David Malcolm, "The Seven-Day Cycle," Creation Ex Nihilo 9:2 (March 1987):32-35.] WeekdayTeutonic godRoman god/planetSundaySunMondayMoonTuesdayTiwMarsWednesdayWodenMercuryThursdayThorJupiter (Jove)FridayFriggVenusSaturdaySaturn"Though historical and scientific questions may be uppermost in our minds as we approach the text, it is doubtful whether they were in the writer's mind, and we should therefore be cautious about looking for answers to questions he was not concerned with. Genesis is primarily about God's character and his purposes for sinful mankind. Let us beware of allowing our interests to divert us from the central thrust of the book so that we miss what the LORD, our creator and redeemer, is saying to us." [Note: Wenham, p. liii.]
The main point of the story of creation (Genesis 1:1to Genesis 2:3) is that God turned chaos into an orderly, blessed, good creation by His word. The original Israelite readers of Genesis would have found encouragement in this revelation to trust God. They would have hoped in Him to transform their national life from chaos in a pagan chaotic environment (Egypt) to order and blessing in an environment He would create for them (Canaan). God's superiority over forces their pagan neighbors worshipped out of fear (gods of the darkness, the sun, moon, planets, and stars, the watery deep, etc.) would have strengthened their faith. Their God had also created them as a nation, so they could look forward to the future with confidence."This passage is significant also in the lives of Christians. Above and beyond asserting the fact of creation in much the same way it did for Israel, the passage provides an important theological lesson. The believer enters into a life of Sabbath rest from works and embarks on a life of holiness in that rest. We learn from the creation account (1) that God is a redeeming God who changes darkness to light, death to life, and chaos to blessing; (2) that God is absolutely sovereign over all life and all pagan ideas that would contend for our allegiance; and (3) that God works by His powerful Word-to create, to redeem, and to sanctify. Obedience to His powerful Word, either the written Word, or the living Word, our Savior, will transform believers into His glorious image." [Note: Ross, Creation and . . ., pp. 114-15.] Verse 4Having related the creation of the universe as we know it, God next inspired Moses to explain for his readers what became of it. Sin entered it and devastated it."The destiny of the human creation is to live in God's world, with God's other creatures, on God's terms." [Note: W. Brueggemann, Genesis, p. 40.] The Hebrew word toledotoccurs first in Genesis 2:4where it introduces the next section of the book. This Hebrew word often reads "generations," "histories," "descendants," or, as here (in the NASB and NIV), "account." The word summarizes what follows in the section and introduces what became of something, in this case the universe, or, more often, someone. The person mentioned after toledotis not usually the central figure in the section but the person who originated what follows. The toledotstatements contribute the major structural and conceptual framework for the whole Book of Genesis. [Note: Cf.
Martin Woudstra, "The Toledot of the Book of Genesis and Their Redemptive-Historical Significance," Calvin Theological Journal 5:2 (1970):188-89.] ". . . the material within each tol'dotis a microcosm of the development of the Book of Genesis itself, with the motifs of blessing and cursing playing a dominant role. Within each of the first several tol'dotis a deterioration to cursing until Genesis 12:1-12, where the message moves to the promise of blessing. From this point on there is a constant striving for the place of blessing, but still with each successive narrative there is deterioration, for Isaac and Jacob did not measure up to Abraham. Consequently at the end of Genesis the family is not in the land of blessing but in Egypt." [Note: Ross, "Genesis," p. 24.] Verses 4-17The creation of Man 2:4-17The differences between Genesis 1:1to Genesis 2:3and Genesis 2:4-25have led many literary critics of the Bible to insist that two different writers composed these sections. But the similarities between these sections argue for a common writer. [Note: See William H. Shea, "Literary Structural Parallels between Genesis 1, 2," Origins 16:2(1989):49-68.] Verses 4-241. The Garden of Eden 2:4-3:24This story has seven scenes that a change in actors, situations or activities identifies. [Note: For a different narrative analysis, see Waltke, Genesis, pp. 80-81.] Moses constructed this section of Genesis in a chiastic (palistrophic, crossing) structure to focus attention on the central scene: the Fall. The preceding scenes lead up to the Fall, and the following scenes describe its consequences. [Note: Wenham, p. 50.] AScene 1 (narrative): God is the sole actor, and man is passive (Genesis2:4-17).BScene 2 (narrative): God is the main actor, man plays a minor role, the woman and the animals are passive (Genesis 2:18-25).CScene 3 (dialogue): The snake and the woman converse (Genesis 3:1-5).DScene 4 (narrative): The man and the woman are primary (Genesis 3:6-8).C'Scene 5 (dialogue): God converses with the man and the woman (Genesis 3:9-13).
B'Scene 6 (narrative): God is the main actor, man plays a minor role, the woman and the serpent are passive (Genesis 3:14-21).A'Scene 7 (narrative): God is the sole actor, and man is passive (Genesis3:22-24).The story of the Garden of Eden begins with a second, more detailed account of the creation of humankind that Moses gave as an introduction to the Fall and its consequences."More light is shed on the relationship between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 by a consideration of a literary structure that occurs throughout the entire book of Genesis: First, less important things are dealt with rapidly, and then the things more important to the central theme of the Bible are returned to and developed more fully." [Note: Schaeffer, pp. 40-41.] Note the following contrasts between the accounts of man's creation.Genesis 1:1-2:3Genesis 2:4-25Name of GodElohim (Strong One)Yahweh (Covenant-keeping One)PurposeFacts of CreationGod's relationship with human creaturesEmphasisThe world generallyHumankind specificallyMoses identified Yahweh, the God who called Abraham (Genesis 12:1) and the God who delivered Israel from Egypt (Exodus 3:15), with Elohim, the God who created the cosmos. [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 20.] The name "Jehovah" comes from combining the vowels of the Hebrew adonay("lord") with the consonants of the Hebrew Yahweh(i.e., YHWH)."In Genesis 1 'elohim(God) refers to God's transcendence over the world, while in Genesis 2-3 yhwh(LORD) speaks of God's immanence with his elect. When the narrator combines the two names, he makes a bold assertion that the Creation God is the Lord of Israel's history. Just as God ordered creation, he orders history. All is under God's sovereign control, guaranteeing that Israel's history will end in triumph, not in tragedy." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 34.] Verses 4-26B. What became of the creation 2:4-4:26Moses described what happened to the creation by recording significant events in the Garden of Eden, the murder of Abel, and the family of Cain."The section begins with a description of the creation of Adam and Eve and traces their sin, God's curse on sin, and the expansion of sin in their
descendants. No longer at rest, mankind experienced flight and fear, making his way in the world, surviving, and developing civilization. As if in answer to the blessings of Creation, this passage supplies a threefold cursing (of Satan [Genesis 3:14], of the ground because of man [Genesis 3:17], and of Cain [Genesis 4:11])."Yet in this deteriorating life there is a token of grace (Genesis 4:15) and a ray of hope (man began to call on Yahweh)." [Note: Idem, "Genesis," p. 24.] Verse 5-6These verses describe global conditions before man's creation in terms that stress God's gracious preparation of the world for him. They are a flashback to conditions before Genesis 1:26. Moses chose terms that contrast with conditions that existed after the Fall. [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 40.] "Shrubs" were evidently not edible whereas "plants" were. Thus Moses distinguished two types of land: arable and non-arable. [Note: Wenham, p. 58.] The absence of "rain" and the presence of the "mist" have led some writers to postulate a "canopy theory." [Note: Whitcomb and Morris; Jody Dillow, The Waters Above.] According to this theory, a canopy of water vapor that watered the earth covered the earth initially. It reduced the destructive rays of the sun so that antediluvian man lived much longer, and it distributed heat more evenly over the surface of this planet. Such a water canopy covers Venus. This canopy supposedly broke up when God sent the Flood (Genesis 7:11). This is another of those theories that are impossible to prove or disprove conclusively. [Note: For a critique of this view, see Thomas Key, "Does the Canopy Theory Hold Water?" See also Stanley Rice, "Botanical and Ecological Objections to a Preflood Water Canopy," Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 37:4 (December 1985):223-29.] Verse 7"Formed" (Heb. yasar) means to shape or mold and implies that God deliberately did this with tender loving care. It describes the work of an artist (cf. Job 10:8-9)."Dust" (Heb. haadama) reflects man's lowly origin. Even though he was in God's image, man was a creature like other creatures God had made. This rules out the view that man descended from the gods, which was popular in the ancient Near East and was foundational in Egyptian cosmology. [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 41.] In Creation God raised man out of the dust to reign. [Note: See W. Brueggemann, "From Dust to Kingship," Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 84 (1972):1-18.] However in the Fall man returned to the dust by his own work (Genesis 3:19). [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 41.] The "breath of life" (Heb. nesama) was God's breath that gave Adam life, spiritual understanding (Job 32:8), and a functioning conscience (Proverbs 20:27). Adam's life came from God's breath. [Note: See Mathews, pp. 197-99.] His uniqueness consisted in his having been made in God's image. God's breath may be a synonym for His word (cf. Psalms 33:6). [Note: See Ellis R. Brotzman, "Man and the Meaning of Nephesh [Soul]," Bibliotheca Sacra 145:580 (October-December 1988):400-9.] Man, therefore, is a combination of dust and divinity. [Note: For defense of the historicity of Adam and Eve, see Waltke, Genesis, p. 80, n. 2.] Verses 8-15The modern equivalent of the Pishon River is unknown for certain. Commentators have suggested that it was the Indus, the Ganges, a river of Arabia, or a river of Mesopotamia. The land of Havilah seems to have been in southwestern Arabia (cf. Genesis 25:18). The Gihon may be the preflood Nile since Cush in the Old Testament usually describes modern Ethiopia (cf. Genesis10:6-8; Numbers 12:1; 2 Samuel 18:19-33; 2 Kings 19:9; 2 Chronicles 14:9-15; Isaiah 37:9; Jeremiah 13:23; Jeremiah 38-39). [Note: See J. Daniel Hays, "The Cushites: A Black Nation in Ancient History," Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (July-September 1996):270-80; and idem, "The Cushites: A Black Nation in the Bible," Bibliotheca Sacra 153:612 (October-December 1996):396-409.] However some interpreters believe this site was in the land of the Cassites east of Mesopotamia. [Note: E.g., Ross, "Genesis," p. 31.] The Tigris and Euphrates are now in Babylonia. Eden (meaning delight, pleasure, or perhaps place of abundant waters) therefore appears to have lain in the general area of the Promised Land (Genesis 2:11-14; cf. Isaiah 51:3; Ezekiel 36:35; Joel 2:3; Zechariah 14:8; Revelation 22:1-2). The Garden of (sometimes "in") Eden seems to have been in the eastern part of Eden. This rather extensive description sets the stage for Adam and Eve's expulsion from the garden in Genesis 3:24. It probably also encouraged the Israelites to anticipate the Promised Land."It can hardly be a coincidence that these rivers, along with the 'River of Egypt,' again play a role in marking boundaries of the land promised to Abraham (Genesis 15:18)." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 99.] The trees in the garden were beautiful and edible, an orchard for man to enjoy (Genesis 2:9). The tree of life appears to have been a means whereby God
sustained Adam and Eve's lives. Again, God's desire to bless man comes through. The knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:9; Genesis 2:17) probably refers to man's ability to decide for himself what is best for him and what is not (i.e., wisdom). [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 86. For some other views, see Hamilton, pp. 164-66; or Wenham, pp. 63-64.] "Good" and "evil" may be a merism for all the things that protect and destroy life.Similarities between the descriptions of the garden and the tabernacle are also interesting (cf. Exodus 25-27). Both places reflected the glory of God's presence in their beautiful surroundings (cf. Haggai 2:7-8; Revelation 21:18). [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 43.] The Hebrew word translated "put" in Genesis 2:15(wayyannihehu) is not the same one rendered "put" in Genesis 2:8(wayyasem). The latter term is the normal one for putting something somewhere. However the former one connotes rest and safety (cf. Genesis 19:16; Deuteronomy 3:20; Deuteronomy 12:10; Deuteronomy 25:19) as well as dedication in God's presence (cf. Exodus 16:33-34; Leviticus 16:23; Numbers 17:4; Deuteronomy 26:4; Deuteronomy 26:10). God put man in the garden where he could be safe and rest and where he could have fellowship with God (cf. Genesis 3:8). His primary responsibility there was to worship and obey God rather than to cultivate and keep the garden, as many English versions state. [Note: Ibid., p. 45.] Adam served and thereby worshipped God by tending the garden. Work is essentially a good gift of God, not a punishment for sin."The Garden of Eden is a temple-garden, represented later in the tabernacle. Cherubim protect its sanctity (Genesis 3:24; Exodus 26:1; 2Chronicles 3:7) so that sin and death are excluded (Genesis 3:23; Revelation 21:8)." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 85.] Verse 16-17God gave Adam great freedom of choice. He only forbade one of all the trees. God's command also implies that He alone knows what is good and not good for man. Adam would die because of disobedience, not because of the fruit of the tree. [Note: For a discussion of what God had in mind in the two trees, see Keil and Delitzsch, 1:84-86.] "That famous tree symbolizes the ability to discern good (i.e., what advances life) and evil (i.e., what hinders life). Such knowledge belongs to God alone because, as Agur inferentially argues in Proverbs 30:1-6, one
must know comprehensively in order to speak absolutely about what is good and bad." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 46.] "On the whole it seems probable that we should understand 'death' to mean a spiritual state, but a state aptly symbolized by physical death. When man sinned he passed into a new state, one dominated by, and at the same time symbolized by death. It is likely that spiritual death and physical death are not being thought of as separate, so that the one involves the other." [Note: Leon Morris, The Wages of Sin, p. 10.] The Hebrew construction emphasizes the certainty of death, however it is defined. Why did Adam and Eve not die immediately? The phrase "in the day" in Hebrew is an idiom meaning "for certain" (cf. Exodus 10:28; 1 Kings 2:37; 1Kings 2:42)."Before Adam and Eve fell into sin, God made a proposition to them that some have regarded as a covenant, as stated in Genesis 1:26-31; Genesis 2:16-17. God gave Adam authority over the creatures of the world, commanded him to be fruitful, and gave him permission to eat from every green plant. The only restriction was that Adam and Eve not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for if they did so they would surely die (Genesis 2:16-17). Basically, the covenant was conditional, requiring obedience; but it also declared God's purpose to elevate humanity to a place of authority and prominence, ultimately fulfilled by Christ." [Note: John F. Walvoord, "The New Covenant," in Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 187-88.] The covenant in Genesis 2:16-17has been called the Edenic Covenant. A covenant is a divine pronouncement by which God establishes a relationship involving responsibility. The relationship may involve Himself and an individual (e.g., Adam in the Edenic Covenant; Genesis 2:16-17), or Himself and humankind in general (e.g., humanity in the Noahic Covenant; Genesis 9:9-17). It may involve Himself and a nation (e.g., Israel in the Mosaic Covenant; Exodus19:3-8), or Himself and a human family (e.g., David's family in the Davidic Covenant; 2 Samuel 7:12-17). A covenant of one type may overlap another covenant or other covenants of a different type or different types. For example, the Noahic Covenant overlaps the Mosaic Covenant, and the Davidic Covenant overlaps the Mosaic and New Covenants.The biblical covenants normally involved unconditional promises in which God obligated Himself to accomplish certain purposes despite human failure, though
they may contain conditional elements. An exception is the Mosaic Covenant in which the fulfillment of the promises contained in the covenant depended on Israel's obedience. The Edenic Covenant was also different in that God promised death for failure to obey His command to abstain from eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.The three universal covenants, which affect the whole human race, are the Edenic, Adamic, and Noahic Covenants. All the subsequent covenants affect Israel primarily, though they all affect the rest of humanity secondarily. There are eight major biblical covenants and they help us understand how God is working out His purposes with humankind. These are the Edenic (Genesis 2:16), the Adamic (Genesis 3:15), the Noahic (Genesis 9:16), the Abrahamic (Genesis12:2), the Mosaic (Exodus 19:5), the Palestinian (Deuteronomy 30:3), the Davidic (2 Samuel 7:16), and the New (Hebrews 8:8).The Edenic Covenant required five things from Adam. He was to propagate the human race, to subdue the earth for human habitation, to exercise dominion over the animal creation, to care for and enjoy the Garden of Eden and its fruits, and to abstain from eating from one tree in the garden.Verse 18Adam's creation was not complete because he lacked a "helper" who corresponded to him. This deficiency led God to pronounce Adam's condition "not good." [Note: For helpful comments about anthropomorphisms, as well as divine soliloquies, see Roderick MacKenzie,"The Divine Soliloquies in Genesis," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 22:1 (1955):277-86.] This follows the pattern of the triune God's own existence in which He is surrounded by His heavenly court. Man should normally live in community even as God does. God not only evaluated Adam's condition, He also rectified it."In Judaism, from the very moment of origins of the Jewish people, marriage was considered to be the ideal state." [Note: Blu Greenberg, "Marriage in the Jewish Tradition," Journal of Ecumenical Studies 22:1 (Winter 1985):3.] God's provision of a wife for Adam is a concrete example of God's knowing what is good for man. [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 46.] Companionship replaced isolation. For companionship to be satisfying, however, there must be oneness in the marriage (cf. Genesis 1:26-27). Self-centered living destroys oneness and companionship.
The term "helper" does not mean a servant. Jesus Christ used the same word (the Greek equivalent) to describe the Holy Spirit who would help believers following the Lord's ascension (John 14:16; John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:7). It means one who supports us in our task of doing the will of God (cf. Deuteronomy 33:7; Psalms 33:20; Psalms 115:9-11; Psalms 146:5; Hosea 13:9). It is not a demeaning term since Scripture often uses it to describe God Himself (e.g., Psalms 33:20; Psalms 70:5; Psalms 115:9)."The word helpsuggests that the man has governmental priority, but both sexes are mutually dependent on each other. The man is created first, with the woman to help the man, not vice versa (see also 1 Timothy 2:13); however, this does not mean ontological superiority or inferiority. The word helper, used for God sixteen of the nineteen times it appears in the Old Testament, signifies the woman's essential contribution, not inadequacy." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 88.] "Suitable to him" or "corresponding to him" means "equal and adequate." What was true of Adam (cf. Genesis 2:7) was also true of Eve. They both had the same nature."Since Adam and Eve were a spiritual unity, living in integrity without sin, there was no need for instruction here on headship." [Note: Ross, "Genesis," p. 31.] The ancient Near Eastern texts contain no account of the creation of woman. Moses, however, devoted six verses to her formation compared to only one for Adam (Genesis 2:7).Verses 18-25The creation of woman 2:18-25Verse 19-20The text does not mean that Adam named every individual animal. He apparently gave names to the different kinds God brought before him. This exercise demonstrated Adam's authority over the animals and the dissimilarity between humans and animals. He became aware of his own need for a companion as he named the animals."Adam" comes from the Hebrew word for "earth" (adamah). "Adam" means "one that is red," like the earth. [Note: Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 1:1:2.] Likewise the names of the animals probably expressed the nature of each animal. Names of humans in Old Testament times usually reflected the nature of the persons who bore them. This indicates that Adam must have had great
intelligence and wisdom to be able to identify and label the various types of animals according to their natures.Man is not like the other animals. Adam could find no suitable partner among them. God graciously provided for his need by creating Eve.Verse 21-22More than once when God initiated a new relationship for someone He first put that person to sleep (cf. Genesis 15:12; Genesis 28:11). He evidently did so to assure the recipient that his own works had no part in his receiving it. [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 46.] It was totally a gift of God's grace.". . . the woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved." [Note: Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, p. 7.] "Just as the rib is found at the side of the man and is attached to him, even so the good wife, the rib of her husband, stands at his side to be his helper-counterpart, and her soul is bound up with him." [Note: Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Part I: From Adam to Noah, p. 134.] God fashioned Eve to be a suitable companion for Adam. Then He presented her to him as a gift."That woman was taken from man no more implies the inferiority of woman to man than the taking of man from the ground ('adamfrom 'adamah) implies the inferiority of man to the ground." [Note: Merrill, p. 19.] ". . . the whole account of woman's creation has a poetic flavor: it is certainly mistaken to read it as an account of a clinical operation or as an attempt to explain some feature of man's anatomy ... Rather, it brilliantly depicts the relation of man and wife....Here the ideal of marriage as it was understood in ancient Israel is being portrayed, a relationship characterized by harmony and intimacy between the partners." [Note: Wenham, p. 69.] Verse 23The word "woman" (Heb. ishah) sounds similar to the Hebrew word translated "man" (ish). This similarity reflects the close union between the two. Moses named Adam by his relation to the ground, but Adam named himself in relation to his wife. [Note: Sarna, p. 23.]
"Name-giving in the ancient Orient was primarily an exercise of sovereignty, of command." [Note: von Rad, p. 83. George W. Ramsey, "Is Name-Giving an Act of Domination in Genesis 2:23and Elsewhere?" Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50:1 (January 1988):24-35, disputed this view.] "Genesis 2 is unique among the creation myths of the whole of the Ancient Near East in its appreciation of the meaning of woman, i.e., that human existence is a partnership of man and woman." [Note: Westermann, p. 232.] "Though they are equal in nature, that man names woman (cf. Genesis3:20) indicates that she is expected to be subordinate to him, an important presupposition of the ensuing narrative (Genesis 3:17)." [Note: Wenham, p. 70.] When Adam discovered that God had provided him with a partner like himself, not like one of the other animals, he rejoiced greatly. He received his mate as God's good gift to him because he trusted in God's wisdom, goodness, and integrity. Adam was now beside himself! (Pardon the pun.)Likewise it is essential for every husband and wife to thankfully receive the mate God has given us as His best provision for us. To do so we must know and trust God's goodness. Our mate's differences are good things God brings to us that He will use as tools to shape us into the people He wants us to be. Failure to accept one's mate as a good gift from a loving God leads to many problems in marriage and frustrates God's purpose and plan for marriage. It expresses rejection of God and His provision for one's life. It also demonstrates unbelief, disobedience, and displeasure with God's character. Your mate needs your unconditional acceptance.Verse 24This verse clarifies God's purpose in marriage. It involves leaving parents and cleaving to one's spouse. [Note: See Mathews, pp. 222-24.] ". . . Israelite marriage was usually patrilocal, that is, the man continued to live in or near his parents' home. It was the wife who left home to join her husband." [Note: Wenham, p. 70.] Leaving and cleaving probably means both psychological and physical separation and union under normal conditions. A newly married couple is wise to establish relative independence from both sets of parents emotionally, physically, financially, and in other ways. The couple also needs to establish commitment to one another. Cleaving resembles weaving two threads into one new piece of
cloth. The word suggests the ideas of passion and permanence. In marriage a man's priorities change. Before they were primarily to his parents, but now they are primarily to his wife. Moses was probably correcting cultures that gave parental bonds priority over marital bonds. [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 90.] Marriage also involves physical consummation that unites two individuals as "one flesh" (i.e., in union or unity, [Note: Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 2:334.] "a new family" [Note: The NET Bible note on 2:24.] ). This is a strong argument for monogamy. "One flesh" is not the same as marriage (1 Corinthians 6:16). For a marriage to exist there must also be a commitment to "leave" parents and "cleave" to one's spouse from then on (cf. Matthew 19:5; et al.). The bond of marriage (spouse) also takes priority over the bond of procreation (children).Verse 25The naked condition of Adam and Eve does not just describe their unclothed physical appearance. It also refers to the physical and psychological oneness and transparency that existed in their relationship. Physically they were naked; they shared their bodies with each other openly. Psychologically they were not ashamed; they hid nothing from each other. They were at ease with one another without any fear of exploitation for evil. Transparency should increase with trust, commitment, and friendship. It involves communicating what we know, think, feel, and are with the person or persons we choose. We should not be transparent with everyone, however, only with people who commit themselves to us. A transparent person is an open and vulnerable person.This is a hinge (janus) verse. It looks backward into chapter 2 and forward into chapter 3. The similarity of the Hebrew words for naked ('arom) and "crafty" (Genesis 3:1, 'arum) points to a word play. This word for nakedness means unclothed whereas the one in Genesis 3:7('erom) and elsewhere describes those under God's judgment (cf. Deuteronomy 28:48; Ezekiel 16:39; Ezekiel23:29). [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 49.] Genesis 2:18-25teach us much about marriage.1. God instituted it.2. God intended it to be monogamous (not monotonous). One woman completed Adam (cf. Matthew 19:8).3. God intended it to be heterosexual.4. It involves both a physical and a spiritual union (Genesis 2:24; cf. Matthew19:4-5).
5. The husband was to be the head of the wife. God created Adam before Eve, and He created Eve for Adam (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:8-9; 1 Timothy2:13).6. A woman can be a complete person without bearing children. A wife's primary function in marriage is to complement her husband, not to bear children.7. Normally, a couple, following the lead of their representatives, Adam and Eve, should "be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28). God did not specify how early in the marriage and to what extent. He left this up to the couple. Couples may choose when and how many children they plan to have, though God may sovereignly overrule their plans.The Family Ministry organization has summarized these purposes as five. Marriage should mirror God's image, multiply a godly heritage, manage God's realm, mutually complete one another, and model Christ's relationship to the church. [Note: Family Life Conference, p. 45.] The Bible writers made use of the creation account in many different ways, and we too can use it in these ways for our own personal profit. These purposes include glorifying the God of creation, stimulating praise and worship, and fortifying faith in God's promises. They also include learning about God's attributes, expressing wonder at man's position in God's universe, dispelling fear, and exalting the Lord Jesus. [Note: Ted S. Rendall, "Using the Creation Account for Maximum Spiritual Profit," Prairie Overcomer 60:8 (September 1987):3-5, 22.] However a main point of this unit (Genesis 2:4-25) seems clearly to be that God made human beings male and female with a spiritual capacity and mutually dependent. He did so that they might serve and obey Him and so enjoy His creation. As Adam and Eve, God later placed Israel in a place of blessing. The nation could enjoy His blessing by being obedient and trusting with the assistance He had provided for them in marriage. Even today serving and obeying God is man's greatest privilege, and we find help to do this in the marriage relationship."Two primary themes dominate the Creation account [Genesis 1:1to Genesis2:25]: the land and the blessing." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., pp. 81-82. Cf. 12:1-3, 7.] The theme of descendants (seed) is also present, though perhaps not as prominent (Genesis 1:28).
03 Chapter 3 Verse 1Who was the tempter? Among evangelicals there are two major views regarding the identity of the serpent.It was a literal snake.a. Moses called it a beast of the field (Genesis 3:1).b. Though snakes do not speak, Satan could have spoken through a snake. He did this through demoniacs in Jesus' day. Also, a spirit being spoke through Balaam's donkey (Numbers22:21-30).c. God judged a snake in this case (Genesis 3:14). [Note: See Jacqueline Tabick, "The Snake in the Grass: The Problems of Interpreting a Symbol in the Hebrew Bible and Rabbinic Writings," Religion 16 (April 1986):155-67, who traced the symbolic use of the snake as a servant of God, a symbol of rebellion against God, and a creature independent of God.] 2. It was Satan himself described here as a snake.a. God called Satan a serpent elsewhere in Scripture (e.g., Revelation 20:2).b. Satan can and does speak as recorded elsewhere in Scripture (e.g., Job 1).c. What he said here is in character for Satan who is the "father of lies" (John 8:44).Probably the tempter was Satan who possessed and controlled a literal snake. Temptation came to Eve disguised, unexpectedly, and from a subordinate, as is still often true.The pattern of temptation observable here is one Satan has used often and still uses (cf. the temptations of Achan, David, and Jesus Christ).Satan's first step was to plant a seed of doubt in Eve's mind concerning God's ways (Genesis 3:1-3). The key phrase is "from any" (Genesis 3:1). Satan focused Eve's attention on God's one prohibition. He suggested that God did not really want what was best for Adam and Eve but rather was withholding something from them that was essentially good. He hinted that God's line of protection was actually a line that He drew because He was selfish. Satan still
tempts women to believe that God's role for them is primarily for His benefit rather than for their welfare. [Note: Family Life . . ., p. 99.] The Hebrew word translated "crafty" ('arum) does not mean wicked as much as wise. Eve's sin was not so much an act of great wickedness as it was an act of great folly. She already had all the good she needed, but she wanted more. She wanted to glorify self, not God.Verses 1-5The temptation of Eve 3:1-5As in chapters 1 and 2, the word of the Lord is very important in chapter 3. Here Adam and Eve doubted God's integrity. This pericope also has something to teach about the acquisition of wisdom. Chapter 2 anticipated God's gift of the Promised Land to the original readers, and chapter 3 anticipates their exile from it. [Note: Idem, "Genesis," pp. 48-49.] Verse 2-3Eve was vulnerable to this suggestion because she distorted the word of God. She added to it "or touch it" (Genesis 3:3)."In her reply to [the serpent's] question, she perverted and misquoted three timesthe divine law to which she and Adam were subject: (1) She disparaged her privileges by misquoting the terms of the Divine permissionas to the other trees. (2) She overstated the restrictions by misquoting the Divine prohibition. (3) She underrated her obligations by misquoting the Divine penalty." [Note: W.H. Griffith Thomas, Genesis: A Devotional Commentary, p. 48.] God reveals His character through His word. When we do not retain His word precisely, a distorted concept of God is often the result. This led Eve to doubt God's goodness.The serpent's claim directly contradicted the main point of chapters 1 and 2, namely, that God would provide what is good for mankind."It is because 'Yahweh Elohim' expresses so strongly the basic OT convictions about God's being both creator and Israel's covenant partner that the serpent and the woman avoid the term in their discussion. The god they are talking about is malevolent, secretive, and concerned to restrict man: his character is so different from that of Yahweh Elohim that the narrative pointedly avoids the name in the dialogue of Genesis 3:1-5." [Note: Wenham, p. 57.]
One natural tendency that we have when we do not understand or recall God's word precisely is to make it more restrictive than He does. This is what Eve did. This is a form of legalism.Verse 4-5The second step in Satan's temptation was to denyGod's word. In denying it he imputed motives to God that were not consistent with God's character. God's true motive was the welfare of man, but the serpent implied it was God's welfare at man's expense.This added suggestion seemed consistent with what the serpent had already implied about God's motives in Genesis 3:1. Having entertained a doubt concerning God's word, Eve was ready to accept a denial of His word.What the serpent said about Eve being as God was a half-truth. Ironically she was already as God having been made in His image (Genesis 1:26). She did become like God, or divine beings (Heb. 'elohim), in that she obtained a greater knowledge of good and evil by eating of the tree. However, she became less like God because she was no longer innocent of sin. Her relationship with God suffered. Though she remained like God she could no longer enjoy unhindered fellowship with God (Genesis 3:24). The consequent separation from God is the essence of death (Genesis 2:17).The first doctrine Satan denied in Scripture was that sin results in death (separation from God), or, we could say, the doctrine that God will not punish sin. This is still the truth he tries hardest to get people to disbelieve.Verse 6Having succumbed to temptation Eve disobeyedGod's will. Whereas the serpent initiated the first two steps, he let Eve's natural desires (her flesh) carry her into his trap.All three avenues of fleshly temptation are present in Genesis 3:6.1. She saw that the tree was "good for food" (the lust of the flesh: the desire to dosomething contrary to God's will, i.e., eat the tasty fruit).2. It was a "delight to the eyes" (the lust of the eyes: the desire to have something apart from God's will, i.e., possess the beautiful fruit).3. It was "desirable to make one wise" (the pride of life: the desire to be something apart from God's will, i.e., as wise as God, or gods). It was the quest for wisdom that led Eve to disobey God. [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 51.]
Eve saw, coveted, and took the fruit (cf. Joshua 7:21; 2 Samuel 11:2-4). We perceive, then lust, then act."We have already noted ... how the scenes themselves are arranged in a concentric palistrophic pattern (ABCDCBA). Within this central scene, the same device is used; the midpoint 'and he ate' employs the key verb of this tale-'eat.' On either side we have the woman's hopes of eating, 'good to eat,' 'delight to the eyes,' 'giving insight,' balanced by its effects, 'eyes opened,' 'knowing they were nude,' 'hiding in the trees.' These contrasts are deliberately drawn." [Note: Wenham, p. 75.] "The proposition that an adult can gaze at anything is ludicrous and naive, for gazing is too often followed by desiring and sinning." [Note: Davis, p. 90. Cf. 9:20-27.] In view of Jesus' statement that a lustful look is as sinful as an overt act of sin (Matthew 5:27-28), did Eve commit the first sin when she desired the forbidden fruit? Sinful desires are sinful, but temptations are not sins until we respond by giving in to them. Eve did this when she ate the fruit. Until she did that, she was only experiencing temptation."Here is the essence of covetousness. It is the attitude that says I need something I do not now have in order to be happy." [Note: Hamilton, p. 190.] "What Adam and Eve sought from the tree of knowledge was not philosophical or scientific knowledge desired by the Greeks, but practical knowledge that would give them blessing and fulfillment." [Note: K. Armstrong, In the Beginning, p. 27.] Ignorance or disregard of God's word makes one very vulnerable to temptation (Psalms 119:11). These conditions produce distrust, dissatisfaction, and finally disobedience. Failure to appreciate God's goodness leads to distrust of His goodness. God's prohibitions as well as His provisions are for our good."The root of sin should be understood. The foundation of all sin lies in man's desire of self-assertion and his determination to be independent of God. Adam and Eve chafed under the restriction laid upon them by the command of God, and it was in opposition to this that they asserted themselves, and thereby fell. Man does not like to be dependent upon another, and subject to commands upon another, and subject to commands from without. He desires to go his own way, to be his own
master; and as a consequence he sins, and becomes 'lord of himself, that heritage of woe.'" [Note: Thomas, p. 49. Cf. Waltke, Genesis, p. 103.] God has always asked people to believe and trust His word that His will for us will result in our blessing. However, Satan has always urged us to have experiences that will convince us that we can obtain even greater blessings. He says, "Try it; you'll like it!" But God says, "Trust me, and you'll live." Satan's appeal to get us to experience something to assure ourselves of its goodness directly contradicts God's will for us. It is the way of sight rather than the way of faith.Adam chose to obey his wife rather than God (cf. Genesis 3:17).Verses 6-8The Fall 3:6-8In this section the relationship that God had established with man, which is the focus of the creation story, is broken. We can gain great insight into human nature from this story. Adam and Eve's behavior as recorded here has been repeated by every one of their descendants."It is hardly too much to say that this chapter is the pivot of the Bible . . . . With the exception of the fact of Creation, we have here the record of the most important and far-reaching event in the world's history-the entrance of sin." [Note: Thomas, p. 46.] ". . . Genesis does not explain the origins of evil; rather, the biblical account, if anything, says where evil does nothave its source. Evil was not inherent in man nor can it be said that sin was the consequence of divine entrapment. The tempter stands outside the human pair and stands opposed to God's word." [Note: Mathews, p. 226.] Verse 7-8The separation that sin produces in man's relationship with God stands out clearly in these verses. Their new knowledge that the serpent promised would make them as God actually taught them that they were no longer even like each other. They were ashamed of their nakedness and sewed fig leaves together to hide their differences from each other (Genesis 3:7). [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 52.] Perhaps they chose fig leaves because fig leaves are large and strong.The "cool" of the day is literally the "wind" of the day. God came to Adam and Eve in this wind. He came in a wind earlier in Creation (Genesis 1:2) and later to
Job (Job 38:1), Israel (Exodus 20:18-21; cf. Deuteronomy 5:25), and Elijah (1Kings 19:11)."A more complete transformation could not be imagined. The trust of innocence is replaced by the fear of guilt. The trees that God created for man to look at (Genesis 2:9) are now his hiding place to prevent God seeing him." [Note: Wenham, p. 76.] Genesis 3:7marks the beginning of the second dispensation, the dispensation of conscience (or moral responsibility). Adam and Eve had failed in their responsibility under the dispensation of innocence; they were now sinners. They had rebelled against a specific command of God (Genesis 2:16-17), and this rebellion marked a transition from theoretical to experiential knowledge of good and evil. Their new responsibility now became to do all known good, to abstain from all known evil, and to approach God through blood sacrifice, which anticipated the sacrifice of Christ. As a period of testing for humanity, the dispensation of conscience ended with the Flood. However people continued to be morally responsible to God as He added further revelation of Himself and His will in succeeding ages (cf. Acts 14:14-16; Romans 2:15; 2 Corinthians 4:2).Eve did not die at once physically, but she did die at once spiritually. She experienced alienation in her relationship with God. Death means separation in the Bible, never annihilation. Sin always results in alienation: theologically (between God and man), sociologically (between man and man), psychologically (between man and himself), and ecologically (between man and nature). We might also add, sexually (between men and women) and maritally (between husbands and wives).Three kinds of death appear in Scripture: physical-separation of the body and soul (the material and immaterial parts of the person), spiritual-separation of the person and God, and eternal-permanent separation of the person and God.The Apostle Paul wrote that Eve was deceived (1 Timothy 2:14). This does not mean that women are by nature more easily subject to deception than men."There is nothing in Scripture to suggest that the woman was inferior to the man in any way or more susceptible to temptation than he was." [Note: Susan Foh, Women and the Word of God, p. 63.] "The tempter addresses himself to the woman, probably not because she is more open to temptation and prone to sin, for that is hardly the conception of the Old Testament elsewhere. The reason may have lain in this, that the
woman had not personally received the prohibition from God, as Adam had." [Note: Gerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, p. 45.] She may have received God's word through Adam. Perhaps Satan appealed to Eve because she was not only under God's authority but also under her husband's authority and, therefore, more inclined to think God was withholding something from her."It is interesting to observe that when this sin is referred to throughout Scripture, it is not referred to as the sin of Eve-but rather as the sin of Adam! The phrase in Genesis 3:6, 'with her,' seems to suggest that Adam was at Eve's side when she was tempted by Satan. As God's theocratic administrator, and as the appointed head of the family, it was Adam's responsibility to safeguard Eve and to assure that she remained in submission to the command of God. But Adam failed in his God-given responsibility and permitted Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit." [Note: Pentecost, p. 37.] Adam, however, was not deceived (1 Timothy 2:14). He sinned with his eyes wide open (Genesis 3:6b). Eve's was a sin of initiative whereas Adam's was one of acquiescence. [Note: Hamilton, p. 191.] Too much aggressiveness by a woman and too much passivity by a man still are tendencies of the respective sexes. Death "passed unto all men" (Romans 5:12) when Adam sinned because Adam, not Eve, was the head of the human race under God's administration (cf. Genesis 3:18-23). [Note: See Jimmy A. Milliken, "The Origin of Death," Mid-American Theological Journal 7:2 (Winter 1983):17-22.] Some commentators have interpreted eating the forbidden fruit as a euphemism for having sexual intercourse. [Note: E.g., E. A. Speiser, Genesis, p. 26.] They say that the original sin was a sexual sin. However the text makes such an interpretation impossible. Eve sinned first (Genesis 3:6), she sinned alone (Genesis 3:6), and God had previously approved sex (Genesis 1:28)."Adam and Eve's nakedness (Genesis 2:25) does not idealize nudity but shows why human beings must wear clothes. With the Fall came a tragic loss of innocence (together with resulting shame). When people's minds are enlightened by the gospel, they understand their moral frailty and practice customs of dress that shield them against sexual temptation." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 103.] The timeless lesson of these verses is that victory over temptation to violate God's good will depends on a thorough knowledge of God's word and
unwavering confidence in God's goodness. As Israel faced temptations to depart from God's revealed will from the pagans she encountered, this record would have provided a resource for remaining faithful, as it does for us today. Often these temptations attract because they promise superior blessing and fulfillment, even divinity. Therefore, knowing God's word is extremely important (cf. Deuteronomy 6:5-9; Deuteronomy 6:13-25; Psalms 119:9-16). Satan tempted Jesus similarly to the way he tempted Eve. However, Jesus overcame victoriously by accurately using the word of God to remain faithful to the will of God. True wisdom comes by obeying, not disobeying, God's word.Verses 9-13God's confrontation of the sinners 3:9-13This section begins to relate the effects of the Fall. We now see the God who was creator and benefactor in chapters 1 and 2 as judge (cf. Genesis 1:3-4). He first interrogated the offenders to obtain a confession, then announced new conditions for life, and finally provided for the sinners graciously. The sinners' responsibility was to confess their sins and to accept and trust in God's provision for them (cf. 1 John 1:9).Note that God took the initiative in seeking out the sinners to re-establish a relationship with them. Evidence of God's love is His unwillingness to abandon those He loved even when they failed to do His will. His approach was tender as well as gracious (Genesis 3:9; Genesis 3:11; Genesis 3:13)."In . . . spite of the apparent similarity in expression to pagan religions the anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament reveal all the more remarkably a sharply contrasting concept of deity." [Note: Edwin M. Yamauchi, "Anthropomorphism in Ancient Religions," Bibliotheca Sacra 125:497 (January-March 1968):29.] The text records several effects of the Fall on Adam and Eve.1. They felt guilt and shame (Genesis 3:7)2. They tried to change these conditions by their own efforts (Genesis 3:7).3. They fled from God's presence out of fear of Him (Genesis 3:8; Genesis3:10).4. They tried to blame their sin on another rather than confessing personal responsibility (Genesis 3:12-13).The fact that Adam viewed God's good gift to him, Eve, as the source of his trouble shows how far he fell (Genesis 3:12). He virtually accused God of causing him to fall by giving him what he now regarded as a bad gift.
Verse 14-15Effects on the serpent 3:14-15God's judgment on each trespasser (the snake, the woman, and the man) involved both a life function and a relationship. [Note: J. T. Walsh, "Genesis 2:4b-3:24: A Synchronic Approach," Journal of Biblical Literature 96 (1977):168.] In each case the punishment corresponded to the nature of the crime."Curses are uttered against the serpent and the ground, but not against the man and woman, implying that the blessing has not been utterly lost. It is not until human murder, a transgression against the imago Dei, that a person (Cain) receives the divine curse ..." [Note: Mathews, p. 243.] 1. The snake had been crafty (Heb. 'arum), but now it was cursed (Heb. 'arur). It had to move on its belly (Genesis 3:14). Some commentators take this literally and conclude that the snake had legs before God cursed it. [Note: E.g., Josephus, 1:1:50.] Others take it figuratively as a reference to the resultant despised condition of the snake. [Note: E.g., Leupold, Exposition of Genesis , 1:162; Kidner, p. 70; Mathews, p. 244.] 2. It would eat dust (Genesis 3:14). Since snakes do not literally feed on dust, many interpreters take this statement figuratively. Eating dust is an expression used in other ancient Near Eastern writings to describe the lowest of all forms of life. In the Bible it also describes humiliation and total defeat (cf. Psalms 44:25; Psalms 72:9; Isaiah 25:12; Isaiah 49:23; Isaiah65:25; Micah 7:17).God revealed later through Isaiah that serpents will eat dust during the Millennium (Isaiah 65:25). Presently snakes eat plants and animals. Perhaps God will yet fulfill this part of what He predicted here in Genesis concerning snakes in the millennial kingdom. This is a literal interpretation. If this is correct, then perhaps we should also take the former part of the curse literally, namely, that snakes did not travel on their bellies before the Fall. Alternatively Isaiah may have meant that serpents will be harmless after God lifts the curse on creation in the Millennium.3. There would be antagonism between the serpent and human beings (Genesis 3:15a). This obviously exists between snakes and people, but God's intention in this verse seems to include the person behind the snake (Satan) as well as, and even more than, the snake itself.". . . the seed of the serpent refers to natural humanity whom he has led into rebellion against God. Humanity is now divided into
two communities: the elect, who love God, and the reprobate, who love self (John 8:31-32; John 8:44; 1 John 3:8). Each of the characters of Genesis will be either of the seed of the woman that reproduces her spiritual propensity, or of the seed of the Serpent that reproduces his unbelief." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, pp. 93-94. Cf. p. 46.] 4. Man would eventually destroy the serpent, though the serpent would wound man (Genesis 3:15b). This is a prophecy of the victory of the ultimate "Seed" of the woman (Messiah) over Satan (cf. Revelation 19:1-5; Galatians 3:16; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:14; 1 John 3:8). [Note: See John Sailhamer, "The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44:1 (March 2001):5-23.] Most interpreters have recognized this verse as the first biblical promise of the provision of salvation (the protoevangeliumor "first gospel"). [Note: See John C. Jeske, "The Gospel Adam and Eve Heard: Genesis 3:15" Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 81:3 (Summer 1984):182-84; and Walter C. Kaiser Jr., "The Promise Theme and the Theology of Rest," Bibliotheca Sacra 130:518 (April-June 1973):135-50.] The rest of the book, in fact the whole Old Testament, proceeds to point ahead to that seed."The snake, for the author, is representative of someone or something else. The snake is represented by his 'seed.' When that 'seed' is crushed, the head of the snake is crushed. Consequently more is at stake in this brief passage than the reader is at first aware of. A program is set forth. A plot is established that will take the author far beyond this or that snake and his 'seed.' It is what the snake and His 'seed' represent that lies at the center of the author's focus. With that 'one' lies the 'enmity' that must be crushed." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 55. See also Mathews, pp. 246-48.] "The text in context provides an outline that is correct and clear in pattern but not complete in all details. Numerous questions are left unanswered. When Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead, the details of the climax were filled in and specified, but the text does not demand to be reinterpreted. Nor does it demand interpretation in a way not suggested in context." [Note: Elliott E. Johnson, "Premillennialism Introduced: Hermeneutics," in A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, p. 22. See also Darrell L. Bock, "Interpreting the Bible-How Texts Speak to Us," in Progressive Dispensationalism, p. 81; and Wenham, pp. 80-81.]
God cursed all animals and the whole creation because of the Fall (Romans8:20), but He made the snake the most despicable of all the animals for its part in the Fall."Words possess power. God's words of blessing and of curse are most powerful. They determine our lives." [Note: Pamela J. Scalise, "The Significance of Curses and Blessings," Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):59.] Verses 14-21The judgment of the guilty 3:14-21As the result of man's disobedience to God, the creation suffered a curse and began to deteriorate. Evolution teaches that man is improving his condition through self-effort. The Bible teaches that man is destroying his condition through sin. Having been thrice blessed by God (Genesis 1:22; Genesis 1:28; Genesis2:3) the creation now experienced a triple curse (Genesis 3:14; Genesis 3:17; Genesis 4:11)."In the Bible, to curse means to invoke God's judgment on someone, usually for some particular offense." [Note: Wenham, p. 78.] Nevertheless God also began recreation with the promise of the seed, the land, the dominion, and the rest for trust in His powerful word.Genesis 3:14-19reveal the terms of the second major biblical covenant, the Adamic Covenant. Here God specified the conditions under which fallen man was to live (until God lifts His curse on creation in the messianic kingdom; Romans 8:21). The elements of this covenant can be summarized as follows. God cursed the serpent (Genesis 3:14) but promised a redeemer (Genesis 3:15). He changed the status of the woman in three respects: she would experience multiplied conception, sorrow and pain in motherhood, and continuing headship by the man (Genesis 3:16). God also changed Adam and Eve's light workload in Eden to burdensome labor and inevitable sorrow because of His curse on the earth (Genesis 3:17-19). Finally, He promised certain physical death for Adam and all his descendents (Genesis 3:19).Verse 16Effects on women 3:161. Eve would experience increased pain in bearing children. There evidently would have been some pain in the process of bearing children before the Fall, but Eve and her daughters would experience increased pain. The text does not say that God promised more conception as well as more
pain. [Note: Cf. Schaeffer, p. 93.] "Pain" and "childbirth" is probably another hendiadys in the Hebrew text meaning pregnancy pain.2. Women's desire would be for their husbands. There have been several different interpretations of what the woman's "desire" would be.a. The phrase "your desire will be for your husband" means that a woman's desire would be subject to her husband's desire."Her desire, whatever it may be, will not be her own. She cannot do what she wishes, for her husband rules over her like a despot and whatever she wishes is subject to his will." [Note: E. J. Young, Genesis 3, p. 127. Cf. John Calvin, Genesis, p. 172.] b. The woman will have a great longing, yearning, and psychological dependence on her husband."This yearning is morbid. It is not merely sexual yearning. It includes the attraction that woman experiences for man which she cannot root from her nature. Independent feminists may seek to banish it, but it persists in cropping out." [Note: Leupold, 1:172. Cf. Gini Andrews, Your Half of the Apple, p. 51.] c. The woman will desire to dominate the relationship with her husband. This view rests on the parallel Hebrew construction in Genesis 4:7. This view seems best to me."The 'curse' here describes the beginning of the battle of the sexes. After the Fall, the husband no longer rules easily; he must fight for his headship. The woman's desire is to control her husband (to usurp his divinely appointed headship), and he must master her, if he can. Sin had corrupted both the willing submission of the wife and the loving headship of the husband. And so the rule of love founded in paradise is replaced by struggle, tyranny, domination, and manipulation." [Note: Foh, p. 69. See also her article, "What is the Woman's Desire?" Westminster Theological Journal 37:3 (Spring 1975):376-383; Mathews, p. 251; and Waltke, Genesis, p. 94.] d. The woman would continue to desire to have sexual relations with her husband even though after the Fall she experienced increased pain in childbearing."... the woman's desire for the man and his rule over her are not the punishment but the conditions in which the woman will suffer
punishment....It may be concluded that, in spite of the Fall, the woman will have a longing for intimacy with man involving more than sexual intimacy....[Note: Irving Busenitz, "Woman's Desire for Man: Genesis 3:16Reconsidered," Grace Theological Journal 7:2 (Fall 1986):203, 206-8. Cf. Song of Solomon 7:10.] This view takes this statement of God as a blessing rather than a curse.Verses 17-19Effects on humanity generally 3:17-191. Adam would have to toil hard to obtain a living from the ground (Genesis3:17-18). Adam already had received the privilege of enjoying the garden (Genesis 2:15), but this did not require strenuous toil."As for the man, his punishment consists in the hardship and skimpiness of his livelihood, which he now must seek for himself. The woman's punishment struck at the deepest root of her being as wife and mother, the man's strikes at the innermost nerve of his life: his work, his activity, and provision for sustenance." [Note: von Rad, pp. 93-94.] "These punishments represent retaliatory justice. Adam and Eve sinned by eating; they would suffer in order to eat. She manipulated her husband; she would be mastered by her husband. The serpent destroyed the human race; he will be destroyed." [Note: Ross, "Genesis," p. 33.] "In drawing a contrast between the condition of the land before and after the Fall, the author shows that the present condition of the land was not the way it was intended to be. Rather, the state of the land was the result of human rebellion. In so doing, the author has paved the way for a central motif in the structure of biblical eschatology, the hope of a 'new heaven and a new earth' (cf. Isaiah 65:17: [sic] Romans 8:22-24; Revelation21:1)." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 109.] 2. He would return to dust when he died (Genesis 3:19). Rather than living forever experiencing physical immortality, people would now die physically and experience physical mortality."Genesis 3:19does not attribute the cause of death to the original composition of the human body, so that man would ultimately have died anyway, but states merely one of the consequences of death: Since the human body was formed from the dust of the earth, it shall, upon death, be resolved to earth again." [Note: Alexander Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels, p. 143.]
Genesis 3:18shows the reversal of the land's condition before and after the Fall. Genesis 3:19shows the same for man's condition."Adam and Eve failed ... to observe the restrictions of the Edenic covenant [Genesis 1:26-31; Genesis 2:16-17]. Innocence was lost and conscience was born...."Having failed under the Edenic covenant, human beings were then faced with the provisions of the Adamic covenant [Genesis 3:14-19]. That covenant was unconditional in the sense that Adam and Eve's descendants would be unable by human effort to escape the consequences of sin...."A ray of light is provided, however, in the Adamic covenant because God promised that a redeemer would come [Genesis3:15]....This is the introduction of the great theme of grace and redemption found in the Scriptures...."Unless tempered by the grace of God and changed by subsequent promises, people continue to the present time to labor under the provisions of the Adamic covenant." [Note: Walvoord, p. 188.] Verse 20-21Additional effects on Adam and Eve 3:20-21Adam and Eve accepted their judgment from God and did not rebel against it. We see this in Adam naming Eve the mother of all living, a personal name that defines her destiny (Genesis 3:20). He believed life would continue in spite of God's curse. This was an act of faith and an expression of hope. He believed God's promise that she would bear children (Genesis 3:16). His wife's first name "woman" (Genesis 2:23) looked back on her origin, whereas her second name "Eve" anticipated her destiny.1. Note that before God sent Adam and Eve out into a new environment He provided them with clothing that was adequate for their needs (cf. Romans3:21-26). Their own provision (Genesis 3:7) was not adequate. He did for them what they could not do for themselves.". . . he [Adam] had to learn that sin could be covered not by a bunch of leaves snatched from a bush as he passed by and that would grow again next year, but only by pain and blood." [Note: Marcus Dods, The Book of Genesis, p. 25.] 2. Furthermore, God prevented Adam and Eve from living perpetually in their fallen state (Genesis 3:22-24).
Verses 22-24Expulsion from the garden 3:22-24Genesis 3:22shows that man's happiness (good) does not consist in his being likeGod as much as it depends on his being withGod (cf. Psalms 16:11). [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 59.] "Like one of us" probably means like heavenly beings (God and the angels; cf. Genesis 1:26). [Note: Wenham, p. 85; Waltke, Genesis, p. 95.] Cherubim in the Old Testament surround and symbolize God's presence. They are similar to God's bodyguards. Ancient oriental iconography pictured them as human-headed winged lions guarding holy places. [Note: James B. Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament, pp. 159-60, plates 456, 458.] Moses pictured them here defending the tree of life with a flaming sword. They guarded the ark of the covenant later as they earlier guarded the tree of life in the garden (Genesis 3:24). The laws contained in the ark were a source of life for the Israelites. The golden lampstand in the tabernacle represented a tree of life and the presence of God. [Note: Wenham, p. 86.] As people moved east from the garden they settled in Shinar and built Babel (Gr. Babylon, Genesis 11:2). When Lot departed from Abraham he moved east to Sodom (Genesis 13:11). When Abraham came back from the East he returned to the Promised Land and the city of Salem ("peace," Genesis 14:17-20). Thus God's presence continued to reside in the garden (Promised Land?) in a localized sense, and movement to the east from there typically involved departing from Him."No matter how hard people try to do away with male dominion, agonizing labor, painful childbearing, and death, these evils will continue because sin is present. They are the fruits of sin." [Note: Ross, "Genesis," p. 33.] Rebellion against God results in suffering and death, but confession secures His gracious provisions. This section explains why human beings toil and agonize all their lives and finally die. Sin is responsible, and only the removal of sin will end this condition. God is a savior as well as a judge in this pericope. Moses introduced the way of covering sin, namely, through the death of an innocent substitute. Consequently there is hope in the midst of tragedy. [Note: See Steve Davis, "Stories of the Fall in the Ancient Near East," Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):37-40. On the larger issue of sin's origin, see William K. Harrison, "The Origin of Sin," Bibliotheca Sacra 130:517 (January-March 1973):58-61.]
"The chapter simply does not support the concept that one finds fulfillment and bliss in liberating oneself from subordination to God's word, his permissions and his denials. Man is not suddenly metamorphosed from a puppet to a free and independent thinker. In fact, he never was an automaton. If man had lacked the ability to choose, the prohibition from God not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil would have been superfluous. One is not told to abstain from something unless he has the capacity not to abstain." [Note: Hamilton, p. 211.] Thus Genesis 3 introduces us to the fact of human freedom as well as reminding us of divine sovereignty. [Note: See Sidney Greidanus, "Preaching Christ from the Narrative of the Fall," Bibliotheca Sacra 161:643 (July-September 2004):259-73.] 04 Chapter 4 Verses 1-8Was Eve thanking God for helping her bear a son (Cain), [Note: Mathews, p. 265; Wenham, pp. 101-2.] or was she boasting that she had created a man (Cain) as God had created a man (Adam, Genesis 4:1)? [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., pp. 111-12; Waltke, Genesis, p. 96.] The former alternative seems preferable (cf. Genesis 4:25). "Cain" means "acquisition," a portent of his own primary proclivity. Abel, from the Hebrew hebel, means "breath, vapor, exhalation, or what ascends."As things turned out, his life was short, like a vapor. "Abel" also means "meadow" elsewhere.Why did God "have regard" for Abel's offering and not Cain's (Genesis 4:4)? It was because Abel had faith (Hebrews 11:4). What did Abel believe that Cain did not? The Bible does not say specifically. The answer may lie in one or more of the following explanations. [Note: See Jack P. Lewis, "The Offering of Abel (Genesis 4:4): A History of Interpretation," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:4 (December 1994):481-96.] 1. Some commentators believed Abel's attitude reveals his faith. Cain's improper attitude toward God is evident in Genesis 4:5. [Note: Davis, p. 99; Pentecost, p. 41; et al.] 2. Others say Abel's faith is evident in his bringing the best of the flock (Genesis 4:4) whereas Moses did not so describe Cain's offering (Genesis 4:3).
"He [the writer] characterizes Abel's offerings from the flocks as 'from the firstborn' and 'from their fat.' By offering the firstborn Abel signified that he recognized God as the Author and Owner of Life. In common with the rest of the ancient Near East, the Hebrews believed that the deity, or lord of the manor, was entitled to the first shareof all produce. The firstfruits of plants and the firstborn of animals and man were his...."Abel's offering conformed with this theology; Cain's did not. In such a laconic story the interpreter may not ignore that whereas Abel's gift is qualified by 'firstborn,' the parallel 'firstfruits' does not modify Cain's...."Abel also offered the 'fat' which in the so-called 'P' [Priestly] material belonged to the Lord and was burned symbolically by the priests. This tastiest and best burning part of the offering represented the best. Abel's sacrifice, the interlocutor aims to say, passed the test with flying colors. Cain's sacrifice, however, lacks a parallel to 'fat.'" [Note: Bruce K. Waltke, "Cain and His Offering," Westminster Theological Journal 48:2 (Fall 1986):368. Cf. idem, Genesis, p. 97; Keil and Delitzsch, 1:110; and Hamilton, p. 223.] Possibly Cain's bad attitude resulted in his not offering the best to God. In other words, both options 1 and 2 could be correct."Abel went out of his way to please God (which meant he had faith in God, Hebrews 1:6), whereas Cain was simply discharging a duty." [Note: Ross, "Genesis," p. 34.] "We think the absence of 'firstfruits' for Cain in juxtaposition with Seth's 'firstborn' would not have been lost on the Mosaic audience."Both giver and gift were under the scrutiny of God. Cain's offering did not measure up because he retained the best of his produce for himself." [Note: Mathews, p. 268. I prefer this view.] 3. Many believe that Abel realized the need for the death of a living substitute to atone for his sins, but Cain did not. If he understood this, he may have learned it by divine revelation that Scripture did not record explicitly. [Note: Thomas, et al.] Perhaps Cain and Abel learned that an animal sacrifice satisfied God whereas a vegetable sacrifice did not from the fact that the fig leaves that Adam and Eve used to cover their nakedness were not satisfactory but an animal
skin was (Genesis 3:7; Genesis 3:21). They provided the fig leaves, but God provided the animal skins. Thus the contrast in the case of Cain and Abel may also be between what man provides (works) and what God provides (grace)."Faith always presupposes a Divine revelation to which it is the response ..." [Note: Ibid., p. 55.] "Whatever the cause of God's rejection of Cain's offering, the narrative itself focuses our attention on Cain's response. It is there that the narrative seeks to make its point." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 112.] God questioned Cain, as He had Adam and Eve (cf. Genesis 3:9; Genesis 3:11), to elicit Cain's admission of sin with a view to repentance, not simply to scold him. His father reluctantly admitted his guilt, but Cain tried to cover it up by lying. Cain was "much more hardened than the first human pair." [Note: von Rad, p. 106.] "Sin is crouching at the door" (v.7) probably means that the power and tragic consequences of sin could master the person who opens the door to it (cf. Genesis 3:16)."The consequences of his reaction to God's correction are more far-reaching than the initial sin itself, for if he pursues sin's anger, it will result in sin's mastery over him. This is his decision. It is possible for Cain to recover from sin quickly if he chooses the right thing." [Note: Mathews, p. 270.] The Apostle John revealed the reason Cain killed Abel in 1 John 3:12: "... his own works were evil and his brother's righteous." Abel's attitude of faith in God resulted in righteous works that produced guilt in Cain. The seriousness of Cain's sin is clear from God's repeated references to Abel as Cain's "brother" (Genesis4:9-11)."If you want to find out Cain's condition of heart you will find it after the service which he pretended to render; you know a man best out of church ..." [Note: Joseph Parker, The People's Bible, 1:147.] Later, under the Mosaic Law, the fact that a killing took place in a field, out of the range of help, was proof of premeditation (cf. Deuteronomy 22:25-27)."Cain and his unrighteous offspring served as a reminder to Israel that its destiny was measured in the scales of ethical behavior." [Note: Mathews, p. 269.] Verses 1-16
2. The murder of Abel 4:1-16Chapter 4 shows the spread of sin from Adam's family to the larger society that his descendants produced. Not only did sin affect everyone, but people became increasingly more wicked as time passed. Human self-assertion leads to violence. Genesis 4:1-16show that the Fall affected Adam and Eve's children as well as themselves. Genesis 4:17-26trace what became of Cain and Seth and their descendants. Note that the chapter begins and ends with the subject of worship.God had warned Adam and Eve about sin. Even so, Cain murdered his brother, the beginning of sibling rivalry, because God accepted Abel's offering but not his own. Sibling rivalry plagued each of the godly families in Genesis. Cain denied responsibility for his sin and objected to the severity of God's punishment. God graciously provided protection for Cain in response to his complaint. Chapter 3 gives the cause and chapter 4 the effect.There are structural and conceptual parallels between this pericope (section of verses) and the previous one (Genesis 2:4to Genesis 3:24). [Note: Wenham, p. 99.] AScene 1 (narrative): Cain and Abel are active, Yahweh passive (Genesis4:2-5).BScene 2 (dialogue): Yahweh questions Cain (Genesis 4:6-7).CScene 3 (dialogue and narrative): Cain and Abel are alone (Genesis 4:8).B'Scene 4 (dialogue): Yahweh confronts Cain (Genesis 4:9-14).A'Scene 5 (narrative): Yahweh is active, Cain passive (Genesis 4:15-16).Both stories conclude with the sinners leaving God's presence and going to live east of Eden (Genesis 3:24; Genesis 4:16).". . . though the writer of Genesis wants to highlight the parallels between the two stories, he does not regard the murder of Abel simply as a rerun of the fall. There is development: sin is more firmly entrenched and humanity is further alienated from God." [Note: Ibid., p. 100.] Verses 9-16As in chapter 3, God came investigating the crime with questions (Genesis 4:9-10). [Note: See P. A. Riemann, "Am I My Brother's Keeper?" Interpretation 24 (1970):482-91.] There the result was God cursing the ground and people generally, but here the result is His cursing Cain, another evidence that wickedness was worsening.
Cain's punishment consisted of his being banished from God's presence and unable to enjoy his family's company and the fruitfulness of a settled pastoral life (Genesis 4:11-12; Genesis 4:14). He would have to wander from place to place seeking food rather than living a sedentary life. This punishment was just since he had alienated himself from his brother and God."Cain is not being condemned to a Bedouin-like existence; the terminology is too extreme to describe such a life-style. Rather it seems likely that the curse on Cain reflects the expulsion from the family that was the fate in tribal societies of those who murdered close relatives....'To be driven away from the land' (cf. Genesis 4:14) is to have all relationships, particularly with the family, broken. Moreover, it is to have one's relationship with the LORD broken ..." [Note: Wenham, p. 108.] "Nomadism according to the Sumerian flood story is a plight from which the gods rescued man; according to the Bible a nomadic existence was a judgment imposed on the first murderer. This contrast fits in with the overall optimism of Mesopotamia which believes in human progress over against the biblical picture of the inexorable advance of sin ... It would seem likely that the other human achievements listed here-farming, metalwork, and music-are also seen by Genesis as somehow under the shadow of Cain's sin." [Note: Ibid., pp. 98-99.] Cain's response to his punishment was self-pity rather than repentance and an expression of remorse over the extent of his iniquity. [Note: See Waltke, Genesis, p. 98; Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 114.] No one would be his keeper (cf. Genesis 4:9).Cain's sin resulted in his being "driven" out (Genesis 4:14; cf. Genesis 3:23). Note again that sin results in broken relationships and alienation, and alienation from God leads to fear of other people (cf. Job 15:20-25). God in grace allowed Cain and his family to continue to live under His care, but apparently without salvation. Note also that human immorality again impacted earth's ecology (cf. Genesis 3:17).The commentators have interpreted Cain's "sign" or "mark" (Genesis 4:15) in a variety of ways. One view is that it was partial paralysis, based on the meaning of the word used to translate "sign" in the Septuatint. An old Jewish interpretation understood it to be the word "Yahweh," and another viewed it as a long horn growing out of the middle of Cain's forehead. Some medieval paintings represent Cain with a horn on his head following this view. Other ideas are that it was some
other identifying mark on Cain in view of parallels with other marks that identify and protect their bearers in Scripture (cf. Ezekiel 9:4; Revelation 7:3; Revelation13:16-18; Revelation 14:1). [Note: Mathews, p. 278; Wenham, p. 109; Waltke, Genesis, p. 99.] Still other interpreters believe that the mark was a verification of God's promise to Cain. This last view rests on the usual meaning of "sign" in the Old Testament (cf. Judges 6:36-40; 2 Kings 2:9-12; et al.), which the Hebrew construction supports here. [Note: See Bush, p. 104.] The text does not identify the sign, but it was some immediate indication that God gave Cain to assure him that he would not die (cf. Genesis 21:13; Genesis 21:18; Genesis 27:37; Genesis45:7; Genesis 45:9; Genesis 46:3with Genesis 21:14; Genesis 44:21). Whatever it was, Cain's mark served to protect him as well as to remind him and others of his banishment."Nod" (Genesis 4:16) means "wandering," so the very name of the place where he lived also reminded Cain of his sentence (Genesis 4:12)."The ungodly here are portrayed as living on in the world (with a protective mark of grace ...) without being saved. Their sense of guilt was eased by their cultural development and their geographical expansion." [Note: Ross, "Genesis," p. 33.] Cain was a man who did not care to please God. Because he did not, God did not bless him as He did Abel, who was a man of faith. Cain's anger and jealousy over Abel's blessing brought disaster on himself. God has preserved his example to help us avoid it. Those who worship God must have as their goal to please Him rather than letting envy and hatred ruin their lives.Verses 17-24The descendants of Cain 4:17-24"By virtue of being Cain's descendants, the people named in the genealogy all inherit his curse. Thus the Cainite genealogy becomes part of the Yahwist's account of man's increasing sin." [Note: R. R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World, p. 155.] Cain's wife (Genesis 4:17) was evidently one of his sisters or nieces (cf. Genesis5:4). God did not prohibit marrying siblings and close relatives until the Mosaic Law."Because harmful mutations so greatly outnumber any supposed helpful ones, it's considered unwise nowadays (and illegal in many states) to marry someone too closely related to you. Why? Because you greatly increase the odds that bad genes will show up. By the way, you also increase the odds of
bringing out really excellent trait combinations. But did you ever hear anybody say, 'Don't marry your first cousin or you'll have a genius for a child?' They don't usually say that, because the odds of something bad happening are far, far, far, far, far greater."That would not have been a problem, by the way, shortly after creation (no problem for Cain and his wife, for example). Until mutations had a chance to accumulate in the human population, no such risk of bad combinations existed." [Note: Gary Parker, Creation Facts of Life, p. 98. This is an excellent book that deals with the evidence of creation, Darwin and biologic change, and the fossil evidence. See also Ham, et al., pp. 17, 177-85.] Lamech (Genesis 4:19) was the first bigamist. Bigamy was common in the ancient Near East, but it was never God's desire (cf. Genesis 2:24; Matthew19:4-5). God permitted it, however, as He did many other customs of which He disapproved (e.g., divorce, marrying concubines, polygamy, etc.). That is, He allowed people who practiced them to continue to live."To be sure, no rebuke from God is directed at Lamech for his violation of the marital arrangement. It is simply recorded. But that is the case with most OT illustrations of polygamy. Abraham is not condemned for cohabiting with Sarah and Hagar, nor is Jacob for marrying simultaneously Leah and Rachel. In fact, however, nearly every polygamous househould [sic] in the OT suffers most unpleasant and shattering experiences precisely because of this ad hoc relationship. The domestic struggles that ensue are devastating." [Note: Hamilton, p. 238. Cf. Deuteronomy 21:15-17.] "Cain's family is a microcosm: its pattern of technical prowess and moral failure is that of humanity." [Note: Kidner, p. 78.] God showsthe destructive consequences of sin (cf. Genesis 2:24) more often than He statesthem in the Old Testament. Polygamy is one form of sin.Polygamy is ". . . the symptom of an unbalanced view of marriage, which regards it as an institution in which the wife's ultimate raison d'etre[reason for being] is the production of children. Where God had created the woman first and foremost for partnership, society made her in effect a means to an end, even if a noble end, and wrote its view into its marriage contracts." [Note: Ibid., p. 36.] This is the first occurrence of polygamy in Genesis. We shall find several cases of it throughout the Old Testament. People practiced it widely in the ancient Near East, but it was contrary to the will of God (Genesis 2:24). Besides indulging the
flesh, polygamy was an attempt to ensure the survival of the family by providing male successors. [Note: For a good, brief introduction to polygamy, see M. Stephen Davis, "Polygamy in the Ancient World," Biblical Illustrator 14:1 (Fall 1987):34-36.] The presence of polygamy in Lamech's generation shows how sin escalated in the marriage relationship following the Fall.The reference to forging (lit. sharpening) iron implements (Genesis 4:22) appears anacronistic since the smelting of iron was not common until the Iron Age, in the second millennium B.C. Perhaps this is a reference to the cold forging of meteoric iron, which was common earlier. [Note: The New Bible Dictionary, 1962 ed., s.v. "Mining and Metals," by A. Stuart. See also Mathews, p. 287; and Hamilton, p. 239.] We could paraphrase the idea in Lamech's mind as expressed in Genesis 4:23-24more clearly as follows. "If I am threatened again, I will retaliate again, even more forcefully than Cain did." Lamech may have been claiming that he had killed in self-defense. Nevertheless he was boasting and shows himself thereby to be more barbaric than his forefather Cain (cf. Exodus 21:25). The seventh generations from Adam through Cain and Seth, ungodly Lamech (Genesis 4:19-24) and godly Enoch (Genesis 5:24), stand in sharp contrast to each other. The former man inflicts death, and the latter does not die. Some scholars have called Lamech's poem the "Song of the Sword." Lamech thought himself invincible with his newly acquired weapons."Both Cain's antediluvian lineage and the postdiluvian Babel cautioned later Israel that cities founded upon arrogance resulted in violence and ultimately destruction." [Note: Mathews, pp. 282-83.] Verses 17-263. The spread of civilization and sin 4:17-26Cain prospered even though he rebelled against God. This is another indication of God's grace. Cain's descendants took the lead in building cities, developing music, advancing agriculture, creating weapons, and spreading civilization. However the descendants of Seth made an even more important advance, the worship of God.Verse 25-26The family of Seth 4:25-26Seth's name, from the Hebrew verb translated "granted" and meaning "to set or place," expresses Eve's faith that God would continue to provide seed despite death. [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 101.]
Many commentators regarded Genesis 4:26as the first reference to prayer as we know it in the Bible. Prayer is basic to man's relationship with God, which is a major theme in Genesis. However the phrase "call on the name of the Lord" usually refers to proclamation rather than prayer in the Pentateuch. [Note: Ross, Creation and . . ., p. 169.] Here it probably refers to the beginning of public worship of Yahweh."Genesis 4 concludes the story of mankind that was cut off in the flood, a tale that opened with Genesis 2:4, 'This is the history....' With the aid of a genealogy from Adam to Lamek, the seventh generation, it traces the development of technology and arts on the one hand and the growth of violence on the other. Only in the last two verses introducing the descendants of Seth do we have glimmers of hope, for from him, as chap. 5 will describe, descended Noah, the survivor of the flood, and it was in Enosh's day that the public worship of God was reintroduced." [Note: Wenham, p. 116.] Chapter 4 also teaches that it is important for the righteous to preserve the knowledge of God when they live in an ungodly society.05 Chapter 5 Verses 1-8C. What became of Adam 5:1-6:8The primary purpose of this second toledotsection appears to be to link the generations of Adam and Noah. The cursed human race continued to multiply, and human beings continued to die. Yet the record of Enoch gives hope."Genealogies in this book of genealogies ... serve several purposes, depending in part on the nature of the genealogy. Broadgenealogies present only the first generation of descendants (e.g., "the sons of Leah ... the sons of Rachel ... " in Genesis 35:23-26; cf. Genesis 6:9-10; Genesis 25:13-15). Deep genealogies list sequential descendants, in this book usually numbering from two to ten. (There are ten generations from Adam through Seth to Noah. In the eleventh generation the genealogy becomes segmented.) Linear genealogies display only depth (e.g., "Cain ... gave birth to Enoch. To Enoch was born Irad ..." Genesis 4:17-18; cf. Genesis 5:1-31; Genesis 11:10-26; Genesis 36:31-40). Segmentedgenealogies display both depth and breadth (e.g., "This is the account of Shem, Ham and Japheth....The sons of Japheth: Gomer ... The sons of Gomer ..." Genesis 10:1-29; cf. Genesis 11:27-29;
Genesis 19:36-38; Genesis 25:19-26; Genesis 36:1-5; Genesis 36:10-30; Genesis 46:8-25). The distinctions of broad, deep, linear, and segmented genealogies help explain the various functions of genealogies." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 105. See also David M. Howard Jr., An Introduction to the Old Testament Historical Books, pp. 249-50; M. D. Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies, pp. 77-82.] "Genesis begins the process of identifying the seed that will rule the earth (Genesis 1:26-28) and crush the Serpent (Genesis 3:15). Book 2 [Genesis5:1to Genesis 6:8] traces that lineage from Adam to Noah, even as the matching ten-generation genealogy of Book 5 [Genesis 11:10-26] traces it from Shem to Abraham. Book 2 concludes with the progressive and rapid hardening of sin and the inability of the godly seed of the woman on its own to reverse it. Sin, like the Serpent, is too strong for them. Clearly, both God's judgment and deliverance are needed." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 109.] Verses 1-321. The effects of the curse on humanity ch. 5There are at least three purposes for the inclusion of this genealogy, which contains 10 paragraphs (Genesis 5:1-32).1. It shows the development of the human race from Adam to Noah and bridges the gap in time between these two major individuals. One writer argued that the ages of these patriarchs were inflated to glorify them. [Note: R. K. Harrison, "From Adam to Noah: A Reconsideration of the Antediluvian Patriarchs' Ages," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:2 (June 1994):161-68.] I think not as this would seemingly undermine the trustworthiness of Scripture."The genealogies [in chapters 5 and 11] are exclusionist in function, indicating by linear descent the one through whom the promissory blessing will be channeled." [Note: Mathews, p. 298.] 2. It demonstrates the veracity of God's word when He said that people would die as a result of sin (cf. Genesis 2:17). Note the recurrence of the phrase "and he died" (Genesis 5:5; Genesis 5:8; Genesis 5:11; Genesis 5:14; Genesis 5:17; Genesis 5:20; Genesis 5:27; Genesis 5:31).3. It contrasts the progress of the godly line of Seth culminating in Enoch who walked with God and experienced translation (Genesis 5:6-24) with the development of the ungodly line of Cain. Cain's branch of the human race culminated in Lamech who was a brutal bigamist (Genesis 4:16-24).
"The author's return to the theme of God's 'blessing' man (cf. Genesis 5:2) is also a part of his overall scheme to cast God's purposes for man in terms that will recall a father's care for his children. Throughout the remainder of the Book of Genesis, a recurring theme is that of the father's blessing his children (Genesis9:26-27; Genesis 27:27; Genesis 48:15; Genesis 49:1-28). In keeping with such a theme, the author shows at each crucial turning point in the narrative that God himself renewed his blessing to the next generation of sons (Genesis 1:28; Genesis 5:2; Genesis 9:1; Genesis 12:3; Genesis 24:11). Seen as a whole, the picture that emerges is that of a loving father insuring the future well-being of his children through the provision of an inherited blessing. In this way the author has laid a theological foundation for the rest of Scripture. God's original plan of blessing for all humanity, though thwarted by human folly, will nevertheless be restored through the seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15), the seed of Abraham (Genesis 12:3), and the 'Lion of the tribe of Judah' (Genesis 49:8-12; cf. Revelation 5:5-13). It is on this same foundation that the apostle Paul built his view of Jesus as the one through whom God has 'blessed us' (Ephesians 1:3) and 'adopted us as his sons' (Genesis 5:5) so that 'we have obtained an inheritance' (Genesis 5:11, KJV) from the one we may call 'Abba, Father' (Romans 8:15)." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," pp. 70-71.] Some commentators have seen evidence in the text that this genealogy is not complete. [Note: E.g., Mathews, p. 305.] 1. The word "father" can just as accurately be translated "ancestor" (Genesis5:3, et al.). It does not require a literal father-son relationship. [Note: See Kenneth Kitchen, The Bible In Its World, p. 33.] 2. The fact that Lamech, the sixth name in Cain's list (Genesis 4:16-24), corresponds to Enoch, the sixth name in Seth's list (Genesis 5:6-24), is suggestive. It indicates that God wanted to point out the contrast between the generations of these two sons of Adam. One was ungodly and the other godly. This purpose seems to some writers more dominant than that God wanted simply to preserve a complete record of all the generations between Adam and Noah. Lamech and Enoch were each the seventh generation, as recorded in this list, from Adam (cf. Judges 1:14). Matthew1:1-17contains another genealogy in which 14 men from each of three historical periods appear, and it is not complete.3. The writer did not list Noah's sons in the order of their birth (cf. Genesis5:32and Genesis 9:24).
4. The genealogy in chapter 11 may not be complete. [Note: See my comments on 11:12. For defense of the view that the Scriptures do not fix and were not intended to fix the dates of any events before the time of Abraham, see W. H. Green, "Primeval Chronology," in Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpretation, pp. 13-28; and B. B. Warfield, "On the Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race," Princeton Theological Review 9:1 (January 1911):1-25.] The careful recording of the age of each man when he fathered the next man in the list strongly suggests that this list is complete. Furthermore the genealogies in 1 Chronicles 1:1-4and Luke 3:36-38are identical to the one in Genesis 5. There are probably no missing generations. [Note: See Keil and Delitzsch, 1:120-27. Wenham, pp. 130-34, wrote an excursus on the ages of the antediluvians that is the best discussion of this issue that I have found.] "The genealogy of Seth in Genesis 5 is thus intended to take up the creation story which had reached its first climax in the creation, as we would now read it, of Adam. The elemental orderliness of the genealogy continues the order begun at creation; indeed, it reaffirms that order after the threatened slide back into chaos narrated in the intervening chapters. But the genealogy does more; it imparts movement to creation. The Genesis 1 creation story is essentially static. When God rests on the seventh day, all phyla of creation are in their proper order and the earth is at rest. There is little suggestion of movement or further development, no story to be traced. The sole dynamic elements lie in God's command to newly created humanity to 'be fruitful and multiply' and 'subdue the earth.' The genealogies document the fruitfulness of humanity and thus become the expression of the fulfillment of God's mandate, providing movement away from the steady state of creation but at the same time preserving its orderliness. Creation's order advanced through the genealogy."Connection of the genealogy to creation also exerts a reciprocal influence on our understanding of this and subsequent genealogies. The genealogies represent the continuation of creation's fundamental order through time. As a result, they assume theological significance. The organic and orderly succession of generations is not an expression of thematically empty biological necessity but of God's initial creative activity. Birth awakens not neutral destiny but enrollment in the continuing order of creation ordained by God. The genealogies become bearers of the creation theme and, by their
elemental, organic nature, its fit expression." [Note: Robert B. Robinson, "Literary Functions of the Genealogies of Genesis," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48 (October 1986):600-601.] Even though the death motif is strong in this chapter there is even more emphasis on God's grace. We see this in the references to life, fertility (sons and daughters), Enoch's translation, and other blessings. The enjoyment of God's blessings depends on walking with God. "Walk" is a biblical figure for fellowship and obedience that results in divine blessing (cf. 1 Samuel 15:25; Ephesians4:1)."Enoch is pictured as one who did not suffer the fate of Adam ('you shall surely die') because, unlike the others, he 'walked with God.'"The sense of the author is clear. Enoch is an example of one who found life amid the curse of death. In Enoch the author is able to show that the pronouncement of death is not the last word that need be said about a person's life. One can find life if one 'walks with God.'" [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 118. Cf. 3:8; 6:9; 15:6; 17:1; 24:40; 48:15; Deuteronomy30:15-16; Micah 6:8; Malachi 2:6. See also Timothy J. Cole, "Enoch, a Man Who Walked with God," Bibliotheca Sacra 148:591 (July-September 1991):288-97.] "'Walked with God' is metaphorical and indicates that Enoch had a lifestyle characterized by his devotion to God. The sense of 'walk' (halak) in its verbal stem indicates a communion or intimacy with God." [Note: Mathews, p. 313. Cf. 3:8; 6:9.] "The double repetition of the phrase 'walked with God' indicates Enoch was outstanding in this pious family." [Note: Wenham, p. 127.] Repetition usually reinforces and emphasizes in Scripture. The central lesson of the section appears to be that the godly can experience victory over the effects of the curse by walking with God. [Note: For additional study of the genealogies, see Kenneth Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, pp. 36-39; Schaeffer, pp. 122-124; Kidner; "Chronology" in Westminster Dictionary of the Bible; International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, s.v. "Antediluvian Patriarchs," by John J. Davis; James L. Hayward and Donald E. Casebolt, "The Genealogies of Genesis 5, 11 : a statistical study," Origins 9:2 (1982):75-81; Frederick Cryer, "The Interrelationships of Genesis 5, 32; Genesis 11, 10-11 and the Chronology of the Flood," Biblica 66:2 (1985):241-61; and Barr, pp. 584-85.]
"The finality of death caused by sin, and so powerfully demonstrated in the genealogy of Genesis, is in fact not so final. Man was not born to die; he was born to live, and that life comes by walking with God....Walking with God is the key to the chains of the curse." [Note: Cole, p. 294.] "Within the time-scale of Genesis, this chapter (5)covers the longest period in world history." [Note: Wenham, p. 145.] As the story of Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:3-24) interrupted the genealogy of Adam in Genesis 4:1-2; Genesis 4:25-26, so the story of the Flood (Genesis 6:1to Genesis 9:27) interrupts the genealogy of Noah in Genesis 5:32and Genesis9:28-29.06 Chapter 6 Verse 1-2There are three major views about the identity of the sons of God.1. They were fallen angels who married women. [Note: The Book of Enoch (a second century B.C. pseudepigrapha); Philo; Josephus; Justin Martyr; Tertullian; Cyprian; Ambrose; Pember; Clarence Larkin The Spirit World; Henry Morris, The Genesis Record; C. Fred Dickason, Angels: Elect and Evil; M. R. DeHaan, 508 Answers to Bible Questions; Boice, 1:245-48; R. S. Hendel, "When the Sons of God Cavorted with the Daughters of Men," Bible Review 3:2 (Summer 1987):8-13, 37; Merrill, p. 23; Wenham, pp. 140, 146; et al.] Arguments in favor of this view follow with responses.a. The term "sons of God" as it occurs here in Hebrew refers only to angels in the Old Testament (Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7; et al.). Response: Angels do not reproduce (Matthew 22:30).b. 2 Peter 2:4-5and Judges 1:6-7appear to identify angels with this incident. Response: There are no other references to angels in the context here in Genesis. These New Testament passages probably refer to the fall of Satan.c. If God could impregnate Mary, spirit beings may be able to do the same thing to human women. Response: Spirit beings cannot do everything that God can do.2. They were godly Sethites who married ungodly women. I prefer this view. Arguments in favor of this view follow with responses.
a. The Old Testament often refers to the godly as God's sons (e.g., Exodus 4:22). Response: This would have to be an exception to the technical use of "sons of God" as a reference to angels in the Old Testament.b. Moses had already established the concept of a godly line in Genesis (Genesis 4:26).c. Sonship based on election is common in the Old Testament.d. Warnings against marriages between believers and unbelievers are common in the Pentateuch.3. They were dynastic rulers who married women. [Note: Merediith G. Klein, "Diivine Kingship andGenesis 6:1-4," Westminster Theological Journal 24 (1962):187-204; John Skinner, Genesis; Kitchen, "The Old . . .," p. 4; et al. See also Watson E. Mills, "Sons of God: The Roman View," Biblical Illustrator (Fall 1983):37-39.] Fallen angels (demons) may have indwelt or at least controlled them. [Note: Ross, "Genesis," p. 36; Waltke, Genesis, pp. 116-17.] Arguments in favor of this view and responses follow.a. Ancient Near Eastern literature often called kings sons of gods.b. The Old Testament refers to administrators (e.g., judges) as gods. Response: Scripture never regards them as descendants of deities, as pagan ancient Near Eastern literature does.c. This story is similar to Babylonian antediluvian stories.Scholars have debated this passage heatedly, but there is not yet decisive evidence that enables us to make a dogmatic decision as to the correct interpretation. One writer expressed his frustration as follows."What does he [Moses] mean? I do not know, and I do not believe anyone knows. So far as I am concerned, this passage is unintelligible." [Note: Albertus Pieters, Notes on Genesis, p. 116.] Context is very important in any interpretive problem, and I believe it argues for view 2 in this case. [Note: See Keil and Delitzsch, 1:131-34. Many conservative interpreters hold this view. See Wolf, p. 99.] If so, the purpose of this segment appears to be to document the degradation of even the godly, thus justifying the flood.Some people who believe that the angelic conflict is a major theme of Scripture have emphasized this passage. I do not believe that the angelic conflict is a
major theme of Scripture. I believe the angels are important primarily because of their function as God's messengers sent forth to minister to people (Hebrews1:14).Verses 1-4The sins of the sons of God 6:1-4Verses 1-82. God's sorrow over man's wickedness 6:1-8As wickedness increased on the earth God determined to destroy the human race with the exception of those few people to whom He extended grace."Stories of a great flood sent in primeval times by gods to destroy mankind followed by some form of new creation are so common to so many peoples in different parts of the world, between whom no kind of historical contact seems possible, that the notion seems almost to be a universal feature of the human imagination." [Note: Whybray, p. 45.] There were two major reasons for the flood: the sins of the sons of God (Genesis6:1-4) and the sins of humankind generally (Genesis 6:5-8).Verse 3The "120 years" are evidently the years that God would give humankind before the flood. [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:136.] They probably do not indicate a reduction in the normal human lifespan to 120 years. [Note: However Mathews, p. 335; Westermann, p. 376; Wenham, pp. 142, 146-47; et al. defended the shortening of life view.] "The judgment is that God will not endlessly and forever permit his life-giving spirit to enliven those who disorder his world. The breath of life (Genesis 2:7; Psalms 104:29-30) remains his to give and to recall." [Note: Brueggemann, Genesis, p. 72.] "The attempt by man to become more than he is results in his becoming less." [Note: L. Eslinger, "A Contextual Identification of the bene ha'elohim and benoth ha'adam in Genesis 6:1-4," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 13 (1979):72.] Verse 4The "nephilim" were on the earth before and after the marriages of the "sons of God" with the "daughters of men." They were literally "fallen ones" or "tyrants." They were "mighty . . . men of renown." That is, they were powerful individuals, probably military leaders. Moses later described the giants in Canaan as "nephilim" (Numbers 13:33).
Verse 5Men and women's actions were very wicked and their thoughts and affections were completely evil by this time (cf. Genesis 6:11-12; Romans 1:18-32)."Near the turn of the 19th century F. W. Farrar wrote a book entitled Seekers After God. The book was a popular seller and was in considerable demand. A certain western bookseller had a number of requests for the volume but had no copies available. He sent a telegram to the dealers in New York requesting them to ship him a number of the books. After awhile a telegram came back which read, 'No seekers after God in New York. Try Philadelphia.'" [Note: D. Edmond Hiebert, Working with God: Scriptural Studies in Intercession, pp. 100-101.] Verses 5-8The sins of humanity generally 6:5-8The second reason for the flood was the sinfulness of humanity generally.Verse 6-7God was sorry that He had made humankind because people generally did not want a relationship with God. They insisted on living life independent of God and consequently destroying themselves in sin. He was sorry over what His special creation had become."God is no robot. We know him as a personal, living God, not a static principle, who while having transcendent purposes to be sure also engages intimately with his creation. Our God is incomparably affected by, even pained by, the sinner's rebellion. Acknowledging the passibility (emotions) of God does not diminish the immutability of his promissory purposes. Rather, his feelings and actions toward men, such as judgment or forgiveness, are always inherently consistent with his essential person and just and gracious resolve (James 1:17)." [Note: Mathews, p. 344.] Verse 8Noah was the one exception to universal godlessness. "Noah" may mean "grieved" (the Hebrew niphalform) or "comfort" (the pielform). "Favor" is grace. This is the first mention of this word in the Old Testament, though we have seen many examples of God's grace thus far. There is a word play in the Hebrew text (an anagram). The same consonants of Noah's name (nh) in the reverse order mean "grace" (hn).All God's people can identify with Noah, the recipient of God's grace. It is only by God's grace that we can escape His judgment on the wicked.
"Genesis is flatly contradicting the humanistic optimism of Mesopotamia: humanity's situation in its view is hopeless without divine mercy." [Note: Wenham, p. xlviii.] This section shows that pagan idolatry and immorality pain God and incur His judgment that man can only escape by His provision of salvation.Verses 9-12This is the first time the important words "righteous" and "blameless" appear in the Bible."The same explanation for Enoch's rescue from death ('he walked with God') is made the basis for Noah's rescue from death in the Flood: 'he walked with God' (Genesis 6:9). Thus in the story of Noah and the Flood, the author is able to repeat the lesson of Enoch: life comes through 'walking with God.'" [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 119.] "Noah is depicted as Adam redivivus(revived). He is the sole survivor and successor to Adam; both 'walk' with God; both are the recipients of the promissory blessing; both are caretakers of the lower creatures; both father three sons; both are workers of the soil; both sin through the fruit of a tree; and both father a wicked son who is under a curse." [Note: Mathews, p. 351, cf. p. 359. See Waltke, Genesis, pp. 127-30; and Warren Gage, The Gospel of Genesis, pp. 9-15, for striking parallels between Adam and Noah and between the prediluvian and postdiluvian worlds.] "The two words, 'corrupt' and 'violence,' give us respectively the character and expression of the sin, the cause and the effect [Genesis 6:11]. The corruption has led to violence, for badness always leads to cruelty in one form or another. A life that is wrong with God necessarily becomes wrong with its fellows." [Note: Thomas, p. 71.] "Whereas God has blessed the human family with the power of procreation to fill the earth (Genesis 1:28; Genesis 9:1), these culprits have 'filled the earth' by procreating 'violence' (cf. Genesis 6:13; Ezekiel8:17; Ezekiel 28:16)." [Note: Mathews, p. 359.] Verses 9-221. The Flood 6:9-8:22The chiastic (palistrophic, crossing) structure of this section shows that Moses intended to emphasize God's grace to Noah, which occupies the central part of the story.
"One mark of the coherence of the flood narrative is to be found in its literary structure. The tale is cast in the form of an extended palistrophe, that is a structure that turns back on itself. In a palistrophe the first item matches the final item, the second item matches the penultimate item, and so on. The second half of the story is thus a mirror image of the first. This kind of literary structure has been discovered in other parts of Genesis, but nowhere else is it developed on such a large scale. This may be partly due to the fact that a flood narrative is peculiarly suited to this literary form...."Particularly striking are the references to days (lines H, I, L, O). (Only the references to days form part of the palistrophe; the 40 days and nights[vii 4, 12] and the dates do not.) The periods of time form a symmetrical pattern, 7, 7, 40, 150, 150, 40, 7, 7. The turning point of the narrative is found in viii:1 'God remembered Noah.'"What then is the function of the palistrophe? Firstly, it gives literary expression to the character of the flood event. The rise and fall of the waters is mirrored in the rise and fall of the key words in its description. Secondly, it draws attention to the real turning point in the saga: viii 1, 'And God remembered Noah.' From that moment the waters start to decline and the earth to dry out. It was God's intervention that was decisive in saving Noah, and the literary structure highlights this fact." [Note: Gordon J. Wenham, "The Coherence of the Flood Narrative," Vetus Testamentum 28:3 (1978):337, 339-40. See also idem, Genesis 1-15, pp. 155-58. There is a helpful chart of the chronology of the Flood in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, p. 39.] The following diagram illustrates this palistrophe (chiasm) simply."Introduction: Noah's righteousness and Noah's sons (Genesis 6:9-10).AGod resolves to destroy the corrupt race (Genesis 6:11-13).BNoah builds an ark according to God's instructions (Genesis 6:14-22).CThe Lord commands the remnant to enter the ark (Genesis 7:1-9).DThe flood begins (Genesis 7:10-16).EThe flood prevails 150 days and the water covers the mountains (Genesis 7:17-24).FGod remembers Noah (Genesis 8:1a).E'The flood recedes 150 days, and the mountains are visible (Genesis 8:1-5). D'The earth dries (Genesis 8:6-14).
C'God commands the remnant to leave the ark (Genesis 8:15-19).B'Noah builds an altar (Genesis 8:20).A'The Lord resolves not to destroy humankind (Genesis 8:21-22)." [Note: Ross, Creation and . . ., p. 191. See also the charts in Mathews, p. 354; and Waltke, Genesis, p. 125.] Conditions and events before the Flood 6:9-7:10Verses 9-29D. What became of Noah 6:9-9:29The Lord destroyed the corrupt, violent human race and deluged its world, but He used righteous Noah to preserve life and establish a new world after the Flood."Noah's experience presents decisively the author's assertion that the Lord judges human sin but provides a means for perpetuating the creation blessing (Genesis 1:26-28) and the salvation hope for an elect seed (Genesis 3:15). The recurring theme of blessing, threatened by sin but preserved by divine mercy, is found in the two narratives that make up the Noah toledot: the flood story (Genesis 6:9to Genesis 9:17) and the account of the patriarch's drunkenness (Genesis 9:20-27). The former is worldwide in scope, and the latter is its microcosm. A genealogical note binds the two (Genesis 9:18-19), and another concludes it (Genesis 9:28-29)...."Also Noah's toledotcontributes to the broader concerns of early Genesis by preparing the reader for the postdiluvian world. This 'new world' is the setting for understanding the perpetuation of the 'blessing' by the patriarchs (Genesis11:27to Genesis 50:26), which is the main deliberation of Genesis." [Note: Mathews, pp. 349-50.] Verses 13-16Notice again that the earth and nature suffer because of human sin (cf. Genesis3:17-19; Genesis 4:12; Romans 8:20-21).Noah received detailed instructions that he was to follow in building the ark. Later Moses received detailed instructions that he was to follow in building the tabernacle. Both men followed their respective instructions and received praise (Genesis 6:22; Exodus 39:42-43; Leviticus 8:36; Numbers 27:22; Deuteronomy34:9). Both men inaugurated a new epoch. In this respect Moses was another Noah."God must be obeyed in all his instructions if his people expect to enjoy the fruit of life and blessing (e.g., Deuteronomy 26:16-19; Deuteronomy28:1-14)." [Note: Ibid., p. 363.]
The ark was about 450 feet long (1 1/2 American football fields), 75 feet wide (7 standard parking spaces), and 45 feet high (a typical four-story building). It had three decks and over 100,000 square feet of deck space. There were over 1 million cubic feet of space in it. This is the capacity of approximately 860 railroad boxcars. It had a capacity of almost 14,000 gross tons. [Note: See "Noah's Flood: Washing Away Millions of Years" DVD featuring Dr. Terry Mortenson.] The ark probably looked more like a rectangular box than a ship. After all, its purpose was to stay afloat, not travel from one destination to another. This design used space very efficiently. The ark would have been very stable in the water. Modern ocean-going tankers and aircraft carriers have a similar scale of dimensions. The type of wood out of which Noah made it is unknown. The Hebrew word occurs only here in the Old Testament.Verses 17-21This is the first occurrence of the important word "covenant" (Heb. berith) in the Old Testament (Genesis 6:18). There were two basic kinds of covenants in the ancient Near East. [Note: G. Herbert Livingston, The Pentateuch in Its Cultural Environment, pp. 153-154.] 1. The parity covenant was one that equals made. Examples: Abraham and Abimelech (Genesis 21:22-32), Isaac and Abimelech (Genesis26:26-33), and Jacob and Laban (Genesis 31:44-54).2. The suzerainty covenant was one that a superior (e.g., a king) made with an inferior (e.g., a vassal). Examples: the Noahic Covenant (Genesis 9:1-17), the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 15:18-21), the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 19 -Numbers 10), et al."The Noahic covenant is closer to the royal grant known from the ancient Near East where a deity bestows a benefit or gift upon a king. It has its closest parallels to the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants (Genesis 15; Genesis 17; 2 Samuel 7), which are promissory charters made by God with the individuals and their offspring, characteristically forever. Unlike the Mosaic covenant, in the royal grant form of covenant God alone is under compulsion by oath to uphold his promise to the favored party." [Note: Mathews, p. 368.] Verse 22We can see Noah's faith (Hebrews 11:7) in his complete obedience to God even though he faced many obstacles.
"The author's purpose in drawing out the list of specifications for the ark in chapter 6, as with the details of the building of the tabernacle, is not that readers might be able to see what the ark or the tabernacle looked like, but rather that readers might appreciate the meticulous care with which these godly and exemplary individuals went about their tasks of obedience to God's will. They obeyed God with 'all their hearts.'" [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 125.] "What a splendid figure this man makes, a picture of solitary goodness! He was the one saint of that day. It ispossible, therefore, to be good even though we have to stand alone. It is possible to be right with God even amidst surrounding iniquity. God is the same today as He was to Noah, and if only we are willing to fulfill the conditions we too shall walk with God and please Him." [Note: Thomas, p. 74.] 07 Chapter 7 Verses 1-10God graciously invited Noah to enter the ark with his family (Genesis 7:1). This is the first occurrence of the offer "come" in the Bible. This invitation continues throughout Scripture, the last offer being in Revelation 22:17. God extends the invitation to people, He urges them to take advantage of the perfect provision He has made for their preservation, and He offers it in a time of impending judgment and gloom."It is not that Noah's works of righteousness gains [sic] him salvation, for none is cited. Rather, his upright character is noted to condemn his generation, which merits death." [Note: Mathews, p. 371.] "Sinful men do not deserveto live on God's earth. This is the basic message of the Genesis Flood." [Note: John C. Whitcomb, Esther: The Triumph of God's Sovereignty, p. 21.] God did not reveal the basis for His distinction between clean and unclean animals here (Genesis 7:2). Israel's pagan neighbors also observed clean and unclean distinctions between animals though they varied from country to country. In the Mosaic Law, God further distinguished between foods. Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul taught that now these distinctions no longer need affect people as far as our relationship to God goes (Mark 7:15; Mark 7:18-19; cf. Acts 10:15; Acts 11:9; Romans 14:14).
Verses 11-24The Flood proper 7:11-24There are two views among evangelicals as to the extent of the Flood.1. The flood was universal in that it covered the entire earth. Here is a summary of the evidence that supports this view.a. The purpose of the Flood (Genesis 6:5-7; Genesis 6:11-13).b. The need for an ark (Genesis 6:14).c. The size of the ark (Genesis 6:15-16).d. The universal terms used in the story (Genesis 6:17-21; Genesis 7:19; Genesis 7:21-23). Context must determine whether universal terms are truly universal or limited (cf. Luke 2:1; Matthew 28:19-20).e. The amount of water involved (Genesis 7:11; Genesis 7:20; Genesis8:2).f. The duration of the Flood: 371 days (Genesis 7:11; Genesis 8:14).g. The testimony of Peter (2 Peter 3:3-7).h. The faithfulness of God (Genesis 8:21).This view has been the most popular with conservative interpreters throughout history."By and large, the tradition of the Christian church is that the context requires a universal flood, and many Christian scholars have maintained this position knowing well the geological difficulties it raises." [Note: Davis, p. 124. See Whitcomb and Morris; Boice, 1:278-88; Ariel A. Roth, "Evidences for a worldwide flood," Ministry (May 1984), pp. 12-14; Donald Patten, "The Biblical Flood: A Geographical Perspective," Bibliotheca Sacra 128:509 (January-March 1971):36-49; and Wolf, pp. 101-6.] 2. The flood was local and covered only part of the earth. The evidence is as follows.a. The main arguments rest on modern geology and the improbability of a universal flood in view of consequent global changes.b. Advocates take the universal statements in the text as limited to the area where Moses said the Flood took place.This view has gained wide acceptance since the modern science of geology has called in question the credibility of the text."The principle concern of those advocating a local flood is to escape the geological implications of a universal flood." [Note:
Davis, p. 124. See Ramm, pp. 229-40; and Kidner; et al.; who advocated a local flood.] "Since the distorted concept of special creation used by the originator of the geologic column was never truly Creationistic, and organic evolution has long since become the conceptual basis for time-equivalence of index fossils, modern Creationists can justifiably point out that organic evolution isthe basis for the geological column." [Note: John R. Woodmorappe, "A Diluviological Treatise on the Stratigraphic Separation of Fossils," Creation Research Society Quarterly (December 1983):135.] Basically, this controversy, like that involving the creation account, involves presuppositions about the credibility of Scripture or science and the possibility of supernatural occurrences. The scientific community seems to be more open to catastrophism of some kind than it used to be. [Note: See Henry Morris, "Biblical Catastrophism and Modern Science," Bibliotheca Sacra 125:498 (April-June 1968):107-15. An interesting article on some ancient non-biblical accounts of the Flood is Jack P. Lewis, "Noah and the Flood in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Tradition," Biblical Archaeologist 47:4 (December 1984):224-39. See also J. Randall O'Brien, "Flood Stories of the Ancient Near East," Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):60-65. ] Some interpreters have understood the opening of the "floodgates of the sky" (Genesis 7:11) as a breaking up of a water vapor canopy that some say covered the earth before the Flood. [Note: See my comments on 2:5-6.] Advocates of this "canopy theory" believe that it may account for longevity before the Flood."The water for Noah's Flood came from the release of great underground sources of water (the fountains of the great deep which continued pouring forth for 150 days), and from the collapse of the waters above (presumably a vast water vapor blanket or canopy above the atmosphere), giving the 40 days and nights of rain. Psalms 104 indicates that after the Flood, the mountains were upthrust to their present positions, with associated deepening of the ocean basins, which now hold the waters of the Flood."These waters would not have been enough to cover today's highest mountains. Genesis indicates no rain or rainbows before the Flood, which is consistent with the absence of high mountains that are important to the triggering of rainfall. Also, the absence of large temperature differences between poles and equator under such a greenhouse blanket of water vapor
would mean an absence of the vast winds which are also necessary (now, but not before the Flood) for the rainfall cycle. Genesis describes how the earth before the Flood was watered by mists and/or springs and geysers." [Note: Ham, et al., p. 15. Cf. also pp. 117-29 for further discussion.] "We have shown earlier that the flood narrative points ahead to Moses and the escape of the Hebrews through the Red Sea. This is evidenced again by the term 'dry land' (haraba) in our passage (Genesis 7:22) rather than the customary 'dry ground' (yabasa). This infrequent term occurs eight times, only once more in the Pentateuch at Exodus 14:21, where it describes the transformation of the sea into 'dry land' by a 'strong east wind.' This exodus parallel is confirmed by Genesis 8:1b, which speaks of God's sending a 'wind' upon the waters. Later Israel identified itself with Noah and the tiny group of survivors who escaped the wicked by the awesome deeds of God." [Note: Mathews, pp. 381-82.] 08 Chapter 8 Verses 1-5When Moses wrote that God remembered someone (Genesis 8:1), he meant God extended mercy to him or her by delivering that person from death (here; cf. Genesis 19:29) or from barrenness (Genesis 30:22). [Note: Hamilton, p. 299.] God's rescue of Noah foreshadows His deliverance of Israel in the Exodus (cf. Genesis 8:13-14and Exodus 2:24; Exodus 14:21). [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 127; idem, "Genesis," p. 89.] "'Ararat,' known as ancient Urartu in Assyrian records, was an extensive territory and bordered the northern Mesopotamian region. It reached its political zenith in the ninth to sixth centuries B.C. Urartu surrounded Lake Van with boundaries taking in southeast Turkey, southern Russia, and northwest Iran. Among the mountains of modern Armenia is the impressive peak known today as Mount Ararat, some seventeen thousand feet in elevation, which the Turks call Byk Ari Da. 'Mount Ararat' as a geographical designation comes from later tradition. During the eleventh to twelfth centuries A.D., it became the traditional site known as the place of Noah's landing. Genesis 8:4, however, does not specify a peak and refers generally to its location as the 'mountains of Ararat.'... The search for the ark's artifacts has been both a medieval and a modern occupation;
but to the skeptic such evidence is not convincing, and to the believer, while not irrelevant, it is not necessary to faith." [Note: Mathews, pp. 385-86.] Modern Mt. Ararat lies on the border between Turkey and Armenia near the center of the ancient world. From this general region Noah's descendants spread out over the earth. [Note: For a history of the evidence that Noah's ark is still on Mt. Ararat, see Boice, 1:263-65. See also Tim LaHaye and John Morris, The Ark on Mt. Ararat, or Violet Cummings, Has Anybody Really Seen Noah's Ark?] Verses 6-14"The raven in seeking food settles upon every carcass it sees, whereas the dove will only settle on what is dry and clean." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:149.] Doves (Genesis 8:8), light, clean animals (Leviticus 1:14; Leviticus 12:6; et al.) in contrast to dark, unclean animals (Leviticus 11:15; Deuteronomy 14:14), return to their home when they find no place to land."The olive tree will put out leaves even under water." [Note: Ibid.] Verses 15-19There are many interesting thematic parallels between God calling Noah out of the ark and God calling Abraham out of Ur (cf. Genesis 8:15and Genesis 12:1; Genesis 8:16and Genesis 12:1; Genesis 8:18and Genesis 12:4; Genesis 8:20and Genesis 12:7; Genesis 9:1and Genesis 12:2; Genesis 9:9and Genesis12:7)."Both Noah and Abraham represent new beginnings in the course of events recorded in Genesis. Both are marked by God's promise of blessing and his gift of the covenant." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 91.] Genesis 8:15introduces the third dispensation, the dispensation of human government. When Noah and his family stepped out of the ark to begin life on earth anew, God laid down new rules for humanity, including a new test. Previously no one had the right to take another human life (cf. Genesis 4:10-11; Genesis 4:14-15;Genesis 4:23-24). Now, though man's direct moral responsibility to God continued, God delegated to man certain areas of His authority. Man was now to express his obedience to God not only by obeying God directly but also by obeying the human authorities God would set over him, namely, human governors (cf. Matthew 22:21; Romans 13:1-2).The highest function of human government is the protection of human life. God now specified that human beings were not to avenge murder individually but to
do so as a corporate group, to practice capital punishment, to safeguard the sanctity of human life. Human life is a gift from God that people should not dispose of except as God permits. Restraint on man in the preceding dispensation was internal (Genesis 6:3), God's Spirit working through moral responsibility. But now a new external restraint was added: the influence and power of civil government.Unfortunately, man failed to rule his fellowman righteously. Civil leaders have abused their function as God's vice-regents by ruling for themselves rather than for God. Examples are the failures at Babel (Genesis 11:9), in Israel's theocracy (2 Chronicles 36:15-21), and in "the times of the Gentiles" (Daniel 2:31-45). The glorious reign of Jesus Christ over the earth will supersede man's rule eventually. The dispensation of human government ended as a specific test of human obedience when God called Abraham to be His instrument of blessing to the whole world (Genesis 12:2). Nevertheless man's responsibility for government did not end then but will continue until Christ sets up His kingdom on the earth.Genesis 8:18-19may seem like needless repetition to the modern reader, but they underline Noah's obedience to God's words, which Moses stressed in the entire Flood narrative.Verses 20-22Noah's "altar" is the first altar mentioned in the Bible. His "burnt offerings" were for worship. Some of the burnt offerings in the Mosaic cultus (system of worship) were for the same purpose. Specifically, a burnt offering made atonement and expressed the offerer's complete personal devotion to God (cf. Leviticus 1; Romans 12:1-2). As the head of the new humanity, Noah's sacrifice represented all humankind.God may judge the wicked catastrophically and begin a new era of existence with faithful believers.The non-biblical stories of the Flood are undoubtedly perversions of the true account that God preserved in Scripture. God may have revealed the true account directly to Moses, or He may have preserved a true oral or written account that Moses used as his source of this information. Moses may have written Genesis under divine inspiration to correct the Mesopotamian versions (the maximalist view), or both the biblical and Mesopotamian accounts may go back to a common tradition (the minimalist view). [Note: For a chart that compares the biblical account of the Flood with four other ancient Near Eastern accounts of it, see Appendix 2 at the end of these notes.]
"Biblical religion explained that the seasonal cycle was the consequence of Yahweh's pronouncement and, moreover, evidence of a divine dominion that transcends the elements of the earth. There is no place for Mother-earth in biblical ideology. Earth owes itspowers (not her powers!) to the divine command." [Note: Mathews, p. 397.] 09 Chapter 9 Verses 1-7At this new beginning of the human family, God again commanded Noah and his sons to fill the earth with their descendants (Genesis 9:1; cf. Genesis 1:28; Genesis 9:7). [Note: See Bernhard W. Anderson, "Creation and Ecology," American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 4:1 (January 1983):14-30; and Waltke, Genesis, pp. 155-56.] As with Adam, He also gave them dominion over the animals and permission to eat food with only one prohibition (cf. Genesis1:26; Genesis 1:28-29; Genesis 2:16-17).God gave Noah permission to eat animals (Genesis 9:3). Until now, evidently people had eaten only plants (cf. Genesis 1:29). Now humanity received the power of life and death over the animal kingdom."God did not expressly prohibit the eating of meat in the initial stipulation at creation, but by inference Genesis 9:3's provision for flesh is used as a dividing mark between the antediluvian and postdiluvian periods. Whether or not early man could eat meat by permission from the beginning, now it is stated formally in the Noahic covenant." [Note: Mathews, p. 401.] God did, however, prohibit the eating of animal blood to instill respect for the sacredness of life, since blood is a symbol of life (cf. Leviticus 3:17; Leviticus 7:2-27; Leviticus 19:26; Deuteronomy 12:1-24; 1 Samuel 14:32-34).Until the Mosaic Law, God made no distinction between clean and unclean animals with regard to human consumption. Under the Mosaic Law, the Israelites could not eat certain foods. Under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), we may again eat any foods (Romans 14:14; 1 Timothy 4:3). These changes illustrate the fact that God has changed some of the rules for human conduct at various strategic times in history. These changes are significant features that help us identify the various dispensations (economies) by which God has ruled historically. [Note: See Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, pp. 22-64; or idem, Dispensationalism, pp. 23-59.]
God not only reasserted the cultural mandate to reproduce and modified the food law, but He also reasserted the sanctity of human life (cf. ch. 4). The reason for capital punishment (Genesis 9:6) is that God made man in His own image. This is one reason, therefore, that murder is so serious. A person extinguishes a revelation of God when he or she murders someone. [Note: See Elmer L. Gray, "Capital Punishment in the Ancient Near East," Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):65-67; Charles C. Ryrie, "The Doctrine of Capital Punishment," Bibliotheca Sacra 129:515 (July-September 1972):211-17; Marshall Shelley, "The Death Penalty: Two Sides of a Growing Issue," Christianity Today (March 2, 1984), pp. 14-17; James A. Stahr, "The Death Penalty," Interest (March 1984), pp. 2-3; Duane C. Caylor, "Capital Punishment, a different Christian perspective," Reformed Journal 36:7 (July 1986):10-12; Bruce W. Ballard, "The Death Penalty: God's Timeless Standard for the Nations?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:3 (September 2000):471-87; Hamilton, p. 315; and Mathews, pp. 403-6.] Later the writing prophets announced that God would judge certain foreign nations because they shed human blood without divine authorization (e.g., Amos 1:3; Amos 1:11; Amos 1:13; Amos 2:1). God has never countermanded this command, so it is still in force. Before the Flood the lack of capital punishment led to bloody vendettas (cf. ch. 4)."This command laid the foundation for all civil government." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:153. See Waltke, Genesis, pp. 157-58.] "The human government and the governors that existed previously-as in the city which Cain established (Genesis 4:17), or in the case of the mighty men (Genesis 6:4)-existed solely on human authority. Now, however, divine authority was conferred on human government to exercise oversight over those who lived under its jurisdiction." [Note: Pentecost, p. 46.] "I sometimes feel that often the hue and cry against capital punishment today does not so much rest upon humanitarian interest or even an interest in justice, but rather in a failure to understand that man is unique. The simple fact is that Genesis 9:6is a sociological statement: The reason that the punishment for murder can be so severe is that man, being created in the image of God, has a particular value-not just a theoretical value at some time before the Fall, but such a value yet today." [Note: Schaeffer, pp. 50-51.] Verses 1-17
2. The Noahic Covenant 9:1-17Following the Flood, God established human life anew on the earth showing His high regard for it. He promised to bless humanity with faithfulness, and He prohibited murder. He also promised with a sign that He would not destroy His creation again with a flood."The Noahic covenant's common allusions to Genesis 1:1to Genesis 2:3show that Noah is the second Adam who heads the new family of humanity, indicating that the blessing continues through the progeny of the Sethite line. AlsoGenesis 8:20toGenesis 9:17possesses lexical and thematic connections with the ratification of the Sinai covenant by Moses and the elders (Exodus 24:4-18)." [Note: Ibid., p. 398. See also Kenneth Mulzac, "Genesis 9:1-7: Its Theological Connections with the Creation Motif," Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 12:1 (Spring 2001):65-77.] Verses 8-17The Noahic Covenant was a suzerainty treaty that God made with humankind through Noah. [Note: See note on 6:18.] In it He promised never to destroy all flesh with a flood of water again (Genesis 9:11). The sign God appointed to remind people of this promise and to guarantee its veracity was the rainbow (Genesis 9:12-15; cf. Genesis 6:12). There may have been rainbows before this pronouncement, but now God attached significance to the rainbow."Shining upon a dark ground, . . . it represents the victory of the light of love over the fiery darkness of wrath. Originating from the effect of the sun upon a dark cloud, it typifies the willingness of the heavenly to penetrate the earthly. Stretched between heaven and earth, it is as a bond of peace between both, and, spanning the horizon, it points to the all-embracing universality of the Divine mercy." [Note: Franz Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis , 1:289-90.] "The rainbow arcs like a battle bow hung against the clouds. (The Hebrew word for rainbow, qeset, is also the word for a battle bow.) ..."The bow is now 'put away,' hung in place by the clouds, suggesting that the 'battle,' the storm, is over. Thus the rainbow speaks of peace." [Note: Ross, "Genesis," p. 40.] This covenant would remain for "all successive generations" (Genesis 9:12). People have no responsibility to guarantee the perpetuity of this covenant; God will do all that He promised (Genesis 9:9). Observe the recurrence of "I," "Myself," and "My" in these verses. Thus, this covenant is unconditional (Genesis
9:9), universal (Genesis 9:11), and everlasting (Genesis 9:12). [Note: See Thomas, pp. 89-93.] "What distinguishes the Noahic [Covenant] from the patriarchal one and for that matter all others recounted in the Old Testament is its truly universal perspective. It is God's commitment to the whole of humanity and all terrestrial creation-including the surviving animal population." [Note: Mathews, p. 62.] "The covenant with Noah [Genesis 6:18; Genesis 9:9-16] is entirely unconditional rather than a conditional covenant, as in the Edenic situation. The certainty of the fulfillment of the covenant with Noah rested entirely with God and not with Noah. As this point is somewhat obscured in current discussion on the covenants of Scripture, it is important to distinguish covenants that are conditional from those that are unconditional. Conditional covenants depend on the recipients meeting the conditions imposed by God. Unconditional covenants declare that God's purpose will be fulfilled regardless of an individual's response. The fact that the covenant is one-sided-from God to humankind-does not mean that there is no response on the part of humankind. But the point is that the response is anticipated and does not leave the fulfillment of the covenant in doubt." [Note: Walvoord, pp. 188-89.] The elements of the Noahic Covenant are the following. God held man responsible for protecting the sanctity of human life by orderly governmental rule even specifying the use of capital punishment (Genesis 9:5-6; cf. Romans 13:1-7). God promised not to judge humanity again with a universal flood (Genesis8:21; Genesis 9:11-16), and He confirmed the established order of nature (Genesis 8:22; Genesis 9:2). God now permitted people to eat animal flesh, evidently for the first time (Genesis 9:3-4). God announced that Canaan's descendants would be servants to their brethren (Genesis 9:25-26), Shem's descendants would enjoy a special relationship to the Lord (Genesis 9:26-27), and Japheth's descendants would become enlarged races (Genesis 9:27).". . . the author is intentionally drawing out the similarities between God's covenant with Noah and the covenant at Sinai. Why? The answer that best fits with the author's purposes is that he wants to show that God's covenant at Sinai is not a new act of God. The covenant is rather a return to God's original promises. Once again at Sinai, as he had done in the past, God is at work restoring his fellowship with man and bringing man back to himself. The
covenant with Noah plays an important role in the author's development of God's restoration of blessing. It lies midway between God's original blessing of all mankind (Genesis 1:28) and God's promise to bless 'all peoples on the earth' through Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3)." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 93.] Verses 18-24Evidently Noah became so drunk that he took off all his clothes and then passed out naked in his tent. There is no explicit indication that Ham disrobed his father or committed some homosexual act. [Note: See Mathews, pp. 417, 419.] However, because the expression "to see one's nakedness" is sometimes used of sexual intercourse, it is possible that sexual immorality was involved. [Note: Wolf, pp. 106-7.] Noah's shame was not that he drank wine but that he drank to excess and thereby lost self-control that resulted in immodesty (cf. Ephesians5:18). Certainly this incident should warn the reader of the potential harm of drunkenness both for the drinker and for his or her family. The stumbling block for Adam and Eve had also been food."Whatever the actual nature of his [Noah's] conduct might have been [in becoming drunk and uncovering himself in his tent] ..., the author presents his deed as one of disgrace and shame ('nakedness,' as in Genesis 3), and he seems intent on depicting the scene in such a way as to establish parallels between Noah's disgrace (he took of the fruit of his orchard and became naked) and that of Adam and Eve (who took of the fruit of the Garden and saw that they were naked)." [Note: Sailhaver, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 120. See also Mathews, p. 418.] Ham's gazing on Noah's nakedness represents an early step in the abandonment of the moral code after the Flood. Ham dishonored Noah not by seeing him naked but by his outspoken delight in his father's condition (cf. Genesis 19:26; Exodus 33:20; Judges 13:22; 1 Samuel 6:19)."It is difficult for someone living in the modern world to understand the modesty and discretion of privacy called for in ancient morality. Nakedness in the OT was from the beginning a thing of shame for fallen man [Genesis 3:7] . . . the state of nakedness was both undignified and vulnerable. . . . To see someone uncovered was to bring dishonor and to gain advantage for potential exploitation." [Note: Allen P. Ross, "The Curse of Canaan," Bibliotheca Sacra 137:547 (July-September 1980):230.]
"The sons of Noah are here shown to belong to two groups of humankind, those who like Adam and Eve hide the shame of their nakedness and those who like Ham, or rather the Canaanites, have no sense of their shame before God. The one group, the line of Shem, will be blessed (Genesis 9:26); but the other, the Canaanites (not the Hamites), can only be cursed (Genesis 9:25)." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 130.] "Shem, the father of Abraham, is the paradigm of later Israel; and Ham of their archenemies, Egypt and Canaan (Genesis 10:6). Lying behind this is the ancient concept of corporate personality. Because of this unity of father-son, the character of the father is anticipated in the deeds of the sons. Hebrew theology recognized that due to parental influence future generations usually committed the same acts as their fathers whether for ill or good. In this case the curse is directed at Ham's son as Ham's just deserts for the disrespect he had toward his own father, Noah." [Note: Mathews, p. 421.] Ham's action also may have involved an attempt to take leadership of the family from Noah. [Note: See Jordan, pp. 47-52.] Shem and Japheth's act of covering their father's nakedness, however, imitated God who covered Adam and Eve's nakedness in the garden (Genesis 3:21).Verses 18-293. The curse on Canaan 9:18-29This pericope presents the characteristics of the three branches of the human family that grew out of Noah. Moses stressed the themes of blessing and cursing. God cursed Canaan with slavery because Ham showed disrespect toward Noah whereas He blessed Shem and Japheth for their regard for their father's vulnerable condition."The world seems all set for a new start. The slate has been wiped clean, and we hope that the mistakes of the antediluvians will not be repeated. But no sooner is the blessing pronounced and the eternal covenant confirmed than man lapses again." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 206.] Verses 25-27This oracle, the first time Moses recorded a human uttering a curse, is a prophecy announcing divine judgment on Canaan's descendants for theirsin that had its seed in Ham's act. Noah, as a prophet, announced the future of this grandson's descendants (cf. Genesis 49; Deuteronomy 33; et al.).
"For his breach of the family, his [Ham's] own family would falter." [Note: Kidner, p. 104.] The Canaanites became known for their shameless depravity in sexual matters. [Note: See Charles Pfeiffer, Ras Shamra and the Bible.] When Joshua invaded their land he proved to be God's instrument of punishment for the Canaanites."With the defeat of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar in 572 B.C. the Canaanites/Phoenicians ceased to be of importance in biblical history." [Note: The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, 1975 ed., s.v. "Canaan, Canaanite," by A. K. Helmbold, 1:297. See also The New Bible Dictionary, 1962 ed., s.v. "Canaan, Canaanites," by Kenneth A. Kitchen; and Unger's Bible Dictionary, 1957 ed., s.v. "Canaan, Canaanites," by Merrill F. Unger.] There is no basis for the popular notion that this oracle doomed the Hamites, who were mainly Africans, to a position of inferiority or slavery among the other peoples of the world. Canaan and his branch of the family are the subject of this prophecy, not Ham and all his descendants."There are no grounds in our passage for an ethnic reading of the 'curse' as some have done, supposing that some peoples are inferior to others. Here Genesis looks only to the social and religious life of Israel's ancient rival Canaan, whose immorality defiled their land and threatened Israel's religious fidelity (cf. Leviticus 18:28; Joshua 23). It was not an issue of ethnicity but of the wicked practices that characterized Canaanite culture." [Note: Mathews, p. 423. See also Charles C. Ryrie, You Mean the Bible Teaches That ..., p. 60; Thomas Figart, A Biblical Perspective on the Race Problem, p. 55; and O. Palmer Robertson, "Current Critical Questions Concerning the 'Curse of Ham' (Genesis 9:20-27)," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:2 (June 1998):177-88.] The general lesson of the passage is that God blesses those who behave righteously but curses those who abandon moral restraint."Instructively, the first three heroes of faith listed in Hebrews are from Genesis 4-6 : Abel, Enoch, and Noah. All believed God, but their destinies were significantly different. Abel believed God and died. Enoch believed God and did not die. Noah believed God, and everyone else died in the Flood; eventually he died a natural death at the good old age of 950 years. We cannot dictate where faith will lead. The human tendency is to see only Enoch as the example of faith, but Abel is also given as our example. What all three
have in common is that they walked by faith and pleased God. That faith is an example to us." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 155.] 10 Chapter 10 Verses 1-9E. What became of Noah's sons 10:1-11:9This section gives in some detail the distribution of Noah's descendants over the earth after the Flood (cf. Genesis 9:18-19).This fourth toledotsection (Genesis 10:1to Genesis 11:9) brings the inspired record of primeval events to a climax and provides a transition to the patriarchal narratives. All the nations of the world in their various lands with their different languages descended from Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Of special interest to the original Israelite readers were the Canaanites and the other ancient Near Eastern powers."From this section we learn that the 'blessing' is for all peoples because all nations have their source in the one man, Noah, whom God favored. Moreover, the disunity among Noah's offspring that resulted from the tower event [Genesis 11:1-9] did not prevent the blessing God had envisioned for humanity." [Note: Mathews, p. 427.] "The Tower of Babel incident (Genesis 11:1-9), though following the table in the present literary arrangement, actually precedes chronologically the dispersal of the nations. This interspersal of narrative (Genesis 11:1-9) separates the two genealogies of Shem (Genesis 10:21-31; Genesis 11:10-26), paving the way for the particular linkage between the Terah (Abraham) clan and the Shemite lineage (Genesis 11:27). The story of the tower also looks ahead by anticipating the role that Abram (Genesis 12:1-3) will play in restoring the blessing to the dispersed nations." [Note: Ibid., p. 428.] 1. The table of nations ch. 10This table shows that Yahweh created all peoples (cf. Deuteronomy 32:8; Amos9:7; Acts 17:26). Like the genealogy in chapter 5, this one traces 10 main individuals, and the last one named had three sons.This chapter contains one of the oldest, if not the oldest, ethnological table in the literature of the ancient world. It reveals a remarkable understanding of the ethnic and linguistic situation following the Flood. Almost all the names in this chapter
have been found in archaeological discoveries in the last century and a half. Many of them appear in subsequent books of the Old Testament.". . . the names in chapter 10 are presented in a dissimilar manner: the context may be that of an individual (e.g., Nimrod), a city (e.g., Asshur), a people (e.g., Jebusites) or a nation (e.g., Elam)."A failure to appreciate this mixed arrangement of Genesis 10 has led, we believe, to numerous unwarranted conclusions. For example, it should not be assumed that all the descendants of any one of Noah's sons lived in the same locality, spoke the same language, or even belonged to a particular race." [Note: Barry J. Beitzel, The Moody Atlas of Bible Lands, p. 76. See pages 76-79 for discussion of each name in chapter 10.] "The table of nations is a 'horizontal' genealogy rather than a 'vertical' one (those in chaps. 5 and 11 are vertical). Its purpose is not primarily to trace ancestry; instead it shows political, geographical, and ethnic affiliations among tribes for various reasons, most notable being holy war. Tribes shown to be 'kin' would be in league together. Thus this table aligns the predominant tribes in and around the land promised to Israel. These names include founders of tribes, clans, cities, and territories." [Note: Ross, "Genesis," p. 42.] In contrast to the genealogy in chapter 5, this one lists no ages. It contains place and group names, which are spoken of as the ancestors of other places or groups, as well as the names of individuals. God built nations from families. Thus it is quite clearly a selective list, not comprehensive. The writer's choice of material shows that he had particular interest in presenting Israel's neighbors. Israel would deal with, displace, or subjugate many of these peoples, as well as the Canaanites (ch. 9). They all had a common origin. Evidently 70 nations descended from Shem, Ham, and Japheth: 26 from Shem, 30 from Ham, and 14 from Japheth (cf. Deuteronomy 32:8). Seventy became a traditional round number for a large group of descendants. [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 213.] Jacob's family also comprised 70 people (Genesis 46:27), which may indicate that Moses viewed Israel as a microcosm of humanity as he presented it here. God set the microcosm apart to bless the macrocosm.Japheth's descendants (Genesis 10:2-5) settled north, east, and west of Ararat. [Note: For helpful diagrams showing the generational relationships of the descendants of Japheth, Ham, and Shem respectively, see Mathews, pp. 440, 444, and 459.] Their distance from Israel probably explains the brief treatment
that they received in this list compared with that of the Hamites and Shemites. The "coastlands" (Genesis 10:5) are the inland areas and the northern Mediterranean coastlands on the now European shore from Turkey to Spain. The dispersion of the nations "according to . . . language" (Genesis 10:5) took place after Babel (ch. 11) all along these coasts as well as elsewhere. [Note: For discussion of the identities of each name, see Wenham, Genesis 1-15, pp. 216-32; or the NET Bible notes on these verses.] Ham's family (Genesis 10:6-20) moved east, south, and southwest into Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Africa. Canaan's descendants (Genesis 10:15-21) did not migrate as far south but settled in Palestine. [Note: For explanation of the locations the individuals, cities, tribes, and nations cited in this table, see Allen P. Ross, "The Table of Nations in Genesis 10 -Its Content," Bibliotheca Sacra 138:549 (January-March 1981):23-31.] The length of these Hamite Canaanite lists indicates the importance of these people and places in Israel's later history. Note the absence of the common sevens in the structuring in Canaan's genealogy, suggesting chaos. [Note: Waltke, Genesis, pp. 164-65.] It is possible that Sargon of Agade, whom many secular historians regard as the first ruler of Babylon, may be the Nimrod (meaning "We shall rebel") of Genesis10:8-10. [Note: Oliver R. Blosser, "Was Nimrod-Sargon of Agade, the First King of Babylon?" It's About Time (June 1987), pp. 10-13.] Many people in ancient times had more than one name. Reference to him probably foreshadows Genesis 11:1-9."The influx of the Amorites in Canaan is disputed. It does not necessarily follow that the original Amorites, attributed to Hamite descent in Genesis 10, were a Semitic people since the term 'Amorite' in ancient Near Eastern documents does not serve as a definitive source for designating ethnicity. Moreover, linguistic evidence does not always assure true ethnic derivation." [Note: Mathews, p. 456. See also The New Bible Dictionary, 1962 ed., s.v. "Amorites," by A. R. Millard.] Shem's posterity (Genesis 10:21-31) settled to the northeast and southeast of the Canaanites. This branch of the human family is also important in the Genesis record of Israel's history."When the two lines of Shem are compared (Genesis 10:21-31; Genesis11:10-26), there is a striking divergence at the point of Eber's descendants, Peleg and Joktan [Genesis 10:25]. In chap. 10 Peleg is dropped altogether after his mention, while the nonelect line of Joktan is detailed. It is left to the
second lineage in chap. 11 to trace out Peleg's role as ancestral father of Abraham ..." [Note: Mathews, p. 459.] "This Table of Nations, then, traces affiliation of tribes to show relationships, based on some original physical connections."It is clear that the writer is emphasizing the development of these nations that were of primary importance to Israel (yaladsections) within the overall structure of the Table (b'nearrangement)." [Note: Allen P. Ross, "The Table of Nations in Genesis 10 -Its Structure," Bibliotheca Sacra 137:548 (October-December 1980):350. See also Eugene H. Merrill, "The Peoples of the Old Testament according to Genesis 10," Bibliotheca Sacra 154:613 (January-March 1997):3-22.] "The three geographical arcs of the branches intersect at the center-that is, Canaan, Israel's future homeland." [Note: Mathews, p. 433. See Yohanan Aharoni and Michael Avi-Yonah, The Macmillan Bible Atlas, map 15.] This section reveals that it was God's plan to bless the human race by dividing the family of man by languages, locations, and leaders. God formerly blessed the earth by dividing the light from the darkness, the earth from the heavens, and the land from the seas (ch. 1). Some creationists believe that the division of the earth in Peleg's day (Genesis 10:25) refers to continental drift, but many creationists do not hold this view. [Note: For a creationist discussion of the subject of continental drift, see Ham, et al., pp. 11-12, 41-63; or David M. Fouts, "Peleg in Genesis10:25," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:1 (March 1998):17-21.] "By correlating the number of nations [in ch. 10, i.e., 70] with the number of the seed of Abraham [in Genesis 46:27], he [the writer] holds Abraham's 'seed' before the reader as a new humanity and Abraham himself as a kind of second Adam, the 'father of many nations' (Genesis 17:5)." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 131.] ". . . his intention is not to give an exhaustive list but rather a representative list, one which, for him, is obtained in the number seven." [Note: Ibid., p. 132.] "The table's figure of 'seventy' for the world's nations is alluded to by Jesus in the sending forth of the seventy disciples, as recounted by Luke (Genesis10:1-16). Here the evangelist emphasizes the mission of the church in its worldwide evangelistic endeavors." [Note: Mathews, p. 437. See also Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Part II. From Noah to Abraham, pp. 175-80.]
11 Chapter 11 Verse 1-2Some of the Hamites migrated "east" (specifically southeast) to the plain of Shinar (cf. Genesis 10:10). This was in the Mesopotamian basin (modern Iraq)."In light of such intentional uses of the notion of 'eastward' within the Genesis narratives, we can see that here too the author intentionally draws the story of the founding of Babylon into the larger scheme at work throughout the book. It is a scheme that contrasts God's way of blessing (e.g., Eden and the Promised Land) with man's own attempt to find the 'good.' In the Genesis narratives, when man goes 'east,' he leaves the land of blessing (Eden and the Promised Land) and goes to a land where the greatest of his hopes will turn to ruin (Babylon and Sodom). [Note: Idem, "Genesis," p. 104.] "Following the Ararat departure, the people migrated southeast to the lower Euphrates valley. Genesis 1-11 then has come full circle from 'Eden' to 'Babel,' both remembered for the expulsion of their residents." [Note: Mathews, p. 467.] Verses 1-92. The dispersion at Babel 11:1-9This pericope is a flashback that explains the division of the earth in Peleg's time (Genesis 10:25). The main emphasis in this section is not the building of the tower of Babel but the dispersion of the peoples. We can see this in the literary structure of the passage. [Note: Ross, Creation and . . ., p. 235. Cf. J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis, p. 22; Wenham, Genesis 1-15, pp. 234-38; and Waltke, Genesis, pp. 176-77.] AAll the earth had one language (Genesis 11:1)Bthere (Genesis 11:2)C one to another (Genesis 11:3)DCome, let's make bricks (Genesis 11:3)ELet's make for ourselves (Genesis 11:4)Fa city and a towerGAnd the Lord came down to see (Genesis11:5; cf. Genesis 8:1)F'the city and the tower (Genesis 11:5)
E'that the humans built (Genesis 11:5)D'Come, let's confuse (Genesis 11:7)C'everyone the language of his neighbor (Genesis 11:7)B'from there (Genesis 11:8)A'(confused) the language of the whole earth (Genesis 11:9)When people attempted to preserve their unity and make a name for themselves by building a tower, Yahweh frustrated the plan and scattered everyone by confusing the language that bound them together."The tower of Babel story is the last great judgment that befell mankind in primeval times. Its place and function in Genesis 1-11 may be compared to the fall in Genesis 3 and the sons of God episode in Genesis 6:1-4, both of which triggered divine judgments of great and enduring consequence." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 242.] This story explains to God's people how God scattered the nations and why. In judgment for trying to establish a world state in opposition to divine rule (human government run amuck), God struck the thing that bound people together, namely, a common language. Chronologically the Babel incident preceded the dispersal that Moses described with genealogies in chapter 10. One writer argued for the identification of the tower of Babel incident with the demise and dispersion of the last great Sumerian dynasty centered at Ur. [Note: Paul T. Penley, "A Historical Reading of Genesis 11:1-9: The Sumerian Demise and Dispersion under the Ur III Dynasty," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50:4 (December 2007):693-714.] "By placing the Tower of Babel incident just prior to the patriarchal stories, the biblical writer is suggesting, in the first place, that post-Flood humanity is as iniquitous as pre-Flood humanity. Rather than sending something as devastating as a flood to annihilate mankind, however, God now places his hope in a covenant with Abraham as a powerful solution to humanity's sinfulness. Thus problem (ch. 11) and solution (ch. 12) are brought into immediate juxtaposition, and the forcefulness of this structural move would have been lost had ch. 10 intervened between the two." [Note: Hamilton, pp. 347-48. See J. Sasson, "The 'Tower of Babel' As a Clue to the Redactional Structuring of the Primeval History [Genesis 1-11:9]," in The Bible World: Essays in Honor of Cyrus H. Gordon, pp. 218-19.] "As it is presently situated in the text, the account of the founding of Babylon falls at the end of the list of fourteen names from the line of Joktan (Genesis
10:26-29). At the end of the list of the ten names of Peleg's line, however, is the account of the call of Abraham (Genesis 11:27to Genesis 12:10). So two great lines of the descendants of Shem divide in the two sons of Eber (Genesis 10:25). One ends in Babylon, the other in the Promised Land." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 134.] Verse 3-4The motivation for building a city was to make the builders a name (cf. Psalms14:1). Later God would "make a name" for Abram (Genesis 12:2-3). The object of this endeavor was to establish a center by which they might maintain their unity."A defensive wall is the hallmark of a city (see Genesis 4:17). Cities in the ancient Near East were not designed to be lived in but were intended for religious and public purposes." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 179.] God desired unity for humankind, but one that He created, not one founded on a social state. [Note: Mathews, p. 473.] They wanted to "empower" themselves. Both motive and object were ungodly. God had instructed man to fill the earth (Genesis 1:28), to spread over the whole planet.The builders of the "tower" seem to have intended that it serve as a memorial or landmark, among other things. It was probably a ziggurat used for religious purposes."Mesopotamian religion claimed that their cities were of divine parentage. A symbol of this obsession with divinity among the Mesopotamians was the ziggurat (Akk. ziqqurratu) that was erected as early as the third millennium B.C. The ziggurat was a step-ladder edifice, made up of mud bricks, whose bottom was square or rectangular. The precise meaning of the structure is unknown, though it is widely agreed that it formed a stairway between the gods and earth (cf. Genesis 28:12). At the foot of the ziggurat as well as the pinnacle was a temple area serving as a habitation for the god. Ziggurats may have been considered an earthly imitation of the heavenly residence of the gods." [Note: Ibid., pp. 470-71. Cf. Waltke, Genesis, p. 179.] Verse 5-6The builders undoubtedly expected to ascend to heaven to meet God. Instead God descended to earth to meet them. If God had allowed this project to continue the results would have been even worse and more serious than they were at this time. The sin of the builders was their refusal to obey God-given directives.
"Depraved humanity are united in their spiritual endeavor to find, through technology, existential meaning apart from God and the means to transgress its boundaries. Unless God intervenes and divides them by confounding their speech, nothing can stop human beings in their overweening pride and their desire for autonomy." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 182.] The construction of cities by itself was not sinful. God chose Jerusalem for His people, and He will create the New Jerusalem for believers to inhabit. It is the pride and security that people place in their cities that God disapproves.Verse 7God's soliloquy in this verse mimics the language of the tower builders in Genesis 11:3-4(cf. Genesis 1:26). The tower was so puny that He had to come down to see it (cf. Isaiah 40:22). The confusion of language probably involved more than just the introduction of new words."If language is the audible expression of emotions, conceptions, and thoughts of the mind, the cause of the confusion or division of the one human language into different national dialects might be sought in an effect produced upon the human mind, by which the original unity of emotion, conception, thought, and will was broken up. This inward unity had no doubt been already disturbed by sin, but the disturbance had not yet amounted to a perfect breach." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:174-75.] Some scholars believe that this judgment also involved the implantation of ethnic and racial distinctions in humankind. The Table of Nations in chapter 10 may imply this. [Note: See Merrill, "The Peoples . . .," p. 22.] Verse 8The resultant confusion led to a scattering of the people over the "whole earth" (cf. Genesis 11:9). God did not allow human rebellion to reach the level that it did before the Flood. God forced people to do what they refused to do voluntarily, namely, scatter over the face of the earth.Some interpreters take the confusion of languages to have been a local phenomenon only. One writer believed lightning struck the tower of Babel and the confusion of speech that followed resulted from a scrambling of the electrical circuits in the brains of those struck. [Note: James E. Strickling, "The Tower of Babel and the Confusion of Tongues," Kronos (Fall 1982), pp. 53-62.] This is an interesting idea but impossible to prove. Most interpreters, however, regard this event as the source of the major language groups in the world today.
Verse 9"Babel" sounds like the Hebrew word for "confuse" (balal), and it means "the gate of gods" in Akkadian.". . . Genesis 11:1-9, the tower of Babel story, is a satire on the claims of Babylon to be the center of civilization and its temple tower the gate of heaven (E[numa]E[lish] 6:50-80): Babel does not mean gate of God, but 'confusion' and 'folly.' Far from its temple's top reaching up to heaven, it is so low that God has to descend from heaven just to see it! (Genesis 11:4-9)." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, pp. xlviii-xlix.] This was the original Babylon that forever after was the city most characterized by rebellion against God's authority. It stands as a symbol of organized rebellion against God elsewhere in Scripture (e.g., Revelation 17, 18). [Note: See Everett H. Peterson, "Prehistory and the Tower of Babel," Creation Research Society Quarterly 19:2 (September 1982):87-90.] "Man certainly did not expect his project to take such a turn. He did not anticipate that the name he wanted to make for himself would refer to a place of noncommunication." [Note: J. Ellul, The Meaning of the City, p. 18.] The story of Babel is important for several reasons.1. It explains the beginning of and reason for the various languages of mankind.2. It probably explains the origin of the "races" within humankind."The separate language groups no longer could inter-marry freely with the rest of mankind. As in-breeding and lack of access to the larger pool of genes occurred, ethnic characteristics developed. Furthermore, each local environment tended to favor selection of certain traits, and eliminate the others. Ethnic characteristics, such as skin color, arose from loss of genetic variability, not from origin of new genes through mutation as suggested by evolution."The concept of race is an evolutionary idea ... (Acts 17:26). All humans possess the same color, just different amounts of it. We all descended from Noah and Adam." [Note: A plaque explaining an exhibit at the Institute for Creation Research Museum, Santee, Calif., which I observed on May 21, 1997.] "The Bible doesn't tell us what skin color our first parents had, but, from a design point of view, the 'middle [color]' makes a great beginning. Starting with medium-skinned parents (AaBb), it would take only one generation to produce all the variation we see in human skin color today. In fact, this is the normal situation in
India today. Some Indians are as dark as the darkest Africans, and some-perhaps a brother or sister in the same family-as light as the lightest Europeans. I once knew a family from India that included members with every major skin color you could see anywhere in the world."But now notice what happens if human groups were isolated after creation. If those with very dark skins (AABB) migrate into the same areas and/or marry only those with very dark skins, then all their children will have very dark skins. (AABBis the only possible combination of ABegg and sperms cells, which are the only types that can be produced by AABBparents.) Similarly, parents with very light skins (aabb) can have only very light-skinned children, since they don't have any Aor Bgenes to pass on. Even certain medium-skinned parents (AAbb or aaBB) can get 'locked-in' to having only medium-skinned children, like the Orientals, Polynesians, and some of my ancestors, the Native Americans."Where people with different skin colors get together again (as they do in the West Indies, for example), you find the full range of variation again-nothing less, but nothing more either, than what we started with. Clearly, all this is variation within kind...."What happened as the descendants of medium-skinned parents produced a variety of descendants? Evolution? Not at all. Except for albinism (the mutational loss of skin color), the human gene pool is no bigger and no different now than the gene pool present at creation. As people multiplied, the genetic variability built right intothe first created human beings came to visible expression. The darkest Nigerian and the lightest Norwegian, the tallest Watusi and the shortest Pygmy, the highest soprano and the lowest bass could have been present right from the beginning in two quite average-looking people. Great variation in size, color, form, function, etc., would also be present in the two created ancestors of all the other kinds (plants and animals) as well."Evolutionists assumethat all life started from one or a few chemically evolved life forms with an extremely small gene pool. For evolutionists, enlargement of the gene pool by selection of random mutations is a slow, tedious process that burdens each type with a 'genetic load' of harmful mutations and evolutionary leftovers. Creationists assumeeach created kind began with a large gene pool, designed to multiply and fill the earth with all its tremendous ecologic and geographic variety. (See Genesis, chapter 1.)" [Note: G. Parker, pp. 111, 113-14. See also Ham, et al., pp. 15-16, 131-55. See ibid., pp. 19, 197-207, for discussion of how animals could have reached remote parts of the earth.]
"Many thinkers labor under the illusion that evolution is an empirical science when in fact it is a philosophy." [Note: Norman L. Geisler, "Beware of Philosophy: A Warning to Biblical Scholars," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:1 (March 1999):7.] 3. The Babel story demonstrates the inclination of fallen man to rebel against God and to try to provide for his needs in his own way rather than by trusting and obeying God.4. It illustrates that rebellion against God results in (a) broken fellowship with God and man, and (b) failure to realize God's intention for man in his creation, namely, that he rule the earth effectively.5. It provides the historical background for what follows in Genesis. Abraham came from this area."Irony is seen in the beginning and the ending of this passage. The group at Babel began as the whole earth (Genesis 11:1), but now they were spread over the whole earth (Genesis 11:9). By this time the lesson is clarified: God's purpose will be accomplished in spite of the arrogance and defiance of man's own purposes. He brings down the proud, but exalts the faithful."The significance of this little story is great. It explains to God's people how the nations were scattered abroad. Yet the import goes much deeper. The fact that it was Babylon, the beginning of kingdoms under Nimrod from Cush, adds a rather ominous warning: Great nations cannot defy God and long survive. The new nation of Israel need only survey the many nations around her to perceive that God disperses and curses the rebellious, bringing utter confusion and antagonism among them. If Israel would obey and submit to God's will, then she would be the source of blessing to the world."Unfortunately, Israel also raised her head in pride and refused to obey the Lord God. Thus she too was scattered across the face of the earth." [Note: Allen P. Ross, "The Dispersion of the Nations in Genesis 11:1-9," Bibliotheca Sacra 138:550 (April-June 1981):133. See also Sailhamer, "Genesis," pp. 103-4.] Verses 10-26F. What became of Shem 11:10-26"The Babel account (Genesis 11:1-9) is not the end of early Genesis. If it were, the story would conclude on the sad note of human failure. But as with
earlier events in Genesis 1-11, God's grace once again supersedes human sin, insuring the continued possibilities of the promissory blessings (Genesis1:28; Genesis 9:1)....The scaffolding of human pride would be dismantled by the erection of the Shemite line that culminates in obedient Abraham, who likewise is found in the region of Shinar. Abraham would prove to be the nations' deliverance." [Note: Mathews, p. 487.] "Without the blessing of God the situation of humanity is without hope: that seems to be the chief thrust of the opening chapters of Genesis." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. li.] In contrast to the genealogy in chapter 5, this one emphasizes life and expansion rather than death, even though longevity was declining. [Note: For short histories of the prepatriarchal period of ancient Near Eastern history, see John Bright, A History of Israel, pp. 17-37; or Siegfried Schwantes, A Short History of the Ancient Near East.] This genealogy starts with Noah's son Shem whom God blessed, and it concludes with Abram whom God purposed to bless. This is the line of Israel's ancestors. It is a vertical list of the type used in the ancient Near East to document legitimate claims to thrones or inheritances. [Note: Ross, Creation and . . ., p. 249.] This genealogy, as the one in chapter 5, appears to be complete. The purpose of the genealogy is to connect Abram to Noah and to give background information essential for understanding the story of Abram that follows. [Note: Mathews, p. 488, included a helpful chart of the 20 generations from Adam to Abram.] ". . . the author's aim is to show that God's promise concerning the seed of the woman cannot be thwarted by the confusion and scattering of the nations at Babylon." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 136.] "If the message of Genesis is essentially one of redemption, Genesis 3-11 explains why man needs salvation and what he needs to be saved from. Chaps. 1-2, in describing the original state of the world, also describe the goal of redemption, to which ultimately the world and humanity will return when the patriarchal promises are completely fulfilled." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. lii.] "An extensive statistical analysis of the life-spans of the patriarchs, as given in Genesis Chapter 5 and 11, shows that statistically the life-span can be considered constant before the Flood, while after the Flood the data can be fitted by an asymptotic exponential decay curve. Also, it is concluded that as for the life-spans reported in Genesis Chapter 11, the data in the Masoretic
text are the authentic ones; those in the Septuagint have been tampered with. Moreover, it is statistically unlikely that there are gaps in the genealogies in Genesis Chapter 11." [Note: William L. Seaver, "A Statistical Analysis of the Genesis Life-Spans," Creation Research Society Quarterly 20:2 (September 1983):80.] The genealogies in Genesis 11:10-26and 1 Chronicles 1:17-27are identical, but the one in Luke 3:34-36inserts the name Cainan between Arpachshad and Shelah. The inclusion of Cainan may indicate that Luke used the Septuagint to compose his genealogy since this name appears in this translation but not in the Hebrew Bible genealogies. Cainan appears elsewhere in Luke's list as Adam's great-grandson (Luke 3:37-38), so this may be a scribal error. [Note: See M. S. Mills, "A Comparison of the Genesis and Lukan Genealogies (The Case for Cainan)" (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1978).] Most scholars regard "Eber" (Genesis 11:14) as the individual from whom the Jews received the name "Hebrew." Adam, Noah, and Abram all fathered three named sons linking them as saviors of humanity. In Abram's case these sons (descendants) were Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph.The genealogy of Shem (Genesis 11:10-26) in this pericope prefaces the story of Abram (Genesis 11:27to Genesis 25:11). This structure serves as a prototype for the narrative that follows in Genesis. Similarly the genealogy of Ishmael (Genesis 25:12-18) introduces the story of Jacob and Esau (Genesis 25:19to Genesis 35:29), and the genealogy of Esau (Genesis 36:1-43) introduces the story of Joseph (Genesis 37:2to Genesis 50:26)."With Genesis 11:26the scene has finally been set for the patriarchal history to unfold. The opening chapters of Genesis have provided us the fundamental insights for interpreting these chapters properly. Genesis 1 revealed the character of God and the nature of the world man finds himself in. Genesis 2, 3 portrayed the relationship between man and woman, and the effects man's disobedience has had on man-woman and divine-human relations. Chap. 5 sketched the long years that passed before the crisis of the great flood (chaps. 6-9), which almost destroyed all humanity for its sinfulness. The table of the nations (chap. 10) started the process of Israel's geographical and political self-definition with respect to the other nations in the world, but Genesis 11:1-9reminded us that the nations were in confusion and that mankind's proudest achievements were but folly in God's sight and under his judgment.
"However, according to Genesis 11:10-26, just five generations after Peleg, whose lifetime according to Genesis 10:25saw the confusion of languages at Babel, Abram arrives. As Genesis 12:3will declare, it is through him that all the families of the earth will be blessed. Man is not without hope. The brevity of this genealogy is a reminder that God's grace constantly exceeds his wrath. He may punish to the third or fourth generation but he shows mercy to thousands (Deuteronomy 5:9; Deuteronomy 7:9)." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, pp. 253-54.] The chronological framework for the patriarchal stories (Abraham through Joseph) rests on two important texts.1. 1 Kings 6:1states that the Exodus took place 480 years before the fourth year of Solomon's reign (i.e., 967 B.C.). This makes the date of the Exodus close to 1446 B.C.2. Exodus 12:40records that "the sons of Israel lived in Egypt" 430 years before the Exodus, or about 1876 B.C. This is the probable date when Jacob's family moved to Egypt (ch. 46).From these two texts we can calculate other dates in the patriarchal period. [Note: For a helpful survey of the recent history of scholarly opinion regarding the historical reliability of the patriarchal narratives, see Kenneth L. Barker, "The Antiquity and Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives," in A Tribute to Gleason Archer, pp. 131-39; Emil C. Wcela, "The Abraham Stories, History and Faith," Biblical Theology Bulletin 10 (October 1970):176-81; and Nahum M. Sarna, "Abraham in History," Biblical Archaeology Review 3 (December 1977):5-9.] The historicity of the patriarchs continues to be a matter of scholarly debate. The problem is the lack of explicit reference to the patriarchs in nonbiblical literature and in archaeology. Scholars who reject the biblical testimony as unauthentic have been labeled "minimalists," and those who belive the Hebrew Bible credibly supplements nonbiblical material are known as "maximalists." I am one of the latter believing that the biblical records reliably testify to historical individuals and events recorded in this section of Genesis. [Note: For a good discussion of the historicity of the patriarchs and the authenticity of the patriarchal accounts, see Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, pp. 24-55, or Wolf, pp. 113-17.] "It is ... not because scholars of to-day begin with more conservative presuppositions than their predecessors that they have a much greater respect for the patriarchal stories than was formerly common, but because the evidence warrants it." [Note: H. H. Rowley, "Recent Discovery and the
Patriarchal Age," in The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament, p. 318.] "It is beyond question that traditional and conservative views of biblical history, especially of the patriarchal period, will continue to be favored by whatever results accrue from ongoing Ebla research." [Note: Eugene H. Merrill, "Ebla and Biblical Historical Inerrancy," Bibliotheca Sacra 140:550 (October-December 1983):318. See also Giovanni Pettinato, "The Royal Archives of Tell Mardikh-Ebla," Biblical Archaeologist 39 (May 1976):44-52.] Patriarchal Chronological Data [Note: From Eugene H. Merrill, "Fixed Dates in Patriarchal Chronology," Bibliotheca Sacra 137:547 (July-September 1980):248.] 2296Birth of TerahGenesis 11:242166Birth of AbramGenesis 11:272091Abram’s departure from HaranGenesis 12:42081Abram’s marriage to HagarGenesis 16:32080Birth of IshmaelGenesis 16:162067Reaffirmation of covenantGenesis 17:12067-66Destruction of Sodom and GomorrahGenesis 19:242066Birth of IsaacGenesis 21:2-3; cf. Genesis 21:52029Death of SarahGenesis 23:22026Marriage of IsaacGenesis 25:202006Birth of Jacob and EsauGenesis 25:261991Death of AbramGenesis 25:71966Marriage of EsauGenesis 26:341943Death of IshmaelGenesis 25:171930Jacob’s journey to HaranGenesis 28:21923Jacob’s marriagesGenesis29:23; Genesis29:28; Genesis30:4; Genesis 30:91918Birth of JudahGenesis 29:35
1916End of Jacob’s 14 year labor for his wivesGenesis 29:301916Birth of JosephGenesis 30:231910End of Jacob’s stay with LabanGenesis 31:411910Jacob’s arrival at ShechemGenesis 33:181902Rape of DinahGenesis 34:1-21900Marriage of JudahGenesis 38:1-21899Selling of JosephGenesis37:2; Genesis 37:281888Joseph imprisonedGenesis 39:20; cf. Genesis 41:11886Joseph releasedGenesis41:1; Genesis 41:461886Death of IsaacGenesis 35:281879Beginning of famineGenesis 41:541878Brothers’ first visit to EgyptGenesis 42:1-31877Judah’s incest with TamarGenesis 38:181877Brothers’ second visit to EgyptGenesis43:1; Genesis43:15; Genesis45:6; Genesis 45:111876Jacob’s descent to EgyptGenesis 46:6; cf. Genesis 47:91859Death of JacobGenesis 47:281806Death of JosephGenesis 50:22Verse 271. Terah and Abram's obedience 11:27-12:9All that Moses wrote in this pericope (Genesis 11:27to Genesis 12:9) deals with Abram and his future in the Promised Land. Abram obeyed the Lord's command to relocate to a land that God would give to him and his descedants with the promise that he would become a blessing to the rest of the world. Abram's example of obedience is a model for all believers to forsake all else to obtain the promised blessings of God and to serve Him by becoming a blessing to others."Within the book of Genesis no section is more significant than Genesis 11:27to Genesis 12:9." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 281.]
Verse 27A. What became of Terah 11:27-25:11This is the sixth and central (most important) of the 11 toledotsections in Genesis.A major theme of the Pentateuch is the partial fulfillment of the promises to the patriarchs. The promises in Genesis 12:1-3; Genesis 12:7are the fountainhead from which the rest of the Pentateuch flows. [Note: See Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 169.] Walter Kaiser labeled the three things promised Abram as an heir, a heritage, and an inheritance. [Note: Walter Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Theology, pp. 35, 84-99.] David Clines called them posterity, relationship with God, and land. [Note: David Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch, pp. 29, 45-60.] J. Dwight Pentecost and Robert L. Saucy referred to them as seed, blessing, and land. [Note: J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, pp. 65-94; Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, p. 42.] God progressively revealed more information about each of these promises. He gave more information about the land promise in Genesis 13:15; Genesis 13:17; Genesis 15:7-8; Genesis 15:18; Genesis 17:8; Genesis 24:7; Genesis 26:3-4(plural "lands"); Genesis 28:4; Genesis 28:13; Genesis 35:12; Genesis 48:4; and Genesis 50:24. Repetition of the seed promise occurs in Genesis 13:15-16; Genesis 15:5; Genesis 17:2; Genesis 17:5-10; Genesis 17:13; Genesis 17:16; Genesis 17:19-20; Genesis 18:18; Genesis 21:12; Genesis 22:17-18; Genesis26:3-4; Genesis 26:24; Genesis 28:13-14; Genesis 32:12; Genesis 35:11-12; Genesis 46:3; and Genesis 48:4; Genesis 48:16."A line of successive representative sons of the patriarchs who were regarded as one with the whole group they represented matched the seminal idea already advocated in Genesis 3:15. Furthermore, in the concept of 'seed' were the two aspects of the seed as a future benefitand the seed as the present beneficiariesof God's temporal and spiritual gifts. Consequently, 'seed' was always a collective singular noun; never did it appear as a plural noun (e.g., as in 'sons'). Thereby the 'seed' was marked as a unit, yet with a flexibility of reference: now to the one person, now to the many descendants of that family. This interchange of reference with its implied corporate solidarity was more than a cultural phenomena [sic phenomenon] or an accident of careless editing; it was part and parcel of its doctrinal intention." [Note: Kaiser, Toward an . . ., pp. 88-89.]
The promise of universal blessing recurs in Genesis 18:18; Genesis 22:18(to Abraham); Genesis 26:4(to Isaac); and Genesis 28:14(to Jacob). God reiterated His purpose with additional detail to Abraham in Genesis 13:14-17; Genesis17:1-21; and Genesis 22:15-18; to Isaac in Genesis 26:3-5; Genesis 26:24; and to Jacob in Genesis 28:13-15; and Genesis 35:9-12(cf. Genesis 46:1-4)."While this promissory triad of blessing, seed, and land is the thematic cord binding the Book of Genesis, we find that the counterthemes of fratricide, violence, uncreation, and expulsion are the literary-theological foil for the promissory blessing." [Note: Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, p. 59.] Genesis 12-50 focuses on the promise of posterity (an heir, seed), though the other promises receive much attention. Exodus and Leviticus deal more with the promise of worldwide influence (relationship with God, heritage, blessing), and Numbers and Deuteronomy emphasize the promise of real estate (land, inheritance, and rest).In Genesis 12-25 the problems of possessing the land and obtaining an heir dominate the story of Abram's life. How will Abram obtain the promised land, and who will be Abram's promised heir? These are the great questions that the thoughtful reader continually asks as he reads the story of Abram. At least one of these questions is central in every incident in Abram's life that God has chosen to record in Genesis. These questions form the unifying theme of the Abram narrative. [Note: See Larry Helyer, "The Separation of Abram and Lot: Its Significance in the Patriarchal Narratives," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 26 (June 1983):77-88; Claus Westermann, "Promises to the Patriarchs," Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible Supplement, pp. 690-93; Dixon Sutherland, "The Organization of the Abraham Promise Narrative," Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 95:3 (1983):337-43; Whybray, p. 55; and Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 262.] One writer called the form in which Moses revealed Abram's story an "obstacle story.""Few literary techniques have enjoyed so universal and perennial a vogue as the obstacle story. It is found in ancient and modern literature from the Gilgamesh epic and the Odyssey to the Perils of Pauline and the latest novel. Its character is episodal in that it is not self-contained but finds its raison d'etrein its relation to the larger story or narrative of which it is a part. Its purpose is to arouse suspense and sustain interest by recounting episodes which threaten or retard the fulfillment of what the reader either suspects or
hopes or knows to be the ending of the story." [Note: Peter E. Ellis, The Yahwist, the Bible's First Theologian, p. 136.] Twelve crises arise as the story of Abram's life unfolds. Each of these must be overcome and is overcome by God who eventually does provide Abram's descendants. Each of these problems constituted a challenge to Abram's faith. Is God faithful and powerful enough to provide what He promised? In the end we can see that He is.Each problem Abram encountered is typical of problems that every believer has to deal with in seeking to live by faith. Consequently each episode in Abram's life teaches us something about God's power and faithfulness and should enable us to live by faith more consistently. Moses originally recorded these lessons for Israel's benefit so the Israelites would emulate Abram's faith. Abram was not without his flaws, and his failings prove as instructive as his successes, as is true of all biblical characters.The problems Abram's faith encountered were these.1. Sarai was barren and incapable of producing an heir (Genesis 11:30).2. Abram had to leave the Promised Land, which God had told him he would inherit (Genesis 12:10).3. Abram's life was in danger in Egypt (Genesis 12:11-20).4. Abram's nephew (heir?), Lot, strove with him over the land (ch. 13).5. Abram entered a war and could have died (Genesis 14:1-16).6. Abram's life was in danger from retaliation in the Promised Land (Genesis15:1).7. God ruled Eliezer out as Abram's heir (Genesis 15:2-3).8. Hagar, pregnant with Abram's son (heir?), departed (Genesis 16:6).9. Abimelech threatened Sarai's reputation and child (heir?) in Gerar (ch. 20).10. Abram had two heirs (Genesis 21:8-11).11. God commanded Abram to slay his heir (ch. 22).12. Abram could not find a proper wife for his heir (Genesis 24:5).". . . the narrator has skillfully woven this material together in such a way as to involve the reader/listener in a drama of increasing tension between, on the one hand, the promise of Yahweh that Abram would have an heir and, indeed, would become the father of many nations, and, on the other, the threat to the fulfillment of this promise by a series of crises." [Note: Helyer, p. 80. See Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 90, for a diagram of the chiastic structure of the Abraham narrative.]
Verse 27II. PATRIARCHAL NARRATIVES 11:27-50:26One of the significant changes in the emphasis that occurs at this point in Genesis is from cursing in the primeval record to blessing in the patriarchal narratives. The Abrahamic Covenant is most important in this respect. How Abram's family gained and provided these blessings unfolds. Israel could, and we can, identify with their experiences."Chapters 1-11 are set in Babylonia; chs. 12-36 are set in Palestine; chs. 37-50 are set in Egypt. (The same kind of tripartite geographical focus emerges from Exodus: (1)Exodus 1:1to Exodus 12:36, in Egypt; (2)Exodus 12:37to Exodus 18:27, to Sinai; (3)Exodus 19:1to Exodus 40:38, at Sinai.) In other words, each part of the Mediterranean world is highlighted in some part of Genesis. The crucial center section of Genesis (chs. 12-36) is bracketed geographically by two sections of the Near Eastern world with whose history that of Israel would be constantly interlocked...."In chs. 1-11 we read of individuals who had land, but are either losing it or being expelled from it. In chs. 12-50 the emphasis is on individuals who do not have land, but are on the way toward it. One group is losing; another group is expecting."Genesis is moving us progressively from generation (chs. 1-2), to degeneration (chs. 3-11), to regeneration (chs. 12-50)." [Note: Hamilton, pp. 10, 11.] Chapters 1-11 present a structural pattern that carries over into the rest of the Pentateuch."The importance of Genesis 1-11 for the rest of the Pentateuch can be seen in the fact that its narrative structure provides a pattern by which the author often shapes subsequent pentateuchal narratives. Thus the order and arrangement of the Creation accounts in Genesis 1-2 exhibit the same pattern as the description of the building of the tabernacle (Exodus 25-31); the tabernacle is portrayed as a return to the Garden of Eden. The instructions given to Noah for building the ark foreshadow those given to Moses for building the tabernacle. Furthermore, one can demonstrate that whole sections of laws in the Pentateuch have been grouped and arranged in patterns that parallel the narrative structure of Genesis 1-11." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 39.]
"The ancient oriental background to Genesis 1-11 shows it to be concerned with rather different issues from those that tend to preoccupy modern readers. It is affirming the unity of God in the face of polytheism, his justice rather than his caprice, his power as opposed to his impotence, his concern for mankind rather than his exploitation. And whereas Mesopotamia clung to the wisdom of primeval man, Genesis records his sinful disobedience. Because as Christians we tend to assume these points in our theology, we often fail to recognize the striking originality of the message of Genesis 1-11 and concentrate on subsidiary points that may well be of less moment." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. l.] Some notable changes take place in the second part of Genesis, though both parts begin with a creation initiated by the word of God (Genesis 1:1; Genesis12:1). Instead of the genealogies being prominent and the stories secondary, as in chapters 1-11, the reverse becomes true now. God retreats farther into the background of the events recorded than was the case earlier, and there is corresponding emphasis on the personalities of the patriarchs. The promises to the patriarchs form the central theme of this section, especially those concerning descendants, land, and divine blessing. There also seems to be increasing depth in the moral awareness of the patriarchs as generation follows generation from Abram to Joseph. [Note: Ibid., p. 258. See also Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 25] Verses 27-32Abram's ancestors 11:27-32"The function of this genealogy is not so much to connect Abraham with the preceding events, as the previous genealogies have done, but to provide the reader with the necessary background for understanding the events in the life of Abraham. The list includes eight names. All the individuals named are relevant for understanding the events of the following narrative except 'Iscah' (Genesis 11:29). The inclusion of this otherwise insignificant name in the list suggests that the author is seeking to achieve a specific number of names. Thus far in the Book of Genesis, the author has followed a pattern of listing ten names between important individuals in the narrative. In this short list only eight names are given, hence if we are expecting ten names, the number of individuals in this list appears to be short by two names. By listing only eight names, the author leaves the reader uncertain who the ninth and, more importantly, the tenth name will be. It is only as the narrative unfolds that the
ninth and tenth names are shown to be the two sons of Abraham, 'Ishmael' (Genesis 16:15) and 'Isaac' (Genesis 21:3)." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 109.] Abram evidently grew up in the city of Ur. A few scholars believe that the Ur in view was located just east of Haran, near the top of the Fertile Crescent. [Note: E.g., Beitzel, pp. 80-81.] However most hold that it was the Ur in southern Mesopotamia. Since the Chaldeans later lived in southern Mesopotamia, this seems to be the correct site."Ur is well known as an important center in the land of Sumer; it reached its zenith under the kings of the third dynasty of Ur, who around 2060-1950 B.C. [Abram was born ca. 2166 B.C.] revived for the last time the ancient cultural traditions of the Sumerians. The names of several of Abram's relatives are also the names of known cities: ... Terah... Nahor... Serug... Haran... and Laban the Aramean, Jacob's father-in-law, was from the city Haranin Paddan-aram. All these are places around the river Balih in northern Mesopotamia. Haran and Nahor are often mentioned in the Mari documents of the eighteenth century B.C., and cities named Tell-terah and Serug are known from later Assyrian sources." [Note: The Macmillan Bible Atlas, p. 28.] A later writer probably added the reference to the Chaldeans in Genesis 11:28since the Chaldeans did not enter Babylonia until about 1,000 B.C. [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 272; Mathews, 11:27-50:26, p. 100.] "The movement between Ur and Haran becomes easy to understand when we recall that Ur was the greatest commercial capital that the world had yet seen . . . ." [Note: W. F. Albright, "Abram the Hebrew: A New Archaeological Interpretation," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 163 (October 1961):44. See The Macmillan Bible Atlas, map 25.] God first called Abram to leave his home when the patriarch still lived in Ur (Genesis 12:1-3; cf. Genesis 15:7; Nehemiah 9:7; Acts 7:2). Abram's family members were polytheists (Joshua 24:2)."Several of Abram's relations have names that suggest adherence to lunar worship (cf. Sarah, Milcah, Laban), a cult that was prominent in Ur and Harran [sic Haran]." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 252. Cf. Joshua 24:2.] Abram married his half-sister, Sarai, which was not contrary to God's will at this early date in history (cf. Leviticus 18:9; Leviticus 20:17; Deuteronomy 27:22). Endogamy is the practice of marrying within a family group. God's call was pure grace; there is no evidence in the text that God chose Abram because he merited
favor. God was beginning to form a family of faithful followers for Himself. He called them to leave this urban center in trust and obedience. Abram's exodus from his homeland and Israel's exodus from Egypt were two key events in the formation of national Israel.Abram's family stayed in Haran for some time (Genesis 11:31-32)."The difference between Terah and Abraham was one thing only: a response of faith to God's call." [Note: George Van Pelt Campbell, "Refusing God's Blessing: An Exposition of Genesis 11:27-32," Bibliotheca Sacra 165:659 (July-September 2008):282.] When the patriarch Terah died, Abram continued his trek toward Canaan in obedience to God's call."Like Nuzi, Haran was also part of the Hurrian Mitanni Empire whilst the Hurrians were at the height of their power, so that the tablets discovered at Nuzi would also reflect the way of life in Haran. In this manner, scholars have ascertained from a careful study of the Nuzi tablets that they are very helpful in explaining many of the Biblical episodes relating to the Patriarchs, which had hitherto been somewhat puzzling."Although the Bible indicates that Abram eventually left Haran (Genesis 12:4), the Patriarchs nevertheless kept in close contact with that city. Abram sent his servant back to Aram-naharaim, the region in which Haran was situated, in order to find a wife for his son Isaac (Genesis 24:2-10). Isaac later told his younger son Jacob to flee to his uncle Laban in Haran, in order to escape the wrath of his brother Esau, whom he had tricked out of his birthright blessing (Genesis 27:43). Jacob indeed fled to Haran, subsequently marrying there his cousins Leah and Rachel (Genesis 29:1-30)."The influence of Hurrian society on the Patriarchs was undoubtedly very strong, not only because of the origins of Abram in Mesopotamia, but also because all the Patriarchs maintained contact with the area. This is borne out by the fact that many of the incidents in the Biblical narratives relating to the Patriarchs in reality reflect Hurrian social and legal customs, and prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Patriarchal way of life had its roots in Hurrian society." [Note: Stuart West, "The Nuzi Tablets," Bible and Spade 10:3-4 (Summer-Autumn 1981):66.] Archaeologists have dated the Nuzi tablets four or five hundred years after the patriarchs, but they reflect customs that had been prevalent for centuries. [Note: See M. J. Selman, "The Social Environment of the Patriarchs," Tyndale Bulletin
27 (1976):114-36.] We should be careful not to overemphasize the influence of Hurrian civilization, however. [Note: Ephraim Speiser did this in his commentary on Genesis.] "In the period (the first part of the Middle Bronze Age [ca. 2000-1750 B.C.]) Palestine was receiving an infusion of population as semi-nomadic groups infiltrated the land. . . ."That these newcomers were 'Amorites,' of the same Northwest-Semitic stock as those whom we have met in Mesopotamia, can scarcely be doubted. Their names, so far as these are known, point unanimously in that direction. Their mode of life is splendidly illustrated by the Tale of Sinuhe, but especially by the stories of Genesis-for it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the migration of Israel's ancestors was a part of this very movement. These people brought to Palestine no fundamental ethnic change, for they were of the same general Northwest-Semitic stock as were the Canaanites." [Note: Bright, pp. 48-49.] Major Historical Periods of the Promised LandStone (Neolithic) Ageto ca. 4000 BC (?)Copper (Calcolithic) Ageca. 4000-3150 BC (?)Early Bronze Age I3150-2850 BCEarly Bronze Age II2850-2650 BCEarly Bronze Age III2650-2350 BCEarly Bronze Age IV2350-2200 BCMiddle Bronze Age I2200-2000 BCMiddle Bronze Age IIA2000-1750 BCMiddle Bronze Age IIB1750-1630 BCMiddle Bronze Age IIC1630-1550 BCLate Bronze Age I1550-1400 BC
Late Bronze Age IIA1400-1300 BCLate Bronze Age IIB1300-1200 BCIron Age I1200-1000 BCIron Age II1000-586 BCBabylonian/Persian Period586-332 BCHellenistic Period I (Ptolemaic and Seleucid)332-152 BCHellenistic Period II (Hasmonean)152-37 BCRoman Period I (Herodian)37 BC-AD 70Roman Period IIAD 70-180Roman Period IIIAD 180-324Major Historical Periods of the Promised Land (cont.)Byzantine Period (Christian)AD 324-640Arab Period (Moslem)AD 640-1099Crusader Period (Christian)AD 1099-1291Mameluk Period (Moslem)AD 1291-1517Turkish Period (Moslem)AD 1517-1917British Mandate Period (Christian)AD 1917-1948State of Israel Period (Jewish)1948 - today12 Chapter 12
Verse 1This section begins with a wawdisjunctive in the Hebrew text translated "Now" in the NASB. It introduces an independent circumstantial clause (cf. Genesis 1:2). Probably the revelation in view happened in Ur. The NIV captures this with the translation "The Lord had said to Abram." So the beginning of chapter 12 flashes back to something that happened in Ur even though chapter 11 ends with Abram in Haran. Stephen's statement in Acts 7:2supports this interpretation. Stephen quoted the Septuagint translation of this verse in Acts 7:3.God called Abram to leave his homeland and to proceed to a different country. That Abram's family chose to accompany him does not imply an act of disobedience on Abram's part. God did not forbid others from accompanying Abram. The focus of God's command was that Abram should uproot himself and follow His leading."One detail we do need to note here is the conditional element in the covenant program with Abram. It was not until after the death of his father (Genesis 11:32) that Abram began to realize anything of the promise God had given to him, for only after his father's death did God take him into the land (Genesis 12:4) and there reaffirm the original promise to him (Genesis 12:7)."It is important, therefore, to observe the relationship of obedience to this covenant program. Whether or not God would institute a covenant program with Abram depended on Abram's act of obedience in leaving the land. Once this act was accomplished, however, and Abram did obey God, God instituted an irrevocable, unconditionalprogram." [Note: Pentecost, p. 60. See also Robert B. Chisholm Jr., "Evidence from Genesis," in A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, p. 54.] ". . . in what sense is the Abrahamic covenant [ch. 15] unconditional? The point here, which has often been misunderstood, is that while the fulfillment of any particular generation of Israel depended on obedience to God, the ultimate possession of the land is promised unconditionally to Israel even though she does not deserve it. Scripture prophesies that a godly remnant of Israel will be the ultimate possessors of the land at the second coming (Ezekiel 20:33-38)." [Note: Walvoord, p. 191.] Verses 1-3God's word 12:1-3
Verses 1-9The divine promises 12:1-9"These verses are of fundamental importance for the theology of Genesis, for they serve to bind together the primeval history and the later patriarchal history and look beyond it to the subsequent history of the nation." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 274.] "Whereas chapters 1-11 generally portray man's rebellion, chapters 12-50 detail God's bringing man into a place of blessing." [Note: Ross, "Genesis," p. 25.] ". . . this is the central passage of the Book of Genesis." [Note: Ibid., p. 47.] God's revelation to Abram in these verses explains why his family left Ur (Genesis 11:31).". . . by placing the call of Abraham after the dispersion of the nations at Babylon (Genesis 11:1-9), the author intends to picture Abraham's call as God's gift of salvation in the midst of judgment." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 139.] "The primeval history thus explains the significance of the patriarchal story: though apparently of little consequence in the world of their day, the patriarchs are in fact men through whom the world will be redeemed. The God who revealed himself to them was no mere tribal deity but the creator of the whole universe." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, pp. li-lii.] The fourth dispensation, the dispensation of promise, extended from Abram's call to the giving of the Mosaic Law at Mt. Sinai (Exodus 19-24). Man's stewardship rested on God's promises to Abram, which appear first in Genesis 12:1-3but receive confirmation and enlargement in Genesis 13:14-17; Genesis 15:1-7; Genesis 17:1-8; Genesis 17:15-19; Genesis 22:16-18; Genesis 26:2-5; Genesis26:24; Genesis 28:13-15; Genesis 31:13; and Genesis 35:9-12. Individual blessing depended on individual obedience (Genesis 12:1; Genesis 22:18; Genesis 26:5). God unconditionally promised blessing through Abram's descendants to the nation of Israel (Genesis 12:2; Genesis 15:18-21; Genesis17:7-8), to the church through Christ (Galatians 3:16; Galatians 3:28-29), and to the Gentile nations (Genesis 12:3). Individuals (e.g., Pharaoh, Genesis 12:17; Abimelech, Genesis 20:3; Genesis 20:17) and nations (e.g., Egypt, chs. 47-50; Exodus 1-15) that proved favorable toward Abram's seed would experience divine blessing, but those that proved hostile would experience divine cursing (Genesis 12:3; cf. Matthew 25:31-46). Christians are called upon to trust God as
Abram did and so enter into the spiritual blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant, which covenant inaugurated the dispensation of promise (Romans 4:11; Romans4:16; Romans 4:23-25; Galatians 3:6-9). God's promises to Abram and his descendants did not end with the giving of the Mosaic Law (Galatians 3:17; cf. Exodus 32:13; Exodus 33:1-3; Leviticus 23:10; Leviticus 25:2; Leviticus 26:6; Deuteronomy 6:1-23; Deuteronomy 8:1-18; Joshua 1:2; Joshua 1:11; Joshua24:13; Acts 7:17; Romans 9:4). However as a test of Israel's stewardship of divine truth, the dispensation of promise was superseded, not annulled, by the dispensation of law (Exodus 19:3-8).Verse 2-3Abram had only a promise from God. We see his faith in his willingness to obey God strictly in the confidence that what God had promised He would perform (Hebrews 11:8). This divine promise was the seed from which the Abrahamic Covenant grew (ch. 15). The promise here included few details; it was only a general promise of descendants (Genesis 12:2) and influence (Genesis 12:2-3). The Hebrew text says, "be a blessing" (Genesis 12:2), not "you shall be a blessing." This was a command rather than a prediction. However as Abram blessed others he would become a blessing (i.e., enriched, as in enriched uranium or plutonium). God would make his life more rich and powerful, and he would enrich the lives of others."The promises that this glorious God gave to Abram fall into three categories (Genesis 12:2-3). First there were personalpromises given to Abram. God said, 'I will bless you; I will make your name great.' Then there were nationalpromises given to this childless man. 'I will make you into a great nation.' And finally there were universalpromises that were to come through Abram. 'You will be a blessing ... and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.'" [Note: Pentecost, pp. 51-52. See Z. Weisman, "National Consciousness in the Patriarchal Promises," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 31 (February 1985):55-73.] "Five times in Genesis 12:2-3Abraham is said to be 'blessed' or a 'blessing' to others. This harks back to the first great blessing of mankind at creation (Genesis 1:28) and its renewal after the flood (Genesis 9:1). Moreover, Abraham is to become 'a great nation,' comparable presumably to the seventy nations listed in Genesis 10. His name will also be 'great,' whereas the men of Babel who tried to make themselves 'a name' were frustrated (Genesis 11:4-9)." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 282.]
Three nuances of blessing include prosperity (Genesis 13:2; Genesis 13:5; Genesis 14:22-23; Genesis 24:35; Genesis 26:12-13; Genesis 30:43; Genesis32:3-21), potency or fertility (Genesis 1:28; Genesis 13:16; Genesis 15:5; Genesis 22:17; Genesis 26:4; Genesis 28:3; Genesis 28:14; Genesis 35:11) and victory (Genesis 1:22; cf. Genesis 22:17).The Hebrew words translated "curse" in Genesis 12:3are significant. The word qllin "the one who curses you" really means "disdains," but the word 'rrin "I will curse" means "curse." It was only disdain for Abraham that would provoke God's judgment.God's ultimate purpose was to bless all the peoples of the earth through Abraham and his seed. [Note: William J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, p. 65, explained how the Hebrew construction of Genesis 12:1-3makes this evident. See Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, pp. 72-80, for proof that the theme of the patriarchal narratives is blessing. He listed as major motifs (recurring key words or ideas) in these stories: sibling rivalry, deception, and alienation/separation.] "Any promise God gives must be appropriated by faith." [Note: Pentecost, pp. 51-52.] "The remarkable thing about Abraham was his deep, unwavering faith." [Note: Davis, p. 168.] The amillennial interpretation of this promise is that it "does not pertain today to unbelieving, ethnic 'Israel' (see Romans 9:6-8; Galatians 3:15) but to Jesus Christ and his church (see Genesis 12:7; Genesis 13:16and notes; Galatians3:16; Galatians 3:26-29; Galatians 6:16)." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 206.] This interpretation applies the promise to the spiritual seed of Abraham and not to the physical seed. However, there is no reason for accepting this more obscure explanation. Abraham understood the promise as applying to his physical descendants, and later revelation encourages us to understand it this way too.Revelations to the PatriarchsAbrahamIsaacJacobJosephGenesis 12:1-3Genesis 26:2-5Genesis 28:12-15Genesis 37:5-7Genesis 12:7Genesis 26:24Genesis 31:3Genesis 37:9Genesis 13:14-17Genesis 31:11-13Genesis 15Genesis 32:24-29
Genesis 17:1-21Genesis 35:1Genesis 18Genesis 35:9-12Genesis 21:12-13Genesis 46:2-4Genesis 22:1-2Genesis 22:15-18Verse 4Since Lot voluntarily chose to accompany Abram, he probably believed the promises as well (cf. Ruth). Abram's call had been to separate from his pagan relatives, so he was not disobedient by allowing Lot to accompany him. [Note: See ibid., p. 207.] Probably Abram viewed Lot as his heir (cf. Genesis 11:27-32; Genesis 12:4-5; Genesis 13:1-2)."Since Mesopotamian law-codes allowed for the adoption of an heir in the case of childlessness, this becomes an attractive hypothesis with respect to Lot." [Note: Helyer, p. 82.] Abram lived 75 years with his father, then 25 years without his father or his son, and then 75 more years with his son, Isaac.Verses 4-9Abram's response 12:4-9Verse 5-6Abram's first settlement was in Shechem.". . . towns on the main caravan route southwest-ward from the Euphrates which figure significantly in the Abram stories, are Shechem, Bethel, Hebron, and Gerar." [Note: Albright, p. 47.] Shechem became sacred to the Israelites because here God revealed Himself to Abram for the first time in the Promised Land. This was God's second major revelation to Abram. At Shechem Jacob later bought land, set up his home, and buried his idols in rededication to Yahweh after returning from his sojourn in Paddan-aram (Genesis 33:18-20; Genesis 35:4). Here, too, the Israelites assembled twice when they had taken possession of Canaan under Joshua's leadership to commemo-rate God's faithfulness in giving them the land He had promised their forefathers (Joshua 8; Joshua 24). Shechem was near the geographic center of Canaan (cf. Joshua 20:7). It lay in the heart of the land God now promised Abram. "Moreh" means "teacher," so the tree of Moreh may have been a pagan site for oracles.
The reference to the Canaanites' presence in the land prepares the way for incidents of conflict with these native inhabitants that followed in Israel's history (cf. Genesis 10:15-19). It also notes a barrier to the fulfillment of God's promise to give Abram and his heirs the land (Genesis 12:7). Abram could not take possession of the Promised Land immediately because the Canaanites occupied it.Verse 7In response to God's promise to give Abram the land where he stood the patriarch built an altar and worshipped Yahweh. This was Abram's characteristic response to God's grace. Abram's altars were more permanent structures than his tents. He continued living as a pilgrim and stranger in a land that he did not yet possess (Hebrews 11:9-10).Critics of the historicity of the patriarchal narratives ("minimalists") have tried to prove that the religion of the patriarchs differed greatly from Mosaic orthodoxy and even Christian norms. While there was some difference, there is no solid evidence that the patriarchs worshipped a different God than subsequent Israelites worshipped. [Note: For a fuller discussion of the religion of the patriarchs, see Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, pp. 55-71.] Verse 8Abram proceeded south and encamped between Bethel and Ai (probably et Tell [Note: Peter Briggs, "Testing the Factuality of the Conquest of Ai Narrative in the Book of Joshua," a paper presented at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Colorado Springs, Col., Nov. 15, 2001.] ) just north of Salem (Jerusalem). Again he built an altar to worship Yahweh and called on His name in worship.Verse 9He next continued south toward the Negev (lit. dry), perhaps because of a shortage of food for his grazing animals (Genesis 12:10).The nation of Israel in Moses' day shared the same call that God had extended to Abram. She was to leave her place of residence, Egypt, and go to a Promised Land to worship and serve God there with the promise of blessing. This required faith. We have a similar calling. Believers who walk by faith will forsake much to become part of God's program to bless the world."Departure from securities is the only way out of barrenness." [Note: Brueggemann, Genesis, p. 118.] Verses 10-20
2. Abram in Egypt 12:10-20The second crisis Abram faced arose because of a famine in Canaan. Abram chose to sojourn in the Nile Valley until it ended. In this incident Abram misrepresented Sarai because he feared for his life. By doing so, he jeopardized his blessing since he lost his wife temporarily to Pharaoh. However, Yahweh intervened to deliver Abram and Sarai from Egypt."The account of Abraham's 'sojourn' in Egypt bears the stamp of having been intentionally shaped to parallel the later account of God's deliverance of Israel from Egypt (Genesis 41 -Exodus 12). Both passages have a similar message as well. Thus, here, at the beginning of the narratives dealing with Abraham and his seed, we find an anticipation of the events that will occur at the end....Behind the pattern stands a faithful, loving God. What he has done with Abraham, he will do for his people today and tomorrow." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," pp. 116-17.] Though Bible students debate the point, I believe Abram rushed ahead of God by going to Egypt without a divine revelation that he should do so. [Note: See Waltke, Genesis, p. 213; J. Vernon McGee, Ruth: The Romance of Redemption, p. 51. For the view that Abram did not do wrong in going to Egypt, see Kidner, pp. 115-16.] God blessed Abram in Egypt, ironically mainly through Sarai, in spite of Abram's lack of faith and then returned him to the Promised Land. Another severe famine (Genesis 12:10) later encouraged Jacob and his family to sojourn in Egypt (Genesis 47:4), but God gave Jacob permission to go (Genesis 46:2-4). It was evidently fear rather than faith that made Abram leave the Promised Land."Throughout Genesis 12-50 Egypt is a symbol of safety and provision for the patriarchs and their families. If anything, Egypt is the oppressed in Genesis. Note that it is Sarai who 'dealt harshly' with her Egyptian maidservant, forcing her 'to flee' (Genesis 16:6). Later she urges her husband to 'cast out' this Egyptian." [Note: Hamilton, p. 386. See Peter D. Miscall, The Workings of Old Testament Narrative, pp. 42-45.] Some commentators have concluded that in dealing with Sarai as he did Abram was relying on a custom of the land from which he had come to protect him. They suggest that this custom was evidently unknown in Egypt. Because he failed to perceive this, Abram got into trouble."The thrice repeated story [involving Abraham in Genesis 12:10-20and Genesis 20:1-18, and Isaac in Genesis 26:6-12] has been the subject of much discussion by commentators through the ages, but only with the
discoveries at Nuzi has it become clear that Abraham and Isaac were not involved in any trickery, but were endeavoring to protect their respective wives from molestation by invoking the Hurrian custom or law of wife-sistership. According to the Nuzi tablets a woman having the status of wife-sister rather than that of just an ordinary wife, enjoyed superior privileges and was better protected. The status was a purely legal one, a wife-sister being quite distinct from the physical relationship usually understood by the word 'sister.' In order to create the status of wife-sistership two documents were prepared-one for marriage and the other for sistership. Thus, we find a Nuzi tablet, according to which a person by the name of Akkuleni, son of Akiya, contracted with one Hurazzi, son of Eggaya, to give to Hurazzi in marriage his sister Beltakkadummi. Another tablet records that the same Akkuleni sold his sister Beltakkadummi as sister to the same Hurazzi. If such a marriage was violated, the punishment was much more severe than in the case of a straightforward ordinary marriage. It would appear that the actions of Abraham and Isaac reflect this custom." [Note: West, p. 67. See also Speiser, pp. 91-92.] In the Hurrian culture from which Abram came people evidently viewed the husband wife-sister relationship as even more sacred than the husband wife relationship. According to this view, when Abram went to Egypt he assumed that the Egyptians also regarded the husband wife-sister relationship as more sacred than the husband wife relationship. Therefore he presented Sarai as his wife-sister and expected that the Egyptians would not interfere with his relationship with Sarai. However proponents of this view assume the husband wife-sister relationship was foreign to Pharaoh. He took Sarai because he believed that she was Abram's physical sister. When he discovered that Sarai was also Abram's wife he returned Sarai to Abram because Pharaoh regarded the husband wife relationship as sacred. He was angry with Abram because in Pharaoh's eyes Abram had misrepresented his relationship with Sarai.Those who hold this view see this incident as an example of failure to adjust to a foreign culture and failure to trust God. They usually understand Abram's motivation as having been confidence in a cultural custom from his past rather than faith in God. [Note: For refutation of this view, see C. J. Mullo Weir, "The Alleged Hurrian Wife-Sister Motif in Genesis," Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental Society 2:22 (1967-68):14-25; David Freedman, "A New Approach to the Nuzi Sistership Contract," Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern
Society of Columbia University 2:2 (1970):80; Samuel Greengus, "Sisterhood Adoption at Nuzi and the 'Wife-Sister' in Genesis," Hebrew Union College Annual 46 (1975):5-31; "The Patriarchs' Wives as Sisters-Is the Anchor Bible Wrong?" Biblical Archaeology Review 1:3 (September 1975):22-24, 26; Selman, pp. 119-23; and Kitchen, The Bible ..., p. 70. For information on three social classes of Babylonian women 200 years after Abraham, see J. M. Diakonoff, "Women in Old Babylonia Not Under Patriarchal Authority," Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 29:3 (October 1984):225-38.] Most interpreters have concluded that Abram, on the contrary, was not being completely honest and straightforward about his relationship with Sarai, but was telling a half-truth to save his own life (cf. Genesis 20:12). Evidently it was possible for brothers to fend off suitors of their sisters with promises of marriage without really giving them away (cf. Genesis 24:55; Genesis 34:13-17). How would God fulfill His promises if Abram died now? His fears were understandable; Pharaoh did take Sarai into his harem. Nevertheless God intervened supernaturally to reunite Abram with Sarai and to return them to the Promised Land (by deportation). [Note: For a helpful though not entirely accurate study, from my viewpoint, which compares the three incidents in which the patriarchs claimed their wives were their sisters in Genesis 12, 20, , 26, see Robert Polzin, "'The Ancestress of Israel in Danger' in Danger," Semeia 3 (1975):81-98. See also Mathews' good explanation of the wife-sister episodes in Genesis, in Genesis 11:27-50:26, pp. 124-26.] Abram's fear for his physical safety in a strange land (Genesis 12:2) led him to take an initiative that was not God's will. He should have told the truth and continued trusting God. Yet even in his disobedience and lack of faith God blessed Abram (Genesis 12:16) and preserved him (Genesis 12:20) because of His promises (Genesis 12:1-3)."One cannot miss the deliberate parallelism between this sojourn of Abram in Egypt and the later event in the life of the nation in bondage in Egypt. The motifs are remarkably similar: the famine in the land (Genesis 12:10; Genesis47:13), the descent to Egypt to sojourn (Genesis 12:10; Genesis 47:27), the attempt to kill the males but save the females (Genesis 12:12; Exodus 1:22), the plagues on Egypt (Genesis 12:17; Exodus 7:14to Exodus 11:10), the spoiling of Egypt (Genesis 12:16; Exodus 12:35-36), the deliverance (Genesis12:19; Exodus 15), and the ascent to the Negev (Genesis 13:1; Numbers13:17; Numbers 13:22). The great deliverance out of bondage that Israel
experienced was thus already accomplished in her ancestor, and probably was a source of comfort and encouragement to them." [Note: Ross, "Genesis," p. 49. Cf. Waltke, Genesis, p. 217.] We sometimes feel tempted to fear for our welfare, especially in a foreign environment. This fear sometimes leads us to seize the initiative and disobey God. We can count on God to fulfill His promises to us in spite of threatening circumstances. We should remain faithful and honest."The integrity and honesty of a child of God are among his most potent weapons in spreading the gospel." [Note: Davis, p. 178.] The Pharaoh (lit. Great House) Abram dealt with in Egypt was probably Inyotef II (2117-2069 B.C.), a ruler of the eleventh dynasty, Middle Kingdom period. His capital was in Memphis, very near modern Cairo.Identifications of Significant Pharaohs in the Genesis PeriodPREHISTORY (to ca. 3100 BC)EARLY DYNASTIES (dynasties 1-2; ca. 3100-2686 BC)Menes(first Pharaoh) united upper and lower Egypt.OLD KINGDOM (dynasties 3-6; ca. 2686-2181 BC) Capital: Memphis (Noph). Period of absolute power. Age of pyramid building (archaeologists have identified almost 80).Djoser(Zoser; 2nd Pharaoh of 3rd dynasty) built the first stepped pyramid (south of Cairo).Cheops(Khufu; 2nd Pharaoh of 4th dynasty) built the Great (largest) Pyramid at Gizeh (near Cairo).Chephren(Khafre; 4th Pharaoh of 4th dynasty) built the still capped pyramid near the Sphinx (near Cairo).FIRST INTERMEDIATE PERIOD (dynasties 7-10; ca. 2181-2040 BC) Capital: Thebes (No)MIDDLE KINGDOM (dynasties 11-14; ca. 2033-1603 BC) Capital: Memphis (Noph). Period of culture and civilization.Inyotef II(2117-2069 BC 3rd Pharaoh of 11th dynasty) entertained Abram (Genesis 12:15).Ammenemes II(1929-1895 BC 3rd Pharaoh of 12th dynasty) ruled when Joseph arrived in Egypt (Genesis 37:36).
Sesostris II(1897-1878 BC 4th Pharaoh of 12th dynasty) had his dreams interpreted by Joseph and exalted Joseph (Genesis 40:2; Genesis 41:1; Genesis 41:14-45).Sesostris III(1878-1843 BC 5th Pharaoh of 12th dynasty) ruled when Jacob entered Egypt and received a blessing from Jacob (Genesis 46:31; Genesis 47:10).Ammenemes III(1842-1797 BC 6th Pharaoh of 12th dynasty) ruled when Joseph died (Genesis 50:26).Synoptic Chronology of the Ancient Near EastDatesPeriodsAncientNear EastCanaanScripture3150–2200 B.C.Early Bronze Age (Early Canaanite)Egypt:OldKingdom (pyramid builders).Mesopotamia: Sumerand Akkad.No written records until the Ebla tablets.Excavations show rich and powerful city-states.Genesis 5-112200–1500 B.C.Middle Bronze Age (Middle Canaanite)Egypt:Middle Kingdom.Amorites (Hyksos) control Egyptand Canaan.Amorites and Hebrew patriarchs in Canaan and EgyptGenesis 12-501500–1200 B.C.Late Bronze Age (Late Canaanite)Egypt expels the Amoritesand controls Canaan.Egyptians, Canaanites (El Amarna Age).Conquest by Joshua.Early Judges, Philis-tines,Midianites, Ammonites, Moabites, etc.Exodus-Judges1200–930 B.C.Iron Age I (Israelite I)Egyptian influence weakening. Later Judges, Samuel, Saul, David, Solomon.Judges-1 Kings
Syrianand Assyrian influence not yet developed.930–586 B.C.Iron Age II (Israelite II)Egypt weak, but Shishak attacks Canaanafter Solomon’s death. Syria(Aram) developsinto serious rival for Israel.Divided Kingdom1 Kings-2 KingsIn Old Testament studies some writers describe the "before Christ" (B.C.) period as B.C.E. This stands for "before the common era." These writers also refer to the A.D. (Lat. ano domini, "year of our Lord") period as C.E., the "common era."The first reference to camels in Scripture occurs in Genesis 12:16. For many years, scholars believed that the ancients did not domesticate camels until much later than the patriarchal period. They believed that references to camels in Genesis indicated historical inaccuracies. However, the archaeological evidence for the early domestication of camels has proved these critics wrong. [Note: See John J. Davis, "The Camel in Biblical Narratives," in A Tribute to Gleason Archer, pp. 141-52.] The Hebrew word does not distinguish whether these were one or two-humped camels.God will protect His plan even when His people complicate it with deception. Consequently believers should not try to deliver themselves from threatening situations by deceptive schemes but should continue to trust and obey God."Here Abram's failure in the face of hostility, like Israel's sinfulness in the wilderness, is surely recorded as a warning for later generations (cf. 1Corinthians 10:11) and as an illustration of the invincibility of the divine promises (cf. Romans 11:29)." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 292.] 13 Chapter 13 Verses 1-4
Abram returned from Egypt through the Negev and settled down near his former location between Bethel and Ai."Of special interest is that in Genesis 12:10to Genesis 13:4Lot occupies the same position as that of the 'mixed multitude' (Exodus 12:38) in the narrative of Genesis 41 -Exodus 12. In other words the author apparently wants to draw the reader's attention to the identification of Lot with the 'mixed multitude.' It is as if Lot is seen in these narratives as the prefiguration of the 'mixed multitude' that comes out of Egypt with the Israelites." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 38.] Note also Lot's similarity to Esau.Verses 5-7When it became clear that there was not enough pasture to sustain all the flocks of both Abram and Lot, Abram suggested that Lot separate from him. He gave his nephew the choice of where he wanted to settle. This was a magnanimous gesture on Abram's part. If he was older than Lot, which seems probable, it shows even greater graciousness.Lot would have been the most likely candidate for the role of Abram's heir since Sarai was barren. He was a part of Abram's household and a blood relative (nephew). Abram probably regarded Lot at this time as the heir through whom God would fulfill His promises.Verses 8-10In offering Lot either the "left" or the "right" (Genesis 13:9) Abram was evidently suggesting that he and Lot partition the Promised Land; he would take one part and his nephew the other (cf. Genesis 22:3-10). Important to our appreciation of Abram's offer is knowledge of the fact that the Hebrews, as well as other ancient peoples, were eastern oriented (as contrasted with northern oriented, as we are). Abram and Lot were probably looking east when Abram made his suggestion (Genesis 13:9). Thus "Lot lifted up his eyes and saw the valley of the Jordan" (Genesis 13:10), which was to the east of where they stood (perhaps on Mt. Asor, the highest point in that part of Canaan, and only a short walk from both Bethel and Ai). Thus when Abram offered Lot what was on his left he was referring to northern Canaan, the area around Shechem (cf. Genesis 12:6; Genesis 33:18to Genesis 34:31; Genesis 37:12-17) as far south as Bethel and Ai. The other choice was what was on their right: southern Canaan including Hebron and the Negev (cf. Genesis 13:6; Genesis 13:9; Genesis 13:1; Genesis13:18; Genesis 20:1; et al.). Both men had previously lived in both regions.
Moses' description of the Jordan valley as being similar to Egypt (Genesis 13:10) should have warned the Israelite readers of Genesis against desiring to return to Egypt (cf. Exodus 16:3; Numbers 11:5; Numbers 14:2-3).Verses 11-13Lot, however, chose neither of these options, north or south. Instead he decided to move east into the Jordan Valley (Genesis 13:11). Earlier we read that Adam, Eve, and Cain traveled east after they sinned (Genesis 3:24; Genesis 4:16) and that the people of Babel went east and rebelled against God (Genesis 11:2). Thus Lot's move east makes us a bit uneasy (cf. Genesis 12:3). At this time the Jordan River was the eastern border of Canaan that continued south from the southeastern end of the Salt (Dead) Sea and southwest toward Kadesh (lit. cultic shrine) Barnea (Genesis 10:19). It then proceeded to the Great (Mediterranean) Sea along the Wadi el Arish (Brook of Egypt; cf. Numbers 34:1-12; Joshua 15:1-12). The text contrasts "the land of Canaan" with "the cities of the Valley" (Genesis 13:12). The place Lot chose to settle was on the eastern frontier of the Promised Land (Genesis 13:11).The location of Sodom is still uncertain. There are three primary possibilities: north of the Dead Sea, southeast of the Dead Sea, or under the southern basin of the Dead Sea. The second option seems most probable."... this choice by Lot made rather final the rupture between him and Abram." [Note: Harold Stigers, Commentary on Genesis, p. 146.] Lot's choice erected another hurdle for Abram's faith in the promises of God and precipitated another crisis in the "obstacle story" of how God would fulfill His promises to Abram. Lot chose the Jordan Valley."Due to the combination of water (emerging from underground springs fed by the limestone hills farther west [of Jericho]), soil (deposited on the plain from the same hills) and climate (warm and sunny during most of the year), the region is known for all types of agricultural products, especially dates and balsam (used in ancient ointments)....It is not surprising that Lot, who with Abraham had lived for a short time in the lush Nile Valley of Egypt [chose as he did] ... His choice appears to have been made from the mountains northeast of Bethel, with a view of the Jericho oasis or the Plains of Moab." [Note: James Monson, The Land Between, pp. 163-64.] Lot's choice seems to have been influenced to some extent by a desire to ally with the native inhabitants (cf. Genesis 13:7; Genesis 13:12; Genesis 19:1-26) as well as by the natural fruitfulness of the Jordan Valley (Genesis 13:10).
"In any given situation, what you are determines what you see, and what you see determines what you do." [Note: Haddon Robinson, Leadership 3:1 (Winter 1982):104.] "The close parallels between the two [cities, i.e., Babylon and Sodom] which are created in the narrative of chapter 13 suggest that the author intends both cities to tell the same story. As in the case of parallels and repetitions throughout the book, the double account of God's destruction of the 'city in the east' is intended to drive home the point that God's judgment of the wicked is certain and imminent (cf. Genesis 41:32)." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 144.] Verses 14-17Abram was now without an heir. However, Yahweh appeared to him at this crucial time (Genesis 13:14) and reconfirmed the promise of land that, He said, He would give to Abram's offspring (Genesis 13:15).Abram "lifted up his eyes" also (Genesis 13:14), but he saw the whole land as far as he could see in every direction. God repeated His promise to give him and his descendants all the land he saw. This promise was more specific than God's previous promises regarding the seed and the land (Genesis 12:2; Genesis12:7). This was God's third revelation to Abram. It contained three specifics.1. Abram's heir would be his own seed(offspring; Genesis 13:15-16).2. God would give the land to Abram and his descendants forever (Genesis 13:15).3. Abram's descendants would be innumerable(Genesis 13:16).The figure of "dust" suggests physical seed (Genesis 13:16; cf. Genesis 2:7). The "stars" figure given later (Genesis 15:5) suggests heavenly or spiritual seed, in addition to physical seed.God's encouragement to walk through the land (Genesis 13:17) implied that Abram should claim the promise by treading the land under his feet. In the ancient Near East victorious armies claimed defeated territory by marching through it."The divine promise of land and other blessings (Genesis 12:1-3; Genesis15:18-21; Genesis 17:1-8) is in the form of a covenant known technically in ancient Near Eastern studies as a 'covenant of grant.' It was made at the initiative of the granter and often with no preconditions or qualifications." [Note: Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests, p. 36, n. 39.] Verse 18
Abram later relocated near Hebron where he built another altar and worshipped again (Genesis 13:18). Hebron is the highest town in the Promised Land with an elevation of about 3,050 feet. Its site is strategic lying midway between Jerusalem and Beersheba.Many of the commentators have seen two types of believers in Abram and Lot. One commits himself completely to trusting and obeying God, though not without occasional failures in his faith. The other wants both what God and what the world can give him. These correspond to a spiritual and a carnal believer, a single-minded and a double-minded believer (James 1:8; James 4:8). When Abram gave Lot the choice of where he wanted to live, Abram was giving up any claim to temporal advantages and was trusting God to bless him as God had promised He would. This step of faith led to greater blessing by God (Genesis13:14-17). Abram's response to this fresh revelation was again worship.People who truly believe God's promises of provision can be generous with their possessions.14 Chapter 14 Verses 1-12The four kings (Genesis 14:1) resided in the eastern part of the Fertile Crescent. They sought to dominate the land of Canaan by subjugating five kings (Genesis14:2) who lived there. They probably wanted to keep the trade routes between Mesopotamia and Egypt open and under their control. It is interesting that people living around Babylon initiated this first war mentioned in the Bible (Genesis14:2).Scholars have debated the identity of the Rephaim (Genesis 14:5; cf. Genesis15:20; literally "ghosts" or "spirits of the dead"). Some believe they were gods, others that they were the deified dead, and still others the promoters of fertility. [Note: Conrad L'Heureux, "The Ugaritic and Biblical Rephaim," Harvard Theological Review 67 (1974):265-74.] Most likely they were one of the early tribal groups that inhabited Canaan when Abram entered the land. They appear to have been very powerful, and apparently some of their neighbors regarded them as superhuman before and or after their heyday. [Note: See The New Bible Dictionary, 1962 ed., s.v. "Rephaim," by T. C. Mitchell.] The scene of the battle of the nine kings was the Valley of Siddim (Genesis 14:3; Genesis 14:8). This valley probably lay in the southern "bay" of the modern Dead
Sea south of the Lissan Peninsula. The Old Testament calls this body of water the "Salt Sea" because its average 32 percent saline content is about ten times more than the three percent average of the oceans.Verses 1-16Abram's war with four kings 14:1-16 A major significance of this literary unit is that it describes two more challenges to God's faithfulness and Abram's faith. So far Abram had to contend with several barriers to God fulfilling His promises to him. His wife was barren, he had to leave the land, his life was in danger, and his anticipated heir showed no interest in the Promised Land. Now he became involved in a war and consequently became the target of retaliation by four powerful kings.Verses 13-16Abram could have lost his possessions and his life by getting involved in war with the Mesopotamian kings. He also set himself up as the target for retaliation. Almost everyone in the ancient Near East practiced retaliation, and it is still a major factor in the continuing political turmoil that characterizes the Middle East to this day. The "ancient Near East" is a term that applies to the whole eastern Mediterranean world in ancient times. The "Middle East" is a term that refers to the area roughly between Africa, Europe, and Asia in modern times. People did not forgive and forget; they harbored resentment for acts committed against their ancestors or themselves for generations and took revenge when they thought they could succeed.Why was Abram willing to take such risks? He probably thought he could win. His love for Lot may have been the primary factor. He did not think, "He's made his own bed; let him lie in it." Perhaps Abram hoped that Lot had learned his lesson living in Sodom and would return to him. Unfortunately Lot had not learned his lesson but returned to Sodom soon after his release as a prisoner of war. Undoubtedly Abram also had confidence in God's promises to him (Genesis12:2-3; Genesis 12:7)."We have here a prelude of the future assault of the worldly power upon the kingdom of God established in Canaan; and the importance of this event to sacred history consists in the fact, that the kings of the valley of Jordan and the surrounding country submitted to the worldly power, whilst Abram, on the contrary, with his home-born servants, smote the conquerors and rescued their booty,-a prophetic sign that in the conflict with the power of the world the seed of Abram would not only not be
subdued, but would be able to rescue from destruction those who appealed to it for aid." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:202.] Some scholars have suggested that Abram's designation as a Hebrew (Genesis14:13) marked him as a resident alien rather than a semi-nomad. As such he took steps to take possession of the land God had promised him. [Note: See Donald J. Wiseman, "Abraham in History and Tradition. Part I: Abraham the Hebrew," Bibliotheca Sacra 134:534 (April-June 1977):123-30.] He could have been both. [Note: See Yochanan Muffs, "Abraham the Noble Warrior: Patriarchal Politics and Laws of War in Ancient Israel," Journal of Jewish Studies 33:1-2 (Spring-Autumn 1982):81-107.] Albright argued that he was a "donkeyman, donkey driver, caravaneer." [Note: Albright, p. 34.] However most conservative interpreters have concluded that he was a semi-nomadic shepherd. [Note: E.g., Kitchen, The Bible ..., p. 57. Cf. 46:32, 34; 47:3.] The term "Hebrew" is primarily an ethnic designation in the Old Testament. [Note: Hamilton, p. 405.] Usually people other than Hebrews used it to describe this ethnic group."The appearance of the later name 'Dan' [Genesis 14:14] is a post-Mosaic updating of the place name for later readers." [Note: Mathews, Genesis11:27-50:26, p. 147.] The situation that Abraham faced taking his 318 men and going into battle against an alliance of four armies was similar to the one Gideon faced in leading 300 men against 135,000 Midianites (Judges 7:6; Judges 8:10). The lesson of both passages is similar: God is able to give a trusting and obedient minority victory over ungodly forces that are overwhelmingly superior in numbers.Verse 17The "valley of Shaveh" was near Jerusalem (the "Salem" of Genesis 14:18). It may have been the Kidron Valley immediately east of the city or some other valley not far away.Verses 17-24Abram's meeting with two kings 14:17-24This section records an important decision Abram had to make after he returned victoriously from his battle with the Mesopotamian kings.Verse 18"Melchizedek" was probably a title rather than a proper name. It means "King of Righteousness." Compare Adonizedek ("Lord of Righteousness") in Joshua 10:1; Joshua 10:3. However theophoric names were common in the ancient Near East, so his name may have meant "My king is Sedeq" or "Milku is righteous," Sedeq
and Milku presumably being the names of gods. [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 316.] The names of both the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 14:2) are compounds of a Hebrew word translated "evil" (cf. Genesis 13:13).Bread and wine were the royal food and drink of the day. Many writers have commented on their typical significance, though there is no basis for connecting them directly with the elements used in the Lord's Supper. Many ancient Near Easterners used bread and wine in making covenants. [Note: Donald J. Wiseman, "Abraham in History and Tradition. Part II: Abraham the Prince," Bibliotheca Sacra 134:535 (July-September 1977):236.] Melchizedek, the first priest mentioned in the Bible, evidently gave a royal banquet in Abram's honor. In view of their characters and geographical proximity, Abram and Melchizedek may have been friends before this meeting. Melchizedek may have been Abram's king to whom the patriarch was paying an expected obligation. [Note: Loren Fisher, "Abraham and His Priest-King," Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962):268.] Verse 19The God Melchizedek worshipped as a priest was the true God known to him as El Elyon, the possessor of heaven and earth. This title reveals the sovereign power of God. Melchizedek and Abram regarded Abram's recent victory in battle as due to the blessing of El Elyon.Verse 20People practiced tithing as an act of worship commonly in the ancient Near East at this time (cf. Genesis 28:22). [Note: See Keil and Delitzsch, 1:207.] It was also a common tax. This is still true in some modern countries. For example, in England part of every person's taxes goes to maintain the Church of England. Some residents regard this part of their tax as their contribution to the church or their tithe. However since Melchizedek gave Abram a priestly blessing, it is likely that Abram reciprocated by giving Melchizedek a gift with priestly connotations. [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 316.] "All" probably refers to all that he took in the battle rather than all that was in Abram's possession (cf. Genesis 14:23-24; Hebrews 7:4).Verses 21-24Abram identified El Elyon with Yahweh (Genesis 14:22). His willingness to take no spoil from the battle for himself demonstrates Abram's desire that God would receive all the glory for his prosperity. He also appears not to have wanted to be indebted to the wicked king of Sodom. This man may have, by his command to Abram, been setting him up for demands later (cf. Genesis 23:15).
"The gifts of the ungodly are often attached to deadly strings." [Note: Davis, p. 182.] Generally, the patriarchs believed that God would give them what He had promised without their having to take it from others. [Note: See note on 48:22.] Abram was content with what God had given him (cf. Philippians 4:11). [Note: See Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, pp. 120-22, for an excursus on the patriarchs' wealth.] ". . . just as in the previous episode where Abram allowed Lot the pick of the land, so here he allows the surly king of Sodom more than his due." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 318.] "Christians are really so rich in their own inheritance that it ill becomes them to crave the possessions of others." [Note: Bush, 1:237.] This event is significant because it demonstrates Abram's trust in God to provide what He had promised, which God soon rewarded with another revelation and promise (Genesis 15:1)."Even without the explicit warning that 'he who disdains you I shall curse,' the narrative suggests that it is dangerous to despise those through whom God works."It is the demonstration of divine support for Abram that is the clearest thrust of this story...."Within Genesis, however, Melchizedek is primarily an example of a non-Jew who recognizes God's hand at work in Israel ... They are those who have discovered that in Abram all the families of the earth find blessing." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, pp. 321-22.] The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews expounded the typical significance of Melchizedek and the events of this incident in Hebrews 7 (cf. Psalms 110:4). A type is a divinely intended illustration of something else that follows, the antitype.Confidence that God will preserve and provide for His own as He has promised should encourage believers to decline worldly benefits and wait for God's blessings.15 Chapter 15 Verse 1"'The word of the LORD came.' This is a phrase typically introducing revelation to a prophet, e.g., 1 Samuel 15:10; Hosea 1:1; but in Genesis it
is found only here and in Genesis 15:4of this chapter. Abraham is actually called a prophet in Genesis 20:7. It prepares the way for the prophecy of the Egyptian bondage in Genesis 15:13-16." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 32] Only in Genesis 15:1and Genesis 22:1; Genesis 22:11did God address Abram directly. Visions were one of the three primary methods of divine revelation in the Old Testament along with dreams and direct communications (cf. Numbers 12:6-8)."By his bold intervention and rescue of Lot, Abram exposes himself to the endemic plague of that region-wars of retaliation. [Note: "See Sarna, [Understanding Genesis, pp.] 116, 121, 122."] This fear of retaliation is the primary reason for the divine oracle of 15.1 which could be translated: 'Stop being afraid, Abram. I am a shield for you, your very great reward.' Yahweh's providential care for Abram is to be seen as preventing the Mesopotamian coalition from returning and settling the score." [Note: Helyer, p. 83.] The promise of reward (Heb. shakar), coming just after Abram's battle with the kings, resembles a royal grant to an officer for faithful military service. [Note: M. G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue, p. 216.] God would compensate Abram for conducting this military campaign even though he had passed up a reward from the king of Sodom. The compensation in view consisted of land and descendants (cf. Psalms 127:3).Verse 2-3Abram used a new title for God calling Him Master (Adonai) Yahweh (i.e., Sovereign LORD). Abram had willingly placed himself under the sovereign leadership of God."A childless couple adopts a son, sometimes a slave, to serve them in their lifetime and bury and mourn them when they die. In return for this service they designate the adopted son as the heir presumptive. Should a natural son be born to the couple after such action, this son becomes the chief heir, demoting the adopted son to the penultimate position." [Note: Hamilton, p. 420. See also Cyrus H. Gordon, "Biblical Customs and the Nuzu Tablets," Biblical Archaeologist 3:1 (February 1940):2-3.] The wordplay between the Hebrew words mesheq("heir") and dammesek ("Damascus") highlights the incongruity that Abram's heir would apparently be an alien (cf. Jeremiah 49:1).
Verse 4Abram assumed that since he was old and childless, and since Lot had not returned to him, the heir God had promised him would be his chief servant, Eliezer (cf. Proverbs 17:2).". . . under Hurrian law a man's heir would be either his natural-born son-a direct heir-or, in the absence of any natural-born son, an indirect heir, who was an outsider adopted for the purpose. In the latter case, the adopted heir was required to attend to the physical needs of his 'parents' during their lifetime." [Note: West, pp. 68-69. See also Sarna, Understanding Genesis, pp. 116, 121-22; Anthony Phillips, "Some Aspects of Family Law in Pre-Exilic Israel," Vetus Testamentum 23:3 (1973):360; and Kitchen, The Bible ..., p. 70.] God assured Abram that the descendants He had promised would come through a "natural-born son," not an adopted heir (cf. Genesis 12:7; Genesis 13:15-16).Verse 5To the promise of descendants as innumerable as the dust (physical descendants from the land? cf. Genesis 13:16) God added another promise that Abram's seed would be as countless as the stars. This is perhaps a promise of Abram's spiritual children, those who would have faith in God as he did. Abram may not have caught this distinction since he would have more naturally taken the promise as a reference to physical children.Verse 6-7Moses did not reveal exactly what Abram believed (confidently trusted, relied upon) for which God reckoned him righteous. In Hebrew the conjunction waw with the imperfect tense verb following indicates consecutive action and best translates as "Then." When wawoccurs with the perfect tense verb following, as we have here, it indicates disjunctive action and could read, "Now Abram had believed . . ." (cf. Genesis 1:2). God justified Abram (i.e., declared him righteous) because of his faith. Abram's normal response to God's words to him was to believe them. Abram had trusted the person of God previously, but he evidently had not realized that God would give him an heir from his own body (Genesis15:4). Now he accepted this promise of God also (cf. Romans 4:3; Galatians 3:6; James 2:23). Perhaps he believed the "counting" promises of Genesis 13:16and Genesis 15:4-5regarding numerous descendants, and the result was that the Lord "counted" his faith as righteousness. [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 167.]
"In the middle of this chapter occurs what is perhaps the most important verse in the entire Bible: Genesis 15:6. In it, the doctrine of justification by faith is set forth for the first time. This is the first verse in the Bible explicitly to speak of (1) 'faith,' (2) 'righteousness,' and (3) 'justification.'" [Note: Boice, 2:98.] Trust in God's promise is what results in justification in any age. The promises of God (content of faith) vary, but the object of faith does not. It is always God. [Note: See Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, pp. 110-31; or idem, Dispensationalism, pp. 105-22.] Technically Abram trusted in a Person and hoped in a promise. To justify someone means to declarethat person righteous, not to makehim or her righteous (cf. Deuteronomy 25:1). Justification expresses a legal verdict.Moses probably recorded Abram's faith here because it was foundational for making the Abrahamic Covenant. God made this covenant with a man who believed Him.James 2:21suggests that Abram was justified when he offered Isaac (ch. 22). James meant that Abram's work of willingly offering Isaac justified him (i.e., declared him righteous). His work manifested his righteous condition. In Genesis 15 God declared Abram righteous, but in Genesis 22 Abram's works declared (testified) that he was righteous."In the sacrifice of Isaac was shown the full meaning of the word (Genesis15:6) spoken 30 ... years before in commendation of Abraham's belief in the promise of a child....It was the willing surrender of the child of promise, 'accounting that God was able to raise him up from the dead,' which fully proved his faith." [Note: Joseph Mayor, The Epistle of Saint James, p. 104. Cf. Zane Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege, pp. 28-31.] Verse 8Abram requested a sign, a supernatural verification that God would indeed fulfill the distant promise. His request shows that he was taking God seriously."Requests for signs were not unusual in Old Testament times. They were not so much to discover God's will as to confirm it." [Note: Davis, p. 186.] God responded by making a covenant with Abram (Genesis 15:9-12; Genesis15:17)."Only after he had been counted righteous by his faith could Abraham enter into God's covenant." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 152.]
"Four rites are mentioned [in the Old Testament] as parts of the covenant making event. They are the setting of a stone or a group of stones, the taking of an oath, the sacrifice of animals, and/or a communal meal." [Note: Livingston, p. 157.] This rite (the sacrifice of animals) normally involved two parties dividing an animal into two equal parts, joining hands, and passing between the two parts (cf. Jeremiah 34:18-19). On this occasion, however, God alone passed between the parts indicating that Abram had no obligations to fulfill to receive the covenant promises (Genesis 15:17).Verse 9-10The animals used were standard types of sacrificial animals and may have represented the nation of Israel, "a kingdom of priests" (Exodus 19:6)."The use of five different kinds of sacrificial animals on this occasion underlines the solemnity of the occasion." [Note: Gordon J. Wenham, "The Symbolism of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15 : A Response to G. F. Hasel, JSOT 19 (1981):61-78," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 22 (1981):135.] "We suggest that the animal cutting in Genesis 15:9-10; Genesis 15:17is designated a 'covenant ratification sacrifice' . . . The killing and sectioning of the animals by Abram is the sacrificial preparatiofor the subsequent divine ratificatioof the covenant by Yahweh who in passing between the pieces irrevocably pledges the fulfillment of his covenant promise to the patriarch. The initiative of Yahweh remains in the foreground both in the instruction for the 'covenant ratification sacrifice' (Genesis 15:9-10) and in the act of berit[covenant] ratification itself (Genesis 15:17). . . ."Genesis 15:7-21contains covenant-making in which Yahweh binds himself in promise to Abram in the passing through the animals in the act of covenant ratification. Abram had prepared the animals for this ratification act through the 'covenant ratification sacrifice' which involved both killing and sectioning of the victims. Certain basic features of this covenant ratification rite are most closely paralleled only in aspects of the function of animal rites of the extant early second millennium treaty texts." [Note: Gerhard F. Hasel, "The Meaning of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 19 (1981):70.] To "ratify" means to give formal consent to (a treaty, contract, or agreement), making it officially valid.
Verse 11"The birds of prey are unclean (Leviticus 11:13-19; Deuteronomy 14:12-18) and represent foreign nations (Ezekiel 17:3; Ezekiel 17:7; Zechariah5:9), most probably Egypt....Thus Abram driving off the birds of prey from the dismembered pieces portrays him defending his descendants from the attacks of foreign nations. Genesis itself tells of a number of attacks by foreigners against the children of Abraham (e.g. chs. 26, 34) and it already looks forward to the sojourn in Egypt (chs. 37-50 [cf. Exodus 1:11-12]). But in what sense can Abraham's actions be said to protect his offspring? Genesis 22:16-18; Genesis 26:5suggest it was Abraham's faithful obedience to the covenant that guaranteed the blessing of his descendants....Exodus 2:24and Deuteronomy 9:5also ground the exodus in the divine promises made to the patriarchs. The bird scene therefore portrays the security of Israel as the consequence of Abraham's piety." [Note: Wenham, "The Symbolism ...," p. 135.] Verse 12Abram's terror reflects his reaction to the flame that passed between the parts and to the revelation of the character of God that the flame represented (cf. Genesis 15:17).Verse 13-14Moses gave more detail regarding the history of the seed here than he had revealed previously (cf. Genesis 15:14; Genesis 15:16). The 400 years of enslavement were evidently from 1845 B.C. to 1446 B.C., the date of the Exodus.Verse 15The ancients conceived of death as a time when they would rejoin their departed ancestors (cf. 2 Samuel 12:23). There was evidently little understanding of what lay beyond the grave at this time in history. [Note: For a synopsis of Israel's view of life after death, see Bernhard Lang, "Afterlife: Ancient Israel's Changing Vision of the World Beyond," Bible Review 4:1 (February 1988):12-23.] Verse 16The Hebrew word translated "generation" really refers to a lifetime, which at this period in history was about 100 years. [Note: See W. F. Albright, The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra, p. 9; and Theological Workbook of the Old Testament, s.v., "dor," by Robert D. Culver, 1:186-87.] This seems a better explanation than that four literal generations are in view. The writer mentioned
four literal generations in Exodus 6:16-20and Numbers 26:58-59, but there were quite evidently gaps in those genealogies. [Note: Kitchen, Ancient Orient ..., p. 54.] "The Amorite" serves as a synecdoche for the ten Canaanite nations listed in Genesis 15:19-20. A synecdoche is a figure of speech in which one part of a whole represents the whole, as here, or the whole represents a part.Verse 17The smoking oven and flaming torch were one. This was an intensely bright, hot flame symbolic of God in His holiness. The flame is a good symbol of God in that it is pure, purges in judgment, and provides light and warmth."This act is ... a promise that God will be with Abraham's descendants (e.g. Genesis 26:3; Genesis 26:24; Genesis 28:15; Genesis 31:3; Genesis46:4, etc.). Indeed the description of the theophany as a furnace of smoke and 'a torch of fire' invites comparison with the pillar of cloud and fire that was a feature of the wilderness wanderings, and especially with the smoke, fire and torches (Exodus 19:18; Exodus 20:18) that marked the law-giving at Sinai. These were visible tokens of God's presence with his people, that he was walking among them and that they were his people (Leviticus 26:12)."In this episode then Abram's experience in a sense foreshadows that of his descendants. He sees them under attack from foreign powers but protected and enjoying the immediate presence of God. Elsewhere in the Abraham cycle, his life prefigures episodes in the history of Israel. Famine drove him to settle in Egypt (Genesis 12:10; cf. chs. 42-46). He escaped after God had plagued Pharaoh (Genesis 12:17; cf. Exodus 7-12), enriched by his stay in Egypt (Genesis 13:2; cf. Exodus 12:35-38) and journeyed by stages (Genesis 13:3; cf. Exodus 17:1; etc.) back to Canaan. In Genesis 22 Abraham goes on a three-day journey to a mountain, offers a sacrifice in place of his only son, God appears to him and reaffirms his promises. Sinai is of course a three-day journey from Egypt (Exodus8:27), where Israel's first-born sons had been passed over (Exodus 12). There too sacrifice was offered, God appeared and reaffirmed his promises (Exodus 19-24)."Finally, it may be observed, the interpretation of Genesis 15:9-11; Genesis 15:17, that I am proposing on the basis of other ritual texts in the Pentateuch is congruent with Genesis 15:13-16, which explain that Abraham's descendants would be oppressed for 400 years in Egypt
before they come out with great possessions. Whether these verses are a later addition to the narrative as is generally held, or integral to it as van Seters asserts ..., they do confirm that at a very early stage in the history of the tradition this rite was interpreted as a dramatic representation of the divine promises to Abraham. It is not a dramatized curse that would come into play should the covenant be broken, but a solemn and visual reaffirmation of the covenant that is essentially a promise . . . ." [Note: Wenham, "The Symbolism ...," p. 136.] Another writer argued that this verse does not picture a covenant-making ritual for a unilateral, wholly unconditional covenant (cf. Genesis 17:1-2; Genesis 17:9-14; Genesis 18:18-19; Genesis 22:16; Genesis 22:18; Genesis 26:5). He believed the covenant is unconditional, but it did not become unconditional until chapter 22. [Note: Gordon H. Johnston, "Torch and Brazier Passing between the Pieces (Genesis 15:17): Does It Really Symbolize an Unconditional Covenant?" and "God's Covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15 : A Contingently-Unconditional Royal Grant?" papers presented at the 56th annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, San Antonio, Tex., 18 November 2004.] Verse 18This was the formal "cutting" of the Abrahamic Covenant. God now formalized His earlier promises (Genesis 12:1-3; Genesis 12:7) into a suzerainty treaty, similar to a royal land grant, since Abram now understood and believed what God had promised. God as king bound Himself to do something for His servant Abram. The fulfillment of the covenant did not depend on Abram's obedience. It rested entirely on God's faithfulness. [Note: Westermann, "The Promises . . .," p. 690.] ". . . it is fitting that in many respects the account should foreshadow the making of the covenant at Sinai. The opening statement in Genesis 15:7: 'I am the LORD, who brought you up out of Ur of the Chaldeans,' is virtually identical to the opening statement of the Sinai covenant in Exodus20:2: 'I am the LORD your God, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.' The expression 'Ur of the Chaldeans' refers back to Genesis11:28; Genesis 11:31and grounds the present covenant in a past act of divine salvation from 'Babylon,' just as Exodus 20:2grounds the Sinai covenant in an act of divine salvation from Egypt. The coming of God's presence in the awesome fire and darkness of Mount Sinai (Exodus19:18; Exodus 20:18; Deuteronomy 4:11) appears to be intentionally
reflected in Abraham's pyrotechnic vision (Genesis 15:12; Genesis 15:17). In the Lord's words to Abraham (Genesis 15:13-16) the connection between Abraham's covenant and the Sinai covenant is explicitly made by means of the reference to the four hundred years of bondage of Abraham's seed and their subsequent 'exodus' ('and after this they will go out,' Genesis 15:14). Such considerations lead to the conclusion that the author intends to draw the reader's attention to the events at Sinai in his depiction of the covenant with Abraham."If we ask why the author has sought to bring the picture of Sinai here, the answer lies in the purpose of the book. It is part of the overall strategy of the book to show that what God did at Sinai was part of a larger plan which had already been put into action with the patriarchs. Thus, the exodus and the Sinai covenant serve as reminders not only of God's power and grace but also of God's faithfulness. What he sets out to accomplish with his people, he will carry through to the end." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 152.] Moses revealed the general geographical borders of the Promised Land here for the first time. Some scholars interpret the "river of Egypt" as the Nile."The argument is usually based on the fact that the Hebrew word naharis consistently restricted to large rivers. However, the Hebrew is more frequently nahal(= Arabic wady) instead of the naharof Genesis 15:18which may have been influenced by the second naharin the text. [Note: "J. Simons, The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament, p. 96, sec. 272."] In the Akkadian texts of Sargon II (716 B.C.) it appears as nahal musar." [Note: "James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, p. 286; also Esarhaddon's Arzi(ni) or Arsa = Arish (?), (ibid., p. 290). See Bruce K. Waltke, 'River of Egypt,' Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible 5:121; and J. Dwight Pentecost, Prophecy for Today, p. 65. An interesting case for the Nile is made by H. Bar-Deroma in 'The River of Egypt (Nahal Mizraim),' Palestinian Exploration Quarterly 92 (1960):37-56." Walter C. Kaiser Jr., "The Promised Land: A Biblical-Historical View," Bibliotheca Sacra 138:552 (October-December 1981):311.] God later specified the Wadi El 'Arish, "the geographical boundary between Canaan and Egypt," [Note: Charles Pfeiffer and Howard Vos, Wycliffe Historical Geography of Bible Lands, p. 88.] as the exact border (Numbers 34:5; Joshua
15:4; Joshua 15:47). That seems to be the river in view here too. The Euphrates River has never yet been Israel's border. These borders appear to coincide with those of the Garden of Eden (cf. Genesis 2:10-14). Thus the Garden of Eden may have occupied the same general area as the Promised Land.Some amillennialists take these boundaries as an ideal expressing great blessing and believe God never intended that Abram's seed should extend this far geographically. [Note: E.g., Waltke, Genesis, p. 245.] However such a conclusion is subjective and finds no support in the text.Verses 19-21Here Moses named ten of the native tribes then inhabiting the Promised Land. The longest of the 27 lists of pre-Israelite nations that inhabited the Promised Land name 12 entities (Genesis 10:15-18a; 1 Chronicles 1:13-18). Sometimes as few as two receive mention, and most of these lists identify six. [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 177.] "Canaanites" is both a general name for all these tribes (a synecdoche) and, as used here, the name of one of them. These "Hittites" lived near Hebron (Genesis 23:10); they are probably not the same Hittites that lived in Anatolia (Asia Minor, modern western Turkey; cf. Genesis 10:15).The Abrahamic Covenant is basic to the premillennial system of theology."How one understands the nature and function of this covenant will largely determine one's overall theology and most particularly his eschatology." [Note: Eugene H. Merrill, "The Covenant with Abraham," Journal of Dispensational Theology 12:36 (August 2008):5.] This covenant has not yet been fulfilled as God promised it would be. Since God is faithful we believe He will fulfill these promises in the future. Consequently there must be a future for Israel as a nation (cf. Romans 11). Amillennialists interpret this covenant in a less literal way. The crucial issue is interpretation. If God fulfilled the seed and blessings promises literally, should we not expect that He will also fulfill the land promises literally? [Note: See Daniel C. Lane, "The Meaning and Use of the Old Testament Term for 'Covenant' (berit): with Some Implications for Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology," a paper presented at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Toronto, Canada, 20 November 2002.] The Palestinian, Davidic, and New Covenants are outgrowths of the Abrahamic Covenant. Each of these expands one major promise of the Abrahamic Covenant: the land, seed, and blessing promises respectively.
Now that God had given Abram the covenant, the author proceeded to show how He would fulfill the promises. This is the reason for the selection of material that follows. So far in the story of Abram, Moses stressed the plans and purposes of God culminating in the cutting of the covenant. Now we learn how Abram and his seed would realize these plans and purposes. This involves a revelation of God's ways and man's responsibilities. [Note: See J. N. Darby, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, 1:54-55.] God's people can rely on His promises even if they have to experience suffering and death before they experience them. [Note: See Jeffrey Townsend, "Fulfillment of the Land Promise in the Old Testament," Bibliotheca Sacra 142:568 (October-December 1985):320-37; and Cleon L. Rogers Jr., "The Covenant with Abraham and Its Historical Setting," Bibliotheca Sacra 127:507 (July-September 1970):241-56.] 16 Chapter 16 Verses 1-6Sarai and Hagar 16:1-6Using a woman other than one's wife (Genesis 16:2) was a method of providing an heir in the case of a childless marriage apart from adoption. [Note: Speiser, p. 130; T. Frymer-Kensky, "Patriarchal Family Relationships and Near Eastern Law," Biblical Archaeologist 44 (1981):209-14.] Hagar was Sarai's personal servant, not a slave girl. Abram also had at least one personal servant (Genesis 24:2)."It was a serious matter for a man to be childless in the ancient world, for it left him without an heir. But it was even more calamitous for a woman: to have a great brood of children was the mark of success as a wife; to have none was ignominious failure. So throughout the ancient East polygamy was resorted to as a means of obviating childlessness. But wealthier wives preferred the practice of surrogate motherhood, whereby they allowed their husbands to 'go in to' ... their maids, a euphemism for sexual intercourse (cf. Genesis 6:4; Genesis 30:3; Genesis 38:8-9; Genesis 39:14). The mistress could then feel that her maid's child was her own and exert some control over it in a way that she could not if her husband simply took a second wife." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 7.]
People in Abram's culture regarded a concubine as a secondary wife with some, but not all, of the rights and privileges of the primary wife. [Note: Bush, 1:258.] In effect Hagar became Abram's concubine.". . . one Nuzi tablet reads: 'Kelim-ninu has been given in marriage to Shennima....If Kelim-ninu does not bear children, Kelim-ninu shall acquire a woman of the land of Lulu (i.e., a slave girl) as wife for Shennima.'" [Note: West, p. 69.] Not only was using a concubine an option, but in Hurrian culture husbands sometimes required that if their wife could not bear children she had to provide a concubine for him. [Note: Livingston, p. 152. Cf. Edwin M. Yamauchi, "Cultural Aspects of Marriage in the Ancient World," Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):245.] ". . . any child of the bond-slave would necessarily belong to the mistress, not the mother." [Note: Thomas, p. 147. Cf. J. Cheryl Exum, "The Mothers of Israel: The Patriarchal Narrative from a Feminist Perspective," Bible Review 2:1 (Spring 1986):64.] This custom helps explain why Abram was willing to be a part of Sarai's plan that seems so unusual to us in the West. Abram agreed to his wife's faithless suggestion as Adam had followed Eve's lead. Abram's passivity contrasts with his earlier valiant action to save Lot from his captors (ch. 14). Like Eve, Sarai also blamed someone else for the results of her act, namely, Abram (Genesis 16:5).Did Sarai mean that she would obtain children through Hagar by adopting them as her own or by becoming fertile herself as a result of Hagar's childbearing (Genesis 16:2)? Most interpreters have taken the first position, but some have preferred the second. [Note: E.g., Samson Kardimon, "Adoption As a Remedy For Infertility in the Period of the Patriarchs," Journal of Semitic Studies 3:2 (April 1958):123-26. See John Van Seters, "The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law and the Patriarchs of Israel," Journal of Biblical Literature 87 (1968):401-8.] The basis of the second view is the not infrequent phenomenon of a woman who has had trouble conceiving becoming pregnant after she has adopted a child.Though using a woman other than one's wife to bear one's children was a custom of the day, it was never God's desire (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4-5). Abram and Sarai here repeated the failure of Adam and Eve, namely, doubting God's word. This episode ended in total disaster for everyone involved. Hagar
lost her home, Sarai her maid, and Abram his wife's servant and his child by Hagar."A thousand volumes written against polygamy would not lead to a clearer fuller conviction of the evils of that practice than the story under review." [Note: Bush, 1:259. See also Waltke, Genesis, p. 339.] Sarai tried to control the will of God by seizing the initiative from God (cf. Genesis 3:17). She and Abram chose fleshly means of obtaining the promised heir rather than waiting for God in faith (cf. Genesis 25:21). [Note: See George Van Pelt Campbell, "Rushing Ahead of God: An Exposition of Genesis 16:1-16," Bibliotheca Sacra 163:651 (July-September 2006):276-91.] They let their culture guide them rather than God."It's a shame that she [Sarai] hadn't comprehended the fact that her infertility could be used by the Lord to put her in a place of dependence on Him so that fruit could be born in her life." [Note: Don Anderson, Abraham: Delay Is Not Denial, p. 93.] Verses 7-14The angel of the LORD and Hagar 16:7-14This is the first of 48 references to "the angel of the Lord" in the Old Testament. Sometimes, as here, the Angel is deity, and in other places he appears to be an angelic messenger from the Lord."The prophetic description of Ishmael as a 'wild ass of a man' [Genesis 16:12] (RSV) is rather intriguing. The animal referred to is the wild and untamable onager, which roams the desert at will. This figure of speech depicts very accurately the freedom-loving Bedouin moving across vast stretches of land." [Note: Davis, p. 189. Cf. Jeremiah 2:24; Hosea 8:9.] This prophecy was not an insult or a curse. Ishmael would enjoy the freedom his mother sought. The Lord named Ishmael (Genesis 16:11), whose name means "God hears," and Hagar named the Lord (Genesis 16:13) "the One who sees." These two names constitute a major revelation of God: He hears and He sees. This may be the only instance in Scripture of a human being conferring a name on God.Abram and Sarai's action proved to be a source of much difficulty for everyone involved (cf. Abram's error in going to Egypt, Genesis 12:11-13). God, however, took care of and blessed Ishmael even though he was the fruit of Abram's presumption. This is another occasion when Abram did not trust God as he should have (cf. Genesis 12:10-20).
"Both Hagar and Mary [the mother of Jesus] stand as examples of women who obediently accepted God's word and thereby brought blessing to descendants too many to count." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 13.] Paul wrote that this story contains (not is) an allegory (Galatians 4:24). An "allegory" today means a story without factual basis. Paul did not deny the factuality of Genesis 16, but he used this story as the basis for a comparison. "Illustration" or "comparison" would be better words to use. Hagar represents the Mosaic Covenant, and Ishmael is its fruit (slaves). Sarai is the Abrahamic Covenant, and Isaac is its fruit (free sons). Children of the flesh persecute children of the promise (Galatians 4:29).There is much irony in this story. Barren Sarai lived in a fertile land whereas fertile Hagar ended up living in a barren land. The Egyptians, to whom the attacked Hagar fled for freedom, later enslaved the attacker, Sarai's descendants.Resorting to fleshly means rather than waiting for God to provide what He has promised always creates problems. This story also shows that human failure does not frustrate God's plans ultimately."If we have made mistakes which have led us into sin, the primary condition of restoration is complete submission to the will of God, whatever that may involve." [Note: Thomas, p. 149.] When in great distress, people should pray because God is aware of their needs and will fulfill His promises to them.17 Chapter 17 Verses 1-8Thirteen years after the birth of Ishmael (Genesis 16:16) God spoke to Abram again (the fifth revelation; Genesis 17:1). God called Himself by a new name: El Shaddai (the Almighty God). This was appropriate in view of the thing God proceeded to reveal to Abram that He would do. It would require supernatural power.The references to the "covenant" in this chapter have caused some confusion. The Abrahamic Covenant (ch. 15) is in view (Genesis 17:4; Genesis 17:7; Genesis 17:11; Genesis 17:19; Genesis 17:21) but also the outward sign of that covenant that was the covenant of circumcision (Genesis 17:2; Genesis 17:9-10; Genesis 17:13-14; cf. Acts 7:8). Thus Moses used the word "covenant" with two
different references here, though throughout, the Abrahamic Covenant is in view. Perhaps visualizing the covenant of circumcision as a smaller circle within the larger circle of the Abrahamic Covenant will help. Whereas the Abrahamic Covenant was unconditional, the covenant of circumcision depended on Abram's obedience (Genesis 17:1-2). God would bless Abram as Abram obeyed God by circumcising his household. This blessing would be in the form of multiplying Abram's descendants "exceedingly," even more than God had already promised. The rite of circumcision was to be a continuing sign of the Abrahamic Covenant to all of Abram's descendants.God also gave Abram and Sarai the added assurance that they would have a multitude of descendants by changing their names. [Note: See note on 1:4.] He changed the name "Abram" (high or exalted father) to "Abraham" (father of a multitude), and he changed the name "Sarai" (my princess [perhaps a reference to her noble descent]) to "Sarah" (royal princess [from whom kings would come, Genesis 17:16]). Abraham's name emphasized the number of his seed. Sarah's evidently stressed the royal nature of their line (Genesis 17:6; Genesis 17:16; Genesis 17:20; cf. Genesis 12:2)."The choice of the word be fruitfulin Genesis 17:6and multiplyin Genesis17:2seems intended to recall the blessing of all humankind in Genesis1:29: 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the land,' and its reiteration in Genesis 9:1: 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the land.' Thus the covenant with Abraham was the means through which God's original blessing would again be channeled to all humankind." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 157.] Circumcision was "an everlasting covenant" (Genesis 17:7) because it marked the eternal salvation of the person who believed God as Abraham did, not because God wanted people to practice it forever. [Note: Mathews, Genesis11:27-50:26, p. 203.] God has not commanded circumcision of the flesh for Christians. Some Christians in the reformed traditions of Protestantism regard baptism as what God requires of us today in place of circumcision. They practice infant baptism believing that this rite brings the infant into the "covenant community" (i.e., the church) and under God's care in a special sense. Some believe baptism saves the infant. Others believe it only makes the infant a recipient of special grace. The Bible is quite clear, however, that baptism is a rite that believers should practice after they trust Christ as their Savior as a testimony to their faith. There are parallels between circumcision and baptism, but God did
not intend baptism to replace circumcision. God did command circumcision of the Israelites in the Mosaic Law, but He has not commanded it of Christians. We do not live under the Mosaic Law (Romans 4:10-13; Romans 6:14-15; Romans 7:1-4; Romans 10:4).Verses 9-14God wanted Abraham to circumcise his male servants as well as his children. The reason was that the Abrahamic Covenant would affect all who had a relationship with Abraham. Consequently they needed to bear the sign of that covenant. The person who refused circumcision was "cut off" from his people (Genesis 17:14) because by refusing it he was repudiating God's promises to Abraham."This expression undoubtedly involves a wordplay on cut. He that is not himself cut (i.e., circumcised) will be cut off (i.e., ostracized). Here is the choice: be cut or be cut off." [Note: Hamilton, p. 473.] There are two main views as to the meaning of being "cut off" from Israel. Some scholars hold that it means excommunication from the covenant community and its benefits. [Note: J. Morganstern, "The Book of the Covenant, Part III-The Huqqim," Hebrew Union College Annual 8-9 (1931-32):1-150; and Anthony Phillips, Ancient Israel's Criminal Law, pp. 28-32.] However there is also evidence that points to execution, sometimes by the Israelites, but usually by God, and premature death. [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:224; Hamilton, p. 474; M. Tsevat, "Studies in the Book of Samuel," Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961):195-201; M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, pp. 241-43; W. Horbury, "Extirpation and excommunication," Vetus Testamentum 35 (1985):16-18, 31-34; and Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 25.] The threat of being cut off hung over the Israelite offender as the threat of a terminal disease, that might end one's life at any time, does today.The person who refused to participate in circumcision demonstrated his lack of faith in God by his refusal. Thus he broke the covenant of circumcision (Genesis17:14).Only males underwent circumcision, of course. In the patriarchal society of the ancient Near East people considered that a girl or woman shared the condition of her father if she was single, or her husband if she was married.Circumcision was a fitting symbol for several reasons.1. It would have been a frequent reminder to every circumcised male of God's promises involving seed.
2. It involved the cutting off of flesh. The circumcised male was one who repudiated "the flesh" (i.e., the simply physical and natural aspects of life) in favor of trust in Yahweh and His spiritual promises.3. It resulted in greater cleanliness of life and freedom from the effects of sin (i.e., disease and death).Circumcision was not a new rite. The priests in Egypt practiced it as did most of the Canaanites, the Arabs, and the Hurrians (Horites), but in Mesopotamia it was not customary. Later the Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites practiced it, but the Philistines did not. [Note: See Davis, p. 192; Wenham, Genesis 16-50, pp. 23-24; and J. Sasson, "Circumcision in the Anceint Near East," Journal of Biblical Literature 85 (1966):473-76.] By commanding it of Abraham and his household God was giving further evidence that he would bless the patriarch. Circumcision has hygienic value. One evidence of this is that cancer of the penis has a much higher incidence in uncircumcised males. [Note: Jay D. Fawver and R. Larry Overstreet, "Moses and Preventive Medicine," Bibliotheca Sacra 147:587 (July-September 1990):276.] Circumcision was a rite of passage to adulthood in these cultures. [Note: Kidner, p. 174.] Normally it was practiced on young adults (cf. ch. 34). Circumcising infants was something new."Research indicates that other Middle Eastern cultures practiced circumcision ... However, the Hebrews were unique in that they practiced infant circumcision, which, though medically risky if not properly performed, is less physically and psychologically traumatic than circumcisions performed at an older age." [Note: Fawver and Overstreet, p. 277.] "Designating the eighth day after birth as the day of circumcision is one of the most amazing specifications in the Bible, from a medical standpoint. Why the eighth day?"At birth, a baby has nutrients, antibodies, and other substances from his mother's blood, including her blood-clotting factors, one of them being prothrombin. Prothrombin is dependent on vitamin K for its production. Vitamin K is produced by intestinal bacteria, which are not present in a newborn baby. After birth prothrombin decreases so that by the third day it is only 30 percent of normal. Circumcision on the third day could result in a devastating hemorrhage."The intestinal bacteria finally start their task of manufacturing vitamin K, and the prothrombin subsequently begins to climb. On day eight, it
actually overshoots to 110 percent of normal, leveling off to 100 percent on day nine and remaining there for the rest of a person's healthy life. Therefore the eighth day was the safest of all days for circumcision to be performed. On that one day, a person's clotting factor is at 110 percent, the highest ever, and that is the day God prescribed for the surgical process of circumcision."Today vitamin K (Aqua Mephyton) is routinely administered to newborns shortly after their delivery, and this eliminates the clotting problem. However, before the days of vitamin K injections, a 1953 pediatrics textbook recommended that the best day to circumcise a newborn was the eighth day of life. [Note: L. Holt Jr. and R. McIntosh, Holt Pediatrics, pp. 125-26.] Another writer saw the eighth day as symbolic of completing a cycle of time corresponding to the Creation. [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 261.] Verses 15-21Abraham's laugh (Genesis 17:17) may have expressed his incredulity, but it could have been a joyful response to God's promise. [Note: See Raymond L. Cox, "What Made Abraham Laugh?" Eternity (November 1975), pp. 19-20.] Sarah's laugh (Genesis 18:15) seems to have arisen from a spirit of unbelief. God did not criticize Abraham for laughing, but He did Sarah when she laughed.Verses 22-27The writer's use of the phrase "the very same day" (Genesis 17:26) points to a momentous day, one of the most important days in human history (cf. Noah's entry into the ark, Genesis 7:13; and the Exodus, Exodus 12:17; Exodus 12:41; Exodus 12:51).This fifth revelation from God advanced God's promises in six particulars.1. Part of God's blessing would depend on Abraham's maintaining the covenant of circumcision, though the Abrahamic Covenant as a whole did not depend on this (Genesis 17:1-2).2. Many nations would come from Abraham (Genesis 17:4-6).3. The Abrahamic Covenant would be eternal (Genesis 17:7-8).4. God would be the God of Abraham's descendants in a special relationship (Genesis 17:7-8).5. Sarah herself would bear the promised heir (Genesis 17:16).6. This is also the first time God identified the Promised Land as Canaan by name (Genesis 17:8).
"Abraham's experiences should teach us that natural law [barrenness] is no barrier to the purposes and plans for [sic] God." [Note: Davis, p. 193.] "Thus Abraham and Noah are presented as examples of those who have lived in obedience to the covenant and are thus 'blameless' before God, because both obeyed God 'as he commanded them' (Genesis 17:23; cf. Genesis 6:22; Genesis 7:5; Genesis 7:9; Genesis 7:16)." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 160.] Blameless does not mean sinless but with integrity, wholeness of relationship (cf. Genesis 6:9). God requires a sanctified life of those who anticipate His promised blessings.18 Chapter 18 Verse 1Abraham was living near Hebron at this time (cf. Genesis 13:18).Verses 1-158. Yahweh's visit to Abraham 18:1-15Chapters 18 and 19 constitute one integrated story, but we shall consider this episode in the Abraham narrative section by section. Like the Flood story, it has a chiastic structure, this time focusing on the announcement of the destruction of Sodom (Genesis 19:12-13). [Note: See Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 41, for the chiasm.] Again there is a mass destruction with only one man and his family escaping. Both stories end with intoxication and shameful treatment by children that have consequences for future generations. [Note: See ibid., pp. 43-44; and Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, pp. 212-13; for more parallels.] We perceive the Lord's gracious initiative toward Abraham in His visit to eat with the patriarch in his tent. This was a sign of intimate fellowship in Abraham's culture. On the basis of that close relationship God guaranteed the soon arrival of the promised heir. In response to Sarah's laugh of unbelief the Lord declared that nothing would be too difficult for Him.This chapter and the next may seem at first reading to be extraneous to the purpose of the Abraham narrative, which is to demonstrate God's faithfulness to His promises to the patriarch, but they are not. Chapter 18 contributes the following.
1. It records another revelation (the sixth) in which God identified for the first time when the heir would appear (Genesis 18:10; Genesis 18:14). With this revelation God strengthened Abraham's, and especially Sarah's, faith.2. It fortifies Moses' emphasis on God's supernatural power at work to fulfill His divine promises in spite of apparently impossible circumstances (Genesis 18:9-15).3. As a literary device it provides an interlude in the story line and heightens suspense by prolonging the climax. We anticipate the arrival of the heir with mounting interest.4. It presents Abraham as an intercessor, one of the roles of the prophets of whom Abraham was one of the first (cf. Genesis 20:7).5. It records God's announcement of judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:16-33), which follows in chapter 19."The noon encounter in this chapter and the night scene at Sodom in the next are in every sense a contrast of light and darkness. The former, quietly intimate and full of promise, is crowned by the intercession in which Abraham's faith and love show a new breadth of concern. The second scene is all confusion and ruin, moral and physical, ending in a loveless squalor which is even uglier than the great overthrow of the cities." [Note: Kidner, p. 131.] "There is also a blatant contrast between how Abraham hosted his visitors (ch. 18) and how the Sodomites hosted the same delegation (ch. 19)." [Note: Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50, p. 5.] Verse 2The "three men" were "the LORD" (the Angel of Yahweh, Genesis 18:13; Genesis 18:17; Genesis 18:20; Genesis 18:33) and "two angels" (Genesis 19:1; Genesis 18:22) who later visited Lot. If Abraham had previously met the Angel of the Lord it seems likely that he would have recognized Him at once (cf. Genesis17:1; Genesis 17:22). If he had not, Abraham became aware of who this Angel was during this interview (cf. Genesis 18:25).Verses 3-11Abraham's hospitality reflects oriental custom as practiced in his day and, in some respects, even today in the Middle East. He was behaving more wisely than he realized since he did not yet know that his guests were divine visitors (Genesis 18:8). "Where is Sarah?" (Genesis 18:9) recalls God's earlier questions about Adam (Genesis 3:9) and Abel (Genesis 4:9).
Verse 12Sarah's laugh sprang from a spirit of unbelief due to long disappointment, as is clear from the Lord's response to it (Genesis 18:14). Abraham's laugh (Genesis17:17) did not draw such a response.Verse 13The fact that the Lord knew Sarah had laughed and knew her thoughts demonstrated his supernatural knowledge to Abraham and Sarah. This would have strengthened their faith in what He told them.Verse 14The Lord's rhetorical question, one of the great statements of Scripture, reminded the elderly couple of His supernatural power and fortified their faith further (cf. Jeremiah 32:17; Jeremiah 32:27).Verse 15Sarah evidently denied that she had laughed from fear of the Lord's powers or from fear of offending Him. Again, God built confidence in His word. If the Lord could read Sarah's thoughts, could He not also open her womb?Believers should never doubt God's promises because nothing is impossible for Him.Verses 16-21God chose to reveal His intention to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah to Abraham. He did so because of His plans for Abraham. He wanted to challenge Abraham to act wisely and nobly for justice."In this section [Genesis 18:1-21] we have an illustration of fellowship with God and some of its essential features. Fellowship is the crowning purpose of God's revelation (1 John 1:3). There is nothing higher than this, for man's life finds its complete fulfillment in union and communion with God. Notice the following elements:"1. Sacred Intimacy. . . ."2. Genuine Humility. . . ."3. Special Revelation. - Fellowship with God is always associated with the knowledge of His will. Servants do not know their master's purposes, but friends and intimates do...."4. Unique Association. - The man who is in fellowship with God does not merely know the Divine will, but becomes associated with God in the carrying out of that will. . . ." [Note: Thomas, pp. 161-62.]
God always thoroughly investigates a situation before passing judgment and sending calamity (Genesis 18:21)."The Lord would not arbitrarily destroy them [the people of Sodom and Gomorah]. As a fair and just judge, He would examine the evidence and then reward their deeds appropriately. The anthropomorphic language veils the ontological reality of God's omniscience, but the Lord seems to have been more concerned in this context with revealing Himself as a fair judge, emphasizing the importance of human responsibility and inviting Abraham to assume the role of an intercessor." [Note: Robert B. Chisholm Jr., "Anatomy of an Anthropomorphism: Does God Discover Facts?" Bibliotheca Sacra 164:653 (January-March 2007):9.] Verses 16-339. Abraham's intercession for Lot 18:16-33After God reviewed the reasons for sharing His plans for the destruction of Sodom with Abraham, He told the patriarch that He was about to investigate the wicked condition of that city. This news moved Abraham to ask God to be just in His dealings with the righteous there."A rhetorical question in each section-'Is anything too demanding for Yahweh?' [Genesis 18:14]; 'Shall not he who judges all the earth give right judgment?" [Genesis 18:25]-sounds the major motif of each unit [Genesis18:1-15and Genesis 18:16-33]....In both units it is some kind of noise that provokes Yahweh-Sarah's laugh and Sodom's groans." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, pp. 16-17.] Verses 22-33This is the first time in Scripture that a man initiated a conversation with God. He prayed for the people of Sodom, not just Lot. Abraham's intercession raises several questions in the minds of thoughtful Bible students. Did Abraham succeed in his intercession since God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah? Some interpreters believe he did not because he quit too soon.". . . Abraham ceased asking before God ceased giving." [Note: Ibid., p. 116. See also Chris Wright, "Intercession or Irritation?" Third Way 29 (February 1983):18-19.] This conclusion assumes that Abraham's primary purpose was to get God to demonstrate mercy and to spare the cities for the sake of their few righteous inhabitants (Genesis 18:24). While this idea was obviously in Abraham's mind, his primary purpose seems rather to have been to secure justice (i.e.,
deliverance) for the righteous minority in their wicked cities (Genesis 18:23-24). Secondarily, he wanted God to spare the cities. This interpretation finds support in Abraham's appeal to the justice of God rather than to His mercy (Genesis18:25). This appeal was the basis of his intercession. Abraham was jealous for the reputation of Yahweh among his neighbors. If this was indeed his primary purpose, Abraham succeeded in obtaining justice for the righteous in Sodom and Gomorrah.A second question arises from Abraham's method of interceding. Is his haggling with God an example we should follow? Evidently Abraham was not trying to wear God down by pressuring Him. Instead he was seeking clarification from God as to the extent of His mercy. He wanted to find out how merciful God would be in judging these cities.Why did Abraham stop with 10 righteous people (Genesis 18:32)? Perhaps he had learned that the Lord would be merciful regardless of the number. [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 230.] Perhaps he thought there would be at least 10 righteous in those two cities. If so, he underestimated the wickedness of the Sodomites, and, perhaps, he overestimated righteous Lot's influence over his neighbors.Will God spare a city or nation today because of the Christians in it? This passage is helpful in answering this question because in it we can see that a godly minority does play a role in influencing God's judgment. It can delay judgment by promoting godliness. However a godly minority may not prevent God's judgment if "sin is exceedingly grave" (Genesis 18:20). God does not always choose to remove the righteous from the wicked before He judges the wicked, as He did in Lot's case. Nevertheless the Judge of all the earth does deal justly. We can see this when we take the long view. People alive now have yet to receive their final judgment from the divine Judge.Abraham's shameless, bold persistence with God illustrates what Jesus had in mind when he taught the importance of these qualities in prayer (e.g., Luke 11:5-10; Luke 18:1-8). Threefold repetition is common in Scripture, but Abraham's doubling of it gives his request even more solemnity and weight.This chapter illustrates a progression in Abraham's relationship with God that is normal for those who have a relationship with Him.1. God revealed Himself to Abraham (Genesis 18:1).2. Abraham welcomed God's revelation (Genesis 18:2-3).3. Fellowship resulted (Genesis 18:4-8). They ate together.
4. This fellowship led to further revelation and greater understanding of God's will (Genesis 18:9-22).5. Having learned of God's purpose to judge the sinners, Abraham's response was to intercede for those under God's judgment (Genesis 18:23-33)."It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to pray effectively for lost souls if one is not convinced that lostness will ultimately result in literal, eternal punishment." [Note: Davis, p. 199.] The outstanding lesson of this section is probably that since God is a righteous Judge He will not destroy the righteous with the wicked. [Note: See Joseph Blenkinsopp, "Abraham and the Righteous of Sodom," Journal of Jewish Studies 33:1-2 (Spring-Autumn 1982):119-32; and T. J. Mafico, "The Crucial Question Concerning the Justice of God," Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 42 (March 1983):11-16.] 19 Chapter 19 Verses 1-11The men of Sodom wanted to have homosexual relations with Lot's visitors (Genesis 19:5). The Mosaic Law later regarded all homosexual behavior as a capital offense (Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; cf. Romans 1:26-27). [Note: For a refutation of denials of this view, see P. Michael Ukleja, "Homosexuality and the Old Testament," Bibliotheca Sacra 140:559 (July-September 1983):259-66. On the modern resurgence of homosexuality and its connection with ancient religious paganism, see Peter Jones, "Androgyny: The Pagan Sexual Ideal," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:3 (September 2000):443-69.] Their lack of hospitality contrasts with Abraham's hospitality (Genesis 18:1-8) and reflects their respective moral states.Hospitality was more sacred than sexual morality to Lot (Genesis 19:8; cf. Judges 19:23-25). Compromise distorts values. Lot considered his duty to his guests greater than his duty to his children."When a man took in a stranger, he was bound to protect him, even at the expense of the host's life." [Note: Davis, p. 201. See Desmond Alexander, "Lot's Hospitality: A Clue to His Righteousness," Journal of Biblical Literature 104:2 (June 1985):289-91.] Verses 12-22
"In order to show that the rescue of Lot was in response to the prayer of Abraham, the narrative reads so that the words of the messengers ["swept away," Genesis 19:15; Genesis 19:17] recall explicitly the words of Abraham's prayer in behalf of the righteous in the previous chapter ["sweep away," Genesis 18:23]." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 170.] Verses 23-26Probably the burning sodium sulfate that was raining down covered Lot's wife as she lingered behind (Genesis 19:26). [Note: Kidner, p. 135. See Deborah Aufenson-Vance, "Lot's Wife Remembers," Adventist Review 163:8 (Feb. 20, 1986), p. 5.] "The heaven's rain cannot be explained solely as a natural phenomenon, such as earthquake; it was exceptional, never again repeated, providing the parade illustration of the fiery eschatological judgment against the wicked (e.g., 2 Peter 2:6-9). The twin calamities of Noah and Lot illustrate Jesus' teaching on the suddenness of the coming of the Son of Man (Luke17:26-30)." [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 241.] All that Lot had gained by living in Sodom burned up like wood, hay, and stubble (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:10-15). The Apostle Peter cited Lot as an example of the Lord's deliverance of the godly from trials that He uses to punish the ungodly (2Peter 2:6-10). John called believers not to love the world or the things in the world because they will pass away (1 John 2:15-17).Verses 27-29As in the Flood story, the writer focused the reader's attention on the response of individuals to the judgment rather than on the destruction itself. Here those individuals are Lot's wife and Abraham. Later they will be Lot and his daughters. The picture of Abraham in Genesis 19:27-28is similar to that of Moses interceding for Israel in the battle with the Amalekites (Exodus 17:11-12). [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 173.] Lot's prayer concerning Zoar (Genesis19:18-20) contrasts with Abraham's prayer for Sodom (Genesis 18:23-32)."The substitution of Abraham for Lot in this sentence ["God remembered Abraham,"Genesis 19:29; cf. Genesis 8:1] makes an important theological point. Lot was not saved on his own merits but through Abraham's intercession." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 59.] Abraham rescued Lot twice: from the Mesopotamian kings (ch. 14) and from Sodom.
Verses 30-38Moses evidently included the account of Lot's incest for at least two purposes.1. It gives the origin of the Moabite and Ammonite nations that played major roles as inveterate enemies in the later history of Israel. Moab sounds like the words translated "from the father," and Ammon means "son of my kin.""His legacy, Moab and Ammon (37f.), was destined to provide the worst carnal seduction in the history of Israel (that of Baal-Peor, Numbers 25) and the cruelest religious perversion (that of Molech, Leviticus 18:21)." [Note: Kidner, p. 136. See also Henry O. Thompson, "The Biblical Ammonites," Bible and Spade 11:1 (Winter 1982):1-14.] 2. This story also illuminates the degrading effect that living in Sodom had on Lot's daughters. The writer censured Lot's daughters by not naming them (cf. Ruth 4:1). His older daughter was so desperate to marry that she exaggerated the effects of the recent catastrophe (Genesis 19:31)."Lot was able to take his daughters out of Sodom, but he was not able to take . . . Sodom out of his daughters." [Note: Davis, p. 206.] "Throughout the ancient Near East, incest between father and daughter was regarded as wrong, and OT law punishes more remote forms of incest with death (Leviticus 20:12)....The fact that his daughters had to make him drunk shows that they were consciously flouting normal conventions. Because of his readers' moral assumptions, the narrator did not feel it necessary to excoriate Lot's daughters' behavior. The facts spoke for themselves." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, pp. 61-62.] "The story of Lot and his family should provide a sobering reminder that all of our decisions are significant, even that of where we live. Our moral environment significantly influences our lives. For this and many other reasons the New Testament constantly implores the believer to fellowship with those of like precious faith." [Note: Davis, p. 207.]
"There are lives recorded in the Bible which have well been called beacons. There are men like Balaam, Saul, and Solomon, who started well, with every possible advantage, and then closed their careers in failure and disaster. Such a life was that of Lot. . . . There is scarcely a life recorded in Scripture which is fuller of serious and solemn instructions for every believer." [Note: Thomas, p. 171.] "The impact of the unit focuses more directly on a characterization of the father. The one who offered his daughters for the sexual gratification of his wicked neighbors now becomes the object of his daughters' incestuous relationship . . . . To be seduced by one's own daughters into an incestuous relationship with pregnancy following is bad enough. Not to know that the seduction had occurred is worse. To fall prey to the whole plot a second time is worse than ever." [Note: George W. Coats, Genesis, with an Introduction to Narrative Literature, p. 147.] "In tragic irony, a drunk Lot carried out the very act which he himself had suggested to the men of Sodom (Genesis 19:8)-he lay with his own daughters."The account is remarkably similar to the story of the last days of Noah after his rescue from the Flood (Genesis 9:20-27). There, as here, the patriarch became drunk with wine and uncovered himself in the presence of his children. In both narratives, the act had grave consequences. Thus at the close of the two great narratives of divine judgment, the Flood and the destruction of Sodom, those who were saved from God's wrath subsequently fell into a form of sin reminiscent of those who died in the judgment. This is a common theme in the prophetic literature (e.g., Isaiah 56-66; Malachi 1)." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 174.] From 2 Peter 2:6-9we know that Lot was a righteous man, though from the record of him in Genesis we might doubt that. He chose to live as, what the New Testament calls, a "carnal" believer (1 Corinthians 3:3). First, he lifted up his eyes and saw Sodom (Genesis 13:10). Then he chose for himself (Genesis13:11). Then he moved his tent as far as Sodom (Genesis 13:12). Then he sat in
the gate of Sodom as one of its judges (Genesis 19:1; Genesis 19:9). Then he hesitated as Sodom's destruction loomed (Genesis 19:16). Finally he ended up committing incest with his daughters in a cave (Genesis 19:30-38). How far it is possible for a believer to depart from God's will when we keep making carnal decisions!A major revelation of this chapter is that it is foolish for a believer to become attached to the things of this world. They will corrupt him, and God will destroy them swiftly and suddenly.20 Chapter 20 21 Chapter 21 Verses 1-7God's provision and Abraham and Sarah's response 21:1-7The emphasis in this brief section is on the faithfulness and power of God in keeping His promise and providing an heir miraculously through Sarah (Genesis17:16; Genesis 18:14). Note the threefold repetition of "as He had said," "as He had promised," and "of which God had spoken" (Genesis 21:1-2). The tension of anticipation finally subsides, but only temporarily.God "visited" Sarah (Genesis 21:1, NIV), a common metaphor that describes God's intervention in nature and human afffairs. The Hebrew word translated "visited" (paqad) also appears when God intervened to save the Israelites from Egyptian bondage (Genesis 50:24-25; Exodus 4:31) and when He ended a famine (Ruth 1:6). It also occurs when He made Hannah conceive (1 Samuel2:21) and when He brought the Jewish exiles home from Babylonian captivity (Jeremiah 29:10). Thus its presence here highlights the major significance of Isaac's birth.Abraham's obedience in naming his son "Isaac" (Genesis 17:19) and circumcising him on the eighth day (Genesis 17:12) was an expression of worship.Isaac's name ("laughter") was appropriate for two reasons.1. Isaac would be a source of joy to his parents as the fulfillment of God's promised seed.2. Both Abraham and Sarah had laughed in amazement and unbelief respectively when told that God had chosen to bless them by giving them a
son so late in life (Genesis 17:17; Genesis 18:12). [Note: On the alternate reading of Genesis 21:6-7as "God has made a joke of me ... laugh at me ...," see Isaac Rabinowitz, "Sarah's Wish (Gen. XXI 6-7)," Vetus Testamentum 29 (July 1979):362-63. This reading has not won support from most commentators.] Verses 1-2112. The birth of Isaac 21:1-21God proved faithful to His promise by providing Isaac. Abraham and Sarah responded with obedience and praise. Ishmael, however, became a threat to Abraham's heir and, consequently, his father sent him away into the wilderness where God continued to provide for him and his mother.Verses 8-21The expulsion of Ishmael and God's care of him and Hagar 21:8-21All was not well in Abraham's household even though God had provided the heir. Ishmael was a potential rival to Isaac's inheritance. This section records another crisis in the story of Abraham's heir. Waltke pointed out six parallels between Hagar and Ishmael's trek and Abraham and Isaac's (ch. 22). [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 292.] Normally in ancient Near Eastern culture the son of a concubine became the heir of his mother but not of his father (cf. Judges 9:1-3). Now that Abraham had a son by his wife, Sarah did not want Ishmael to share Isaac's inheritance. Weaning would have normally occurred at age two or three (cf. 1 Samuel 1:22-24; Hosea 1:8). The Hebrew word translated "mocking" (Genesis 21:9) comes from the same root as Isaac's name and means "laughing." However this participle is in the intensive form in Hebrew indicating that Ishmael was not simply laughing but ridiculing Isaac (cf. Galatians 4:29). Ishmael disdained Isaac as Hagar had despised Sarai (Genesis 16:4). Abraham understandably felt distressed by this situation since he loved Ishmael as well as Isaac (cf. Genesis17:18). God appeared to him again (the seventh revelation) to assure Abraham that Sarah's desire was in harmony with His will (cf. Genesis 17:19-21). He encouraged Abraham to divorce Hagar."But how could God ask Abraham to do evil if divorce is always a sin? The answer must be that divorce in this case is either not a sin or else is the lesser of two evils." [Note: Joe M. Sprinkle, "Old Testament Perspectives on Divorce and Remarriage," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:4 (December 1997):535.]
For other instances where God apparently commanded divorce, see Deuteronomy 21:10-14and Ezra 9-10. Since God makes the rules, He can also alter them according to His sovereign will."The key to Sarah's demand lies in a clause in the laws of Lipit-Ishtar where it is stipulated that the father may grant freedom to the slave woman and the children she has borne him, in which case they forfeit their share of the paternal property." [Note: Sarna, Understanding Genesis, p. 147.] The laws of Lipit-Ishtar were laws that governed life in Mesopotamia that antedated the Mosaic Law.The focus of this revelation is a clarification of God's purposes for each of the two sons. God would bless Abraham through Ishmael as well as through Isaac."As Cain suffered both banishment from the divine and protection by the divine, so Ishmael is both loser and winner, cut off from what should be his but promised a significant lineage." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 81.] The concluding description of Ishmael's experiences (Genesis 21:14-21) provides information essential to understanding and appreciating later references to him and his descendants in the text. Ishmael became the father of 12 sons (Genesis 25:13-16) as Jacob did. From his sons came the Arab nations that have ever since been the chief antagonists of the Israelites. The term "Arab" (someone from Arabia) came into use for the first time in the ninth century B.C. [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 156.] Hagar chose a wife for her son from her homeland, Egypt."In this respect she does not display the wisdom used by Abraham in choosing, as he did, a god-fearing wife for his son." [Note: Leupold, 2:609.] "The picture of Ishmael as the rejected son is complete: he is the son of a slave woman, married to an Egyptian, lives outside normal social bounds, and is remembered for his hostilities." [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 274.] God not only makes promises but also provision. His provision of what He has promised results in great joy and should lead to separation from whatever might hinder His program of blessing. See Paul's use of this account in Galatians 4:21-31.Verses 22-3413. Abimelech's treaty with Abraham 21:22-34
"This scene occurs at the same time as the events of Scene 6 [Genesis 21:1-21] but focuses on different characters and tensions. This second conflict with Abimelech creates a bracket around the Isaac birth narrative. Whereas the first conflict, Scene 5 (Genesis 20:1-18), concerned jeopardy of the seed, the second conflict, Scene 7 (Genesis 21:22-34), concerns jeopardy of the land (i.e., well rights)." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 298.] God's blessing of Abraham resulted in his material prosperity. In response to Abimelech's initiative Abraham agreed to make a covenant of peaceful coexistence. This treaty enabled Abraham to serve and worship God freely in the Promised Land.The writer may have included this incident in the text partially because it records the testimony of a Gentile king to God's faithfulness (Genesis 21:22) and Abraham's strong testimony to God's faithfulness (Genesis 21:32-33). It also sets the stage for Isaac's dealings with Abimelech (ch. 26).Since Abraham had become a powerful individual in the land by God's blessing, Abimelech initiated a bilateral treaty with him for his own protection. This was evidently the same Abimelech that Abraham had dealt with previously (ch. 20). They made a parity covenant (i.e., between equals, Genesis 21:31-32). This was a remarkable admission of Abraham's standing and blessing by God and an expression of Abimelech's confidence in the future existence of the patriarch's family.The birth of Isaac seems to have produced a much stronger faith in Abraham (cf. Genesis 21:14). Note his immediate response to God's instructions to him from then on (cf. Genesis 22:3)."Phicol" (Genesis 21:22) seems to have been a title rather than a proper name, probably of Anatolian origin. [Note: On the origin of Phicol, Abimelech's army commander, see J. D. Ray, "Two Etymologies: Ziklag and Phicol," Vetus Testamentum 36:3 (July 1986):358-59; and Wenham, Genesis 16-50, pp. 91-92. Cf. 26:26.] Wells were extremely important in the life of semi-nomads like Abraham (Genesis 21:25). [Note: See Clark Youngblood, "Wells," Biblical Illustrator (Fall 1986), pp. 41-49.] Beersheba, one of the more important sites throughout Old Testament times, meaning "oath of seven" or "oath-well," became Abraham's possession with the payment of seven ewe lambs (Genesis 21:28; cf. Genesis 26:33). [Note: See William G. Dever, "Beersheba," Biblical Illustrator (Spring 1983), pp. 56-62.]
Critics of the historicity of the patriarchal narratives have pointed out references to the Philistines in Genesis (Genesis 21:32; Genesis 21:34; Genesis 26:1) as evidence that the Bible contains errors. It is common knowledge that the Philistines did not invade Palestine until about 1200 B.C. whereas Abraham evidently lived about 800 years earlier. One explanation is that since the Philistines of Genesis were peaceful and those of Judges and later were warlike perhaps the same name describes an earlier group of people. They may have resembled the later thirteenth-century Philistines who also emigrated from the Aegean area into Palestine. [Note: Kitchen, Ancient Orient ..., p. 80; Edward E. Hindson, The Philistines and the Old Testament, pp. 94-95.] On the other hand perhaps the Philistines of 2000 B.C. were Minoan and peaceful whereas those of 1200 were Mycenean and warlike. [Note: Barker, p. 134. See also Vassos Karageorghis, "Exploring Philistine Origins on the Island of Cyprus," Biblical Archaeology Review 10:2 (March-April 1984):16-28.] "I suggest that the Philistines of Genesis represent the first wave of Sea Peoples from the Aegean, and that the later Philistines represent the last wave (cf. 1200 B.C.)." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 94.] By planting a tree Abraham indicated his determination to stay in that region. Tamarisk trees (Genesis 21:33) were long-lived and evergreen. [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 282.] This tree was an appropriate symbol of the enduring grace of the faithful God whom Abraham recognized as "the Everlasting God" (El Olam). Abraham now owned a small part of the land God had promised him."By granting Abraham rights to a well, Abimelek had made it possible for Abraham to live there permanently and had acknowledged his legal right at least to water. In other words, after so many delays the promises of land and descendants at last seem on their way to fulfillment." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 94.] In contrast to Abraham's fear of Abimelech (ch. 20) we now see him boldly standing up to this powerful king. His changed attitude evidently resulted from God's grace in blessing the patriarch as He had promised."The reader is forced to ask why the author constantly draws attention to the fact that Abraham was dwelling with the Philistines during this time [cf. Genesis 21:34]. The purpose of such reminders may be to portray Abraham as one who had yet to experience the complete fulfillment of God's promises." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 177.]
Peaceful interpersonal relationships with those who acknowledge God enable the believer to proclaim his or her faith freely (cf. 1 Timothy 2:1-4).22 Chapter 22 Verses 1-8This incident took place some time after the events recorded in the chapters immediately preceding this one, evidently several years later.God's revelation to Abraham (His eighth recorded in Scripture) came to test Abraham's faith (i.e., to prove its character and strength; cf. James 2:21-23)."Life is a succession of tests, for character is only possible through discipline." [Note: Thomas, p. 195.] God was testing Abraham's love for Himself as well as his faith (Genesis 22:2). Such testing (Heb. nsh) shows what someone is really like, and it usually involves difficulty or hardship (cf. Exodus 15:25; Exodus 16:4; Exodus 20:20; Deuteronomy 8:2; Deuteronomy 8:16; Deuteronomy 13:3; Judges 2:22; Judges3:1; Judges 3:4; 1 Kings 10:1; Daniel 1:12; Daniel 1:14)."This scene presents the radical nature of true faith: tremendous demands and incredible blessings." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 301.] "The . . . best approach to the passage is that God commanded an actual human sacrifice and Abraham intended to obey Him fully." [Note: Davis, p. 217.] The land of Moriah was the mountainous country around Jerusalem. It stood about 45 miles north of Beersheba. On these mountains God later appeared to David who built an altar to the Lord (2 Samuel 24:16-25). Here also Solomon built his temple (2 Chronicles 3:1) and Jesus Christ died. A mountain was a suitable place for Abraham to meet God (cf. Genesis 22:14). [Note: See Appendix 3 at the end of these notes for an article about Jerusalem's Temple Mount.] Genesis 22:1-2relate another call God gave Abraham that parallels the one in Genesis 12:1-3where God told him to leave where he was and go to another land."The repetition of these motifs forms an inclusio in the narrative structure of the Abrahamic narrative, pointing out the complete cycle in the patriarch's experience. The allusion to the former call would also have prompted obedience to the present one, in many ways a more difficult
journey in God's direction." [Note: Ross, Creation and . . ., p. 394. Cf. Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p, 283.] The Lord was not asking Abraham to make any greater sacrifices to Him, the true God, than his pagan neighbors were willing to make to their false gods. Canaanite religion involved child sacrifice, but we do not know for sure that the Canaanites practiced it as early as Abraham's time. [Note: See Everyday Life in Bible Times, p. 91; and The New Bible Dictionary, s.v. "Canaan, Canaanite," p. 186.] "The demand [to sacrifice Isaac] was indeed only made to prove that Abraham was not behind the heathen in the self-denying surrender of his dearest to his God, and that when the demand had been complied with in spirit, the external fulfillment might be rejected." [Note: Delitzsch, 2:91.] The words used to describe Isaac in this chapter, as well as what Moses said of him, indicate that he was probably a young man at this time (Genesis 22:6). Josephus said he was 25 years old. [Note: Josephus, 1:13:43.] "There are indications to suggest that the meaning of Abbain Mark 14:36is to be found in the light of its whole context and Genesis 22. Jesus' final trial in Gethsemane appears to be modelled on the supreme trial of Abraham and Isaac. Despite his horror and anguish before the prospect of an imminent sacrificial death, Isaac calls to Abraham his Abbaand, as a faithful son, obeys the voice of God speaking through his father. Parallel to this, Jesus says Abba to God in the same way that Isaac does to Abraham. In this context, Abbahas the meaning of 'father' in the sense of a relationship to a devoted and obedient son. In Jesus' supreme hour of trial, it is his trust and obedience to God as Abbathat carries him through, even to the cross. This meaning of Abbamay prompt further study of the significance of sonin other NT texts to discover whether the obediential aspect may be more prominent than has been suspected. The father-son relationship in Genesis 22 may be a far-reaching New Testament model of that between Jesus and God." [Note: Joseph A. Grassi, "Abba, Father (Mark 14:36): Another Approach," Journal of the American Academy of Religion 50:3 (September 1982):455.] Abraham referred to the sacrifice he would offer, supposedly Isaac, but really God's substitute for Isaac, as "the lamb." This statement (Genesis 22:8), of course, proved prophetic of Jesus Christ as well (John 1:29). Abraham spoke better than he knew.
Verses 1-1914. The sacrifice of Isaac 22:1-19In obedience to God's command Abraham took his promised heir to Moriah to sacrifice him to the Lord. Because Abraham was willing to slay his uniquely begotten son God restrained him from killing Isaac and promised to bless him further for his obedience. Abraham memorialized the place as "the Lord will provide."God called on Abraham to make five great sacrifices: his native country, his extended family, his nephew Lot, his son Ishmael, and his son Isaac. Each sacrifice involved something naturally dear to Abraham, but each resulted in greater blessings from God.This incident also demonstrates the strong confidence that Abraham had in God at this time. He believed God was even able to raise Isaac from the dead (Hebrews 11:19). This is why he was willing to slay him. Jewish tradition refers to this chapter as the Akedah, from the Hebrew word wayya'aqod, translated "bound," in Genesis 22:9. [Note: See Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, pp. 300-306.] "With this chapter we reach the climax of the faith life of Abraham-the supreme test and the supreme victory." [Note: Leupold, 2:616. Cf. Wenham, Genesis 16-50, pp. 99, 112. This writer also noted parallels between chapters 21 and 22 on pp. 99-100.] "The seventh crisis [I believe it is the eleventh] comes at a point in the narrative when we least expect it and is without question the greatest crisis of all. After all obstacles have seemingly been surmounted and all potential rivals eliminated, God now asks for Abraham's only son whom he loves. The gracious intervention of God and the reaffirmation of the basic promise of 12.1-3 in 22.15-18 would seem to conclude the Abraham cycle at the moment when faith triumphs over the greatest obstacle of all, death." [Note: Helyer, pp. 84-85.] Verses 9-19Isaac demonstrated his own faith clearly in this incident. He must have known what his father intended to do to him, yet he submitted willingly (Genesis 22:9)."If Abraham displays faith that obeys, then Isaac displays faith that cooperates. If Isaac was strong and big enough to carry wood for a sacrifice, maybe he was strong and big enough to resist or subdue his father." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 110.]
The possibility of Isaac resisting may be why Abraham bound him on the altar."The sacrifice was already accomplished in his [Abraham's] heart, and he had fully satisfied the requirements of God." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:250.] "The test, instead of breaking him, brings him to the summit of his lifelong walk with God." [Note: Kidner, pp. 142-43. See Donald Campbell, "Passing the Test," Kindred Spirit 9:2 (Summer 1985):9-10.] Abraham gained a greater appreciation of God as the One who will provide or look out for him (Yahweh-jireh, lit. "the Lord sees") as a result of this incident (Genesis 22:14). Also, the Lord confirmed His knowledge of Abraham (Genesis22:12; cf. Genesis 18:21; Job 1:1; Job 1:8; Job 2:3)."The story reaches its climax when Abraham demonstrated his loyalty (Genesis 22:12; Genesis 22:15-18) by obeying God's command (cf. Genesis 26:5). God then elevated the patriarch to the status of a favored vassal who now possessed a ratified promise, comparable to the royal grants attested in the ancient Near East. God contextalized His self-revelation to Abraham (and to the readers of the narrative) within the relational, metaphorical framework of a covenant lord. Thus one should not be surprised to hear Him speak in ways that reflect the relational role He assumed within this metaphorical framework." [Note: Chisholm, "Anatomy of . . .," p. 13.] Abraham's sacrifice of the ram (Genesis 22:13), like Noah's sacrifice after he left the ark (Genesis 8:18to Genesis 9:17), expressed thanks and devotion to God and anticipated His benevolence toward future generations. This is the first explicit mention of the substitutionary sacrifice of one life for another in the Bible. God appeared again to Abraham (the ninth revelation) at the end of His test (Genesis 22:15). God swore by Himself to confirm His promises to Abraham (Genesis 22:16). God so swore only here in His dealings with the patriarchs. Moses referred to this oath later in Israel's history (Genesis 24:7; Genesis 26:3; Genesis 50:24; Exodus 13:5; Exodus 13:11; Exodus 33:1; et al.; cf. Hebrews6:13-14).". . . the main point of Genesis 22:9-14is not the doctrine of the Atonement. It is portraying an obedient servant worshipping God in faith at great cost, and in the end receiving God's provision." [Note: Ross, "Genesis," p. 65.]
One writer suggested that Genesis 22:15-18really ". . . describes the establishment of the covenant of circumcision first mentioned in Genesis 17." [Note: T. Desmond Alexander, "Genesis 22 and the Covenant of Circumcision," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 25 (February 1983):17.] However the lack of reference to circumcision in the immediate context makes this interpretation tenuous.For the first and last time in Genesis, the Lord swore an oath in His own name guaranteeing His promise (Genesis 22:16; cf. Hebrews 6:13-14). God thus reinforced, reemphasized, and extended the promise that He had given formerly (Genesis 12:1-3) because Abraham trusted and obeyed Him (Genesis 22:17-18)."Here again God promised Abraham that he would become the recipient of the covenant blessings. The covenant was not based on obedience, nor was the perpetuity of the covenant based on obedience-but rather the reception of covenant blessings was conditioned on obedience. Remember, an unconditional covenant may have conditional blessings." [Note: Pentecost, Thy Kingdom . . ., pp. 66-67.] Abraham's "seed" (Genesis 22:18) refers not only to Isaac but also to Messiah (cf. Galatians 3:16).The Four Seeds of Abraham in ScriptureNATURAL SEEDAll physical descendants of Abraham(Genesis 12:1-3; Genesis 12:7; et al.)NATURAL-SPIRITUAL SEEDBelieving physical descendants of Abraham(Romans 9:6; Romans 9:8; Galatians 6:16)SPIRITUAL SEEDBelieving non-physical descendants of Abraham(Galatians 3:6-9; Galatians 3:29)ULTIMATE SEEDJesus Christ(Galatians 3:16)Abraham then returned to the well he had purchased at Beersheba and lived there (Genesis 22:19).Moses probably preserved the details of this story because this test involved the future of God's promised seed, Isaac, and, therefore, the faithfulness of God. He
probably did so also because this incident illustrates God's feelings in giving His Son as the Lamb of God (cf. John 1:29; John 3:16). Other themes in this chapter include testing and obedience, the relationship between God and man, and the relationship between father and son. [Note: John Lawlor developed these other themes in "The Test of Abraham: Genesis 22:11-19," Grace Theological Journal 1:1 (Spring 1980):19-35.] Every time Abraham made a sacrifice for God the Lord responded by giving Abraham more.1. Abraham left his homeland; God gave him a new one.2. Abraham left his extended family; God gave him a much larger family.3. Abraham offered the best of the land to Lot; God gave him more land.4. Abraham gave up the King of Sodom's reward; God gave Abraham more wealth.5. Abraham gave up Ishmael; God made Ishmael the father of a multitude of Abraham's posterity.6. Abraham was willing to give up Isaac; God allowed him to live and through him gave Abraham numerous seed.In each case God gave Abraham a deeper relationship with Himself as well as more material prosperity. Note the closeness of this fellowship in Abraham's response to God's revelations: "Here I am" (Genesis 22:1; Genesis 22:11).God has not promised Christians great physical blessings (cf. 2 Timothy 3:2), but whenever we make a sacrifice for Him He gives us a deeper relationship with Himself at least (cf. John 15:14). For this reason we should not fear making personal sacrifices for God.Note too that what God called Abraham to give back to Him was something that He had provided for Abraham supernaturally in faithfulness to His promise. Sometimes God tests our faith by asking us to give back to Him what He has supernaturally and faithfully provided, not just what He has provided through regular channels.This test of Abraham's faith is the climax of his personal history. It is the last major incident in the record of his life.". . . God does not demand a literal human sacrifice from His worshippers, but the spiritual sacrifice of an unconditional denial of the natural life, even to submission to death itself." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:252.] The faithful believer will surrender to God whatever He may ask trusting in God's promise of provision and blessing.
Verses 20-2415. The descendants of Nahor 22:20-24The testing of Abraham's faith was complete with the sacrifice of Isaac. The Author therefore brought the history of his life to a close and began to set the scene for related events in Isaac's life.This section signals a change in the direction of the narrative. It moves from Abraham to the next generation and its connections with the East. The record of Nahor's 12 sons prepares the way for the story of Isaac's marriage. It also shows that Rebekah ("heifer," or "soft, supple") was the daughter of Bethuel's wife (Genesis 22:23), not the daughter of Bethuel's concubine (Genesis 22:24). Isaac's marriage was very important because Isaac was the heir of the promises (ch. 24).Only a few of the individuals named as descendants of Abraham's brother Nahor appear elsewhere in Scripture. The most important individuals were Rebekah and her father Bethuel. This is a segmented genealogy designed to establish family relationships, not a linear genealogy, which identifies the final descendant as the legitimate successor of the first (cf. Ruth 4:18-22).23 Chapter 23 Verse 1-2Sarah is the only woman whose age at death the Scriptures record (Genesis23:1). She is also the only woman whose name God changed (Genesis 17:15). This notation of her age illustrates her importance. Isaac was 37 years old when his mother died. Abraham died at the age of 175 (Genesis 25:8), 38 years after Sarah.Abraham and Sarah had moved back near Hebron after having lived at Beersheba for some time (Genesis 23:2; cf. Genesis 22:19)."It should be stressed here that the world of the patriarchs was that of a developed and organized society and not what is usually regarded as a simple pastoral-bedouin existence. Throughout Genesis 12-50 there are connections to Mesopotamia and to Egypt as well as negotiations with local political centers (Shechem, Salem and Hebron) as well as Gerar in the Western Negev on a branch of the Coastal Highway."Much of the theological relevance of the patriarchs is based upon the fact that there were other more attractive lifestyles available to these early
Biblical figures. The option they chose gave them few of the advantages they could have enjoyed elsewhere, especially in Mesopotamia where their family was established. In light of this fact and the great promises made to Abraham during his lifetime, his remark to the leaders of Hebron after the death of his wife, Sarah, takes on new meaning." [Note: Monson, pp. 153-54.] Verses 3-16Typically ancient Near Easterners buried family members in their native land. [Note: Ross, "Genesis," p. 66.] Abraham's desire to bury Sarah in the Promised Land shows that he had turned his back on Mesopotamia forever (Genesis 23:4). Canaan was his adopted homeland.God had made Abraham a powerful person, which his neighbors acknowledged (Genesis 23:6). [Note: On Abraham as a "mighty prince," see Wiseman, "Abraham ... Part II: Abraham the Prince," pp. 228-37.] "Abraham has put himself at the bottom of the social ladder, and they put him at the top." [Note: E. F. Roop, Genesis, p. 154.] "Their warm and generous reply apparently gave Abraham all he wanted, but permission to bury Sarah was only part of what he had requested. He had asked for a burial plot, not simply for the use of one of their graves. Despite the warmth of their reply, the Hittites, by omitting any mention of this point, probably indicate their reluctance to transfer land to Abraham, for then he would no longer be a landless sojourner." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 127.] These Hittites (Hethites) were residents of Canaan, not members of the mighty Hittite Empire that later flourished north of the Promised Land in Syria. [Note: See Bryant G. Wood, "Hittites and Hethites: A Proposed Solution to an Etymological Conundrum," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 54:2 (June 2011):239-50.] Why did Ephron want to sell Abraham the entire plot of ground in which the cave lay rather than just the cave as Abraham requested (Genesis 23:8-11)? Hittite law specified that when a landowner sold only part of his property to someone else the original owner had to continue to pay all taxes on the land. However if he sold the entire tract the new owner was responsible to pay the taxes (cf. 1Chronicles 21:24). Consequently Ephron held out for the entire tract knowing that Abraham needed to make his purchase quickly so he could bury Sarah. [Note: Barker, p. 134.]
Abraham's willingness to pay what appears to have been an unusually large price for the land further demonstrates his faith (Genesis 23:15-16). An average field cost four shekels per acre, and garden land cost 40 shekels per acre. [Note: Francis D. Nichol, ed., The Seventy-Day Adventist Bible Commentary, 1:356.] Abraham was willing to pay 400 shekels. Of course, the text does not give the exact area of the property, but it appears to have been relatively small."The piece of property was no bargain for Abraham; 400 shekelswould be more than a hundred pounds of silver. David paid only one-eighth that amount-50 shekels of silver-for the purchase of the temple site from Araunah (2 Samuel 24:24)." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 135.] Ephron's responses to Abraham's requests sound very generous, but he was really making it difficult for Abraham to pay less than his asking price. Ephron's object may have been to get a present from Abraham for having given him the field and cave that would compensate for the value of the land. Such a gift was customary. On the other hand he may have wanted to preclude Abraham's offering to pay him less than his asking price (Genesis 23:15). [Note: See Keil and Delitzsch, 1:255-56; Leupold, 2:650; and G. C. Aalders, Genesis , 2:58-59.] "Did the patriarchs who forsook everything for the sake of the promises go unrewarded? No, answers our narrative. In death they were heirs and no longer 'strangers.' A very small part of the Promised Land-the grave-belonged to them; therefore they did not have to rest in 'Hittite earth' or in the grave of a Hittite (cf. Genesis 23:6), which Israel would have considered a hardship difficult to bear." [Note: von Rad, p. 250.] "At a time when the children of Israel were on their way to take possession of the land, Moses did well to remind them how in faith their forefathers had secured at least 'a grave which was his own property,' and thus to arouse in them the desire to finish the work of taking into full possession what had so long ago been promised to them." [Note: Leupold, 2:653.] Verse 17-18Abraham's purchase of the cave of Machpelah (lit. double cave, or split cave) indicates his continuing faith in God's promise to give the land of Canaan to him and his descendants. Similarly Jeremiah purchased property in the Promised Land on the eve of the Babylonian captivity to express his belief that God would bring the Israelites back there eventually (cf. Jeremiah 32:6-15). One does not
usually bury his family in a place unless he considers it his home and plans to be there a long time.Verse 19-20The writer noted twice that Hebron was within the land of Canaan (Genesis 23:2; Genesis 23:19) and stressed repeatedly that the negotiations for the land were official (Genesis 23:10; Genesis 23:13; Genesis 23:16; Genesis 23:18). There was no doubt that this part of the land now justly belonged to Abraham and his heirs."This verse [Genesis 23:20] is a conclusion to Genesis 23:2-19. It seems strange appearing after Genesis 23:19-which would have been a reasonable note on which to conclude. Its placement here points out that the crucial element in this chapter is not Sarah's death, but Abraham's acquisition of land from outsiders. As such, it is a harbinger of things to come." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 136.] "The very fact that Abraham buried Sarah in the land of Canaan is proof of his unwavering faith. Knowing that his descendants would have to endure four hundred years of bitter bondage in a foreign country (Genesis 15:13), he looked beyond that to the ultimate fulfillment of God's promises." [Note: Davis, p. 223.] Isaac and Jacob as well as Abraham used this burial site. Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, and Leah were all buried here. Rachel's tomb was near Bethlehem (lit. house of bread, i.e., granary).The time of death should be the time when the godly proclaim their faith most loudly in view of our hope in God's promises.24 Chapter 24 Verses 1-9The thigh may be a euphemism for the genitals (Genesis 24:2). [Note: Ibid., p. 254; cf. Waltke, Genesis, p. 327.] The ancients considered the "thigh" to be the source of posterity and the seat of power (cf. Genesis 47:29)."By putting his hand under Abraham's thigh, the servant was touching his genitals and thus giving the oath a special solemnity. In the ancient Orient, solemn oaths could be taken holding some sacred object in one's hand, as it is still customary to take an oath on the Bible before giving evidence in court. Since the OT particularly associates God with life (see the
symbolism of the sacrificial law) and Abraham had been circumcised as a mark of the covenant, placing his hand under Abraham's thigh made an intimate association with some fundamental religious ideas. An oath by the seat of procreation is particularly apt in this instance, when it concerns the finding of a wife for Isaac." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 141.] "That act would be significantly symbolic in this instance, for success of the mission would make possible propagation of posterity and fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant." [Note: Howard F. Vos, Genesis, p. 90. See R. David Freedman, "'Put Your Hand Under My Thigh'-The Patriarchal Oath," Biblical Archaeology Review 2:2 (June 1976):3-4, 42.] "Isaac was not regarded as a merely pious candidate for matrimony, but as the heir of the promise, who must therefore be kept from any alliance with the race whose possessions were to come to his descendants, and which was ripening for the judgment to be executed by those descendants." [Note: E. W. Hengstenberg, Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch, 1:350. Cf. Esau's Canaanite wives, and Ishmael's Egyptian wife.] Verses 10-28Camels were relatively rare in this era, so the fact that Abraham owned 10 of them reflects his great wealth (Genesis 24:10; cf. Job 1:3). [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, pp. 142-43, 146.] Genesis 24:12is the first recorded instance of prayer for specific guidance in Scripture. Since camels could drink 25 gallons, the servant's sign was sagacious (Genesis 24:14). It tested Rebekah's kindness, hospitality, industry, and willingness to help a stranger."Although the Lord elects both Abraham and Rebekah, his mode of revelation to them is strikingly different. To Abraham he speaks (Genesis12:7) in visions and auditions, to Rebekah he communicates through answered prayer and providential acts (Genesis 24:27; Genesis 24:48; Genesis 24:50)." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 326.] Verses 29-61"Another striking feature of this story is that after introducing the new characters of Laban and his household, the writer allows the servant again to retell the narrative (Genesis 24:34-39). But as with most repetitions in biblical narrative, the retelling is not a mere repeating. It is rather a reassertion of the central points of the first narrative....As we overhear the servant recount more details, we see that the miracle of God's provision
was even more grand than that suggested in the narrative itself." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 177.] Repeating an event confirmed its truthfulness in Scripture (cf. Genesis 41:32).It was customary in Hurrian society to consult the bride before completing the marriage plans (Genesis 24:58-60). Also the brother took the lead in giving his sister in marriage. Note that Laban, Rebekah's brother, was the principal negotiator who represented the family rather than Bethuel, her father (cf. Genesis24:50), or her mother (Genesis 24:53; Genesis 24:55; cf. Genesis 34:11-17; Genesis 42:1-3). Another view is that Bethuel was simply too old or was under his wife's control, as Rebekah later "organized" Isaac. [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 149.] The description of the family farewell also reflects Laban's leadership (Genesis 24:59-60). [Note: See West, pp. 67-68; and Speiser, pp. 184-85.] Rebekah demonstrated her faith in Abraham's God by decisively choosing to leave her family to marry Isaac (cf. the similar choices of Abraham and Ruth; Ruth 1:16).Verses 62-67Beer-lahai-roi, where Isaac lived and meditated (Genesis 24:62), was a place where God had previously answered prayer (cf. Genesis 16:14). This suggests that Isaac may have been praying for God's will to be done in the choice of his wife. Rebekah dismounted out of respect for her intended husband (cf. Joshua15:18; 1 Samuel 25:23). Her self-veiling hinted at her becoming his bride since it was customary to veil the bride in a marriage ceremony. Normally Israelite women did not wear veils (cf. Genesis 12:14; Genesis 38:14)."The final remarks (Genesis 24:67) again show that God's guidance in the mundane areas of life is good for those who put their trust in him. When Isaac took Rebekah as his wife, he loved her and was comforted with her after the death of his mother. In other words, Rebekah had taken the place of Sarah in the line of the descendants of Abraham." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 178.] The significance of this long story in the larger context of special revelation is fourfold at least.1. Primarily it demonstrates God's faithfulness to His promise to provide descendants for Abraham and, therefore, His trustworthiness. Along with this is the assurance that even though Abraham was soon to die God would fulfill His promises in the future.
2. It reveals that God guides people who are seeking His will so they discover it.3. It illustrates God's selecting a bride for His Son out of the world through the agency of His Spirit, which the New Testament teaches.4. It provides a good model, in the servant, of one who responded properly to the work of God. Abraham's servant prayed before he acted, praised when God answered his prayers, and lived believing that God controls all the affairs of life."There are two themes, one more central, one more auxiliary, which are highlighted by the example story [in Genesis 24]: the faithful, prudent and selfless steward acting on behalf of his master as messenger, and the good wife as a gift from the LORD, the theme underlying much of the steward's action." [Note: Wolfgang M. W. Roth, "The Wooing of Rebekah: A Tradition-Critical Study of Genesis 24," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972):181.] 25 Chapter 25 Verses 1-6Abraham's sons by Keturah 25:1-6 Keturah (lit. enveloped in fragrant smoke) may have been a concubine like Hagar (Genesis 25:6; 1 Chronicles 1:32). Jewish tradition identified Keturah as Hagar. [Note: Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Targum Neofiti I (margin), and Genesis Rabbah 61:4.] It is not possible to prove that Abraham married Keturah and that she bore him six sons after Sarah's death, though this was probably the case. He may have married her earlier in his life while Sarah was alive.The information revealed in these verses may appear at this point in the narrative simply to introduce the Midianites who come into prominence later in Genesis. They were a group of tribes that inhabited the deserts surrounding Israel. Probably Moses also included this data because this passage confirms God's faithfulness in giving Abraham many descendants, though Isaac and his branch of the family would be the recipients of God's special blessings.In this section and the following two (Genesis 25:7-19) those characters who play minor parts in the drama take their curtain calls making way for the chief actors who follow.God's promise that "through Isaac your descendants shall be named" (Genesis21:12) led Abraham to act as he did, as Moses recorded here.
"The land of the East" (Genesis 25:6) to which Abraham sent his sons other than Isaac was evidently Arabia. It lay to the east and south of Canaan."In this case the sending away of the sons is to make Isaac's position more secure." [Note: Loren Fisher, "An Amarna Age Prodigal," Journal of Semitic Studies 3:2 (April 1958):119.] Verses 1-1118. Abraham's death 25:1-11Before Abraham died, he made sure that God's covenantal blessing would be Isaac's by sending his other sons away. After he died, God confirmed his decision by blessing Isaac."In the short span of one chapter, the writer shows how Isaac's entire life was a repetition of that which happened to Abraham. Thus the lesson is that God's faithfulness in the past can be counted on in the present and the future. What he has done for the fathers, he will also do for the sons." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 186.] "It is only said of Isaac among Abraham's children that "God ['elohim] blessed" him (Genesis 25:11; cf. Genesis 24:1; cf. Genesis 24:35); this language is used rarely in Scripture, appearing in creation narratives (Genesis 1:22; Genesis 1:28; Genesis 2:3; Genesis 9:1)." [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, pp. 348-49.] Verses 7-11Abraham's death and Isaac's blessing 25:7-11Isaac would have been 75 years old and Jacob 15 when Abraham died (Genesis25:7; cf. Genesis 21:5; Genesis 25:26). [Note: See the chart "Patriarchal Chronological Data" earlier in these notes.] Abraham lived 100 years in the Promised Land (cf. Genesis 12:4)."It is one thing to live a long life. It is another thing to live a long life that is also a happy life. This obituary notice about Abraham draws attention to the fact that Abraham died not only at an elderly age but in a frame of mind filled with inner shalomand satisfaction. That is the thrust of the phrase full of daysor 'contented.'" [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 167.] The phrase "gathered to his people" (Genesis 25:8) implies reunion in Sheol, the place of departed spirits, with ancestors who had died previously. It presupposes continued personal existence after physical death (cf. Genesis 15:15; Hebrews11:13). Abraham was buried in the Cave of Machpelah near Mamre, the old site that later became a part of Hebron (Genesis 25:9).
God's dealings now focus on Isaac who then lived near Hagar's well at Beer-lahai-roi (Genesis 25:11; cf. Genesis 16:14; Genesis 24:62). Archaelolgists have yet to find this site. It was evidently somewhere south of Beersheba in the Negev.God's servants should do all in their power to ensure the continuation of God's program to bless from one generation to the next.Verses 12-18B. What became of Ishmael 25:12-18"The last four toledotsections of the Book of Genesis follow a definite pattern: the lines in each generation that are not chosen lines are traced before the narrative returns to the chosen line." [Note: Ross, Creation and . . ., p. 429.] This section records God's faithfulness to His promises to make Ishmael a great nation and to give him many descendants (Genesis 16:10; Genesis 21:18). This is another of the 10 family histories that Genesis records (see the outline in the introduction to these notes). There is probably an intentional parallel with the 10 nations mentioned in the Table of Nations (ch. 10) suggesting that God would bless all the families of the earth through other special families.These verses show that God fulfilled His promises regarding Ishmael (Genesis16:10-12; Genesis 17:20). Ishmael, like Nahor and Jacob, fathered 12 sons. Moses drew his personal history to a conclusion before he moved on to concentrate on his brother Isaac."The mention of 'twelve tribal rulers' ... recalls the word of the Lord regarding the future of the line of Ishmael from Genesis 17:20, where it was promised that he too would be blessed and that 'twelve rulers' ... would be born to him and become a great nation." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 181.] The Ishmaelites lived in Arabia. Arabia lay to the southeast of Canaan and extended from the Euphrates River to the Red Sea. [Note: Josephus, 1:12:4.] Probably the Ishmaelites were once a confederation of tribes like the Israelites."The names of the twelve princes descending from Ishmael are applied not only to tribal divisions but also to geographical localities (cf. Genesis 25:16)." [Note: Davis, p. 231.] Ishmael died at 137 years, having lived 48 years after Abraham's death. The writer probably included the fact that Ishmael lived "in defiance of all his relations" (Genesis 25:18) to show the fulfillment of God's prediction to Hagar (cf. Genesis 16:12). The bedouin-like Ishmaelites later had many conflicts with their more settled Israelite relations.God is faithful to His promises to bless whom He has promised to bless.
Verse 19-20Paddan-aram means "the flat (land) of Aram." Aram was the area near Haran. People from this region became known as Arameans, and later the Greeks called them Syrians. Bethuel was a semi-nomadic herdsman, and he probably lived in the open fields at least part of the year.Verses 19-261. Isaac's twin sons 25:19-26Genesis 25:19-34introduce the whole Jacob and Esau saga.In the first pericope (Genesis 25:19-26) we have the record of God answering Isaac's prayers by making Rebekah fertile (blessing). He gave her two sons, Esau and Jacob, and foretold that from them two nations would come with the elder serving the younger.The emphasis of this section is on the divine oracle (Genesis 25:23) as is clear from the chiastic structure of the narrative."AIsaac was forty years old when he took to wife Rebekah (Genesis 25:20).BRebekah was barren; prayer for children was answered (Genesis 25:21a).CHis wife Rebekah conceived (Genesis 25:21b). The children struggled together within her (Genesis 25:22a).DRebekah asks for an oracle (Genesis 25:22b)D'Yahweh grants her an oracle (Genesis25:23)C'Her days to be delivered were fulfilled (Genesis 25:24a). And behold, there were twins in her womb (Genesis 25:24b).B'Jacob and Esau are contrasted in birth and appearance (Genesis25:25-26a).A'Isaac was sixty years old when Rebekah bore the twins (Genesis 25:26b)." [Note: Ross, Creation and . . ., p. 436. Cf. Michael Fishbane, "Composition and Structure in the Jacob Cycle (Genesis 25:19to Genesis 35:22)," Journal of Jewish Studies 26:1-2 (Spring-Autumn 1975):15-38.] The question of an heir continues primary in this section. Who will be Isaac's heir through whom God will fulfill His promises? Rebekah, like Sarah, was barren (Genesis 25:21). After 20 years of waiting and praying (Genesis 25:21-22) God gave her children. Which of these two sons would be the blessed heir? God intervened to announce His foreordained choice (Genesis 25:23). Jacob's
reactions to his election over Esau were quite different from Isaac's reactions to God's choice of him as Abraham's heir, as this section begins to illustrate.Scripture does not give the reason God chose Jacob over Esau. What we do know is that His choice did not rest on the superior merit of Jacob but on the sovereign prerogative of Yahweh (Romans 9:10-13). In ancient Near Eastern culture the first-born normally became his father's heir. So in designating Jacob as Isaac's heir God sovereignly overruled natural custom by supernatural revelation. The response of the members of Isaac's family to this revelation demonstrates their faith, or lack of it. However the main point of the narrative is to trace God's faithfulness and power in bringing to pass what He had promised."The revelation of the Divine will concerning the two brothers (Genesis 25:23) was evidently no secret. It is clear that both Esau and Jacob knew of it. This fact is in some respects the key to the true interpretation of this incident [i.e., Genesis 25:29-34]." [Note: Thomas, p. 230.] Verses 19-29C. What became of Isaac 25:19-35:29A new toledotbegins with Genesis 25:19. Its theme is "the acquisition of the blessing and its development and protection by the Lord." [Note: Ross, Creation and . . ., p. 433.] Moses set up the whole Jacob narrative in a chiastic structure that emphasizes the fulfillment of the promise of the seed and the seed's prosperity."AOracle sought; Rebekah struggles in childbirth; bekorahbirthright; birth; themes of strife, deception, fertility (Genesis 25:19-34).BInterlude: strife; deception; berakahblessing; covenant with foreigner (26).CDeception; berakahstolen; fear of Esau; flight from land (Genesis27:1to Genesis 28:9).DEncounter (<paga') with the divine at sacred site near border; berakah(Genesis 28:10-22).EInternal cycle opens: arrival; Laban at border; deception; wages; Rachel barren; Leah fertile (Genesis 29:1to Genesis 30:21).FRachel fertile; Jacob increases the herds (Genesis 30:22-43).
E'Internal cycle closes: departure; Laban at border; deception; wages (31).D'Encounters (<paga') with divine beings at sacred sites near border; berakah(32).C'Deception planned; fear of Esau; berakahgift returned; return to land (33).B'Interlude: strife; deception; covenant with foreigner (34).A'Oracle fulfilled; Rachel struggles in childbirth; berakah; death resolutions (Genesis 35:1-22)." [Note: Ibid., p. 85. Cf. Fishbane, p. 42; Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 169; Waltke, Genesis, p. 352.] The Flood story also has a palistrophic structure, and both stories have a similar statement at the middle (turning point): God remembered Noah (Genesis 8:1) and God remembered Rachel (Genesis 30:22). This emphasizes that God controls events and saves His people.". . . the author of Genesis has deliberately split the Jacob-Joseph story into two parts by putting the family history of Esau Genesis 36:1to Genesis 37:1in the middle. This allows him to alternate the genealogies of the non-elect lines of Ishmael (Genesis 25:12-18) and Esau (Genesis 36:1to Genesis 37:1) with the fuller family histories of the chosen lines of Terah (Abraham) (Genesis 11:27to Genesis 25:11), Isaac (Jacob) (Genesis 25:19to Genesis35:29), and Jacob (Joseph) (Genesis 37:2to Genesis 50:26) to produce a total of five patriarchal family histories. This matches the five family histories of pre-patriarchal times ..." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 168.] Verse 21Rebekah was barren for 20 years after she married Isaac (Genesis 25:20; Genesis 25:26). God closed her womb so the chosen family would recognize her children as the fruit of His grace rather than simply the fruit of nature. Isaac was apparently the only monogamous patriarch among the first three: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.Verse 22-23Rebekah's pregnancy was so painful that she wondered if there was any point to going on living. She expressed the same thought when her sons had grown up (Genesis 27:46). God's choice of the younger over the elder "was contrary to ancient Near Eastern custom, but the elective purposes of God transcend custom." [Note: Davis, p. 232.] The divine oracle summarizes the careers of Jacob and Esau and is similar to Genesis 12:1-3in that both statements are
programmatic. All of Jacob's subsequent scheming to obtain the birthright and the blessing was unnecessary since God promised that he would become the dominant nation.Verses 24-26"Reddish" (Heb. 'admoni) is wordplay with "Edomites," Esau's descendants. Esau means "hairy one" (Heb. sa'ar, similar to "Seir," later the Edomites' [probably] wooded homeland). Jacob means "El will protect." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 178.] Hairiness seems to have been a mark of incivility in the ancient world, indicative of an animal-like nature. [Note: Bruce Vawter, On Genesis: A New Reading, p. 288. See also Waltke, Genesis, p. 356.] The Hebrew ya'aqob("Jacob") is similar to 'aqeb("heel"). From Jacob's grasping Esau's heel at birth came the nickname "heel-holder" (i.e., one who outwits by trickery) "just as in wrestling an attempt may be made to throw the opponent by grasping the heel." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:268.] The lesson to be learned is that those who owe their existence to God's creation and election can acknowledge His hand at work in the affairs of their lives.Verse 27-28Abraham died when the twins were 15 (Genesis 25:7), so they grew up knowing their grandfather and undoubtedly hearing his stories of God's promises to their family. Esau became a nomadic hunter, but Jacob remained in his tents.". . . they became the personification of the two different ways of life which would have been typical for Palestine at this period of history: that of hunter and nomad (Esau) and that of shepherd and semi-nomad (Jacob) ... Esau is described as a 'skilled hunter,' 'a man of the outdoors;' Jacob, on the other hand, is portrayed as 'a simple man,' one 'remaining in his tents,' that is, a man of stable life in contrast to the rootless life of the nomad." [Note: Donald B. Sharp, "In Defense of Rebecca," Biblical Theology Bulletin 10:4 (October 1980):165.] "The two characters are utter opposites, as the two nations will eventually be." [Note: Kidner, p. 152.] The Hebrew word tam, translated "plain," probably means civilized and domesticated, a homebody. [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 181. Cf. Nichol, 1:369; and Carl D. Evans, "The Patriarch Jacob-An 'Innocent Man,'" Bible Review 2:1 (Spring 1985):32-37.] Translators have rendered it "perfect" and "blameless" elsewhere (Job 1:1; Job 1:8; Job 8:20; Psalms 37:37; Proverbs 29:10). It may imply a quiet, self-contained, detached person, complete
in himself. [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 177.] The NET Bible translators translated it "even-tempered.""Descriptions of Jacob's early life in the Scriptures paint an interpersonal portrait of a highly narcissistic individual who grew up in a family of origin ripe for producing such pathology." [Note: Vance L. Shepperson, "Jacob's Journey: From Narcissism Toward Wholeness," Journal of Psychology and Theology 12:3 (1984):180.] Adam failed in eating, Noah in drinking, and Isaac in tasting. Isaac became a gourmand, one who loves certain types of food."A marriage made in heaven (see Genesis 24:1-67) can end in dysfunction when a spouse gives priority to taste in the mouth over a voice in the heart (see Genesis 26:35)." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 363.] Verses 27-342. The sale of the birthright 25:27-34Verse 29-30The Hebrew word translated "stew" literally means "lentils." Esau wanted to "gulp it down" (Heb. la'at).Verses 31-34The way Jacob stated his demand suggests that he had long premeditated his act and ruthlessly exploited his brother's weakness. His insistence that Esau swear to him strengthens this impression. Jacob's lack of compassion and hospitality contrasts with that of Abraham (Genesis 18:1-8) and Lot (Genesis19:1-8). It was right that he valued the birthright, but it was wrong that he obtained it as he did. Because Esau despised his birthright Jacob obtained it and became what God had promised He would become, the stronger son who would lead (Genesis 25:23). Explicit moral commentary is rare in the Bible, so the writer's inclusion of it here marks something about Esau that he did not want the reader to miss."The cunning hunter fell into a better hunter's trap, becoming prey to his own appetite." [Note: Ross, Creation and . . ., p. 449.] The writer showed that the natures of the two sons were very different; they were not identical twins. Esau cared only for physical and material things whereas Jacob valued the spiritual. Esau gave priority to the immediate satisfaction of his sensual desires, but Jacob was willing to wait for something better that God had promised in the future (cf. Hebrews 12:16).
"The frivolity with which he [Esau] sold his birthright ... rendered him unfit to be the heir and possessor of the promised grace." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:269.] "From one human perspective, Esau, who functions as a foil to Jacob, is much more likeable than Jacob. From the divine viewpoint, however, he is rejected because he rejects his right to inherit the divinely given vision of his fathers." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 352.] The birthright was the privilege of being chief of the tribe and head of the family (Genesis 27:29). In Isaac's family it entitled the bearer to the blessing of Yahweh's promise (Genesis 27:4; Genesis 27:27-29), which included the possession of Canaan and covenant fellowship with God (Genesis 28:4). It included a double portion of the inheritance (Deuteronomy 21:17) and the privilege of being the priest (spiritual leader) of the family. [Note: See Sarna, Understanding Genesis, p. 185; Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, pp. 41-42, 53; and I. Mendelsohn, "On the Preferential Status of the Eldest Son," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 156 (December 1959):38-40.] "It is quite apparent from the Nuzi tablets that instances of the transference of birthright, such as occurred in the Patriarchal narratives, were not uncommon in Hurrian society. One example concerns a certain Zirteshup, whose father disowned him but later restored his status....Another instance of the transference of birthright from the Nuzi tablets is the exchange by one Kurpazah of his birthright in consideration for three sheep given to him by Tupkitilla, his brother. In the light of this example, Esau's willingness to exchange his birthright for Jacob's mess of pottage (Genesis 25:29-34) is perhaps more understandable." [Note: West, p. 71.] Even though Esau was a cunning hunter he placed little value on his privilege as the first-born son. He was willing to trade it to his crafty brother for a meal of "red stuff," a fitting description of his own nature. [Note: See Richard D. Patterson, "The Old Testament Use of an Archetype: The Trickster," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:3 (September 1999):385-94, for a helpful discussion of instances of trickery in the Old Testament.] The structure of the narrative again identifies the writer's emphasis, this time Esau's disdain for his birthright (Genesis 25:32)."AJacob was boiling pottage (Genesis 25:29a).BEsau came in from the field; he was tired (Genesis 25:29b).
Cwayyo'mer 'esaw: Let me eat some of that red pottage . . ., I am so tired! (Genesis 25:30)Dwayyo'mer ya'aqob: First sell me your bkrh (Genesis 25:31).Ewayyo'mer 'esaw: I depart; I die! Of what use is a bkrhto me? (Genesis25:32).D'wayyo'mer ya'aqob: Swear to me first. So he swore to him and sold his bkrhto Jacob (Genesis 25:33).C'Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentils; he ate and he drank (Genesis 25:34aa).B'He rose and went his way (Genesis 25:34ab).A'Thus Esau despised his birthright (Genesis 25:34b)." [Note: Ross, Creation and . . ., p. 446.] There are two important instances of first-born sons relinquishing the rights of primogeniture in Genesis: Esau and Reuben. Esau considered his birthright of so little value that he sold all his rights as first-born to Jacob to realize an immediate physical gratification. Reuben forfeited his birthright through sexual promiscuity (Genesis 35:22; Genesis 49:3-4). In Esau's case, his entire birthright went to Jacob. In Reuben's, his went to three of his brothers. Judah obtained the regal right, Levi eventually received the priestly right, and the blessing of the double portion went to Joseph who realized it through his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. [Note: See Arlen L. Chitwood, Judgment Seat of Christ, pp. 138-40.] In reading this pericope many have concluded that God chose Jacob over Esau because He foresaw that Jacob would value the promises and the birthright, whereas Esau would not. This is not correct. Jacob valued the spiritual because God gave him the grace to do so. In the previous generation Isaac was the recipient of God's grace while Lot and Ishmael were not. Abraham was, too, whereas his brothers were not.In this incident Jacob manifested spiritual perception. Some writers have suggested that he was impatient and took fleshly initiative like his grandfather (cf. Genesis 12:10-20; Genesis 16; Genesis 20). Note, however, that Moses blamed Esau, not Jacob, in this event (Genesis 25:34)."How often do we put the question to ourselves, 'What is my mess of pottage?' It is important to verbalize the question. We are in constant danger
of being tempted to give up something very precious in order to indulge a sudden strong desire. The desire may involve greedy eating and drinking, lusting after money or material things, letting loose our anger in abandonment of reason, succumbing to depression without check, cursing God in despair or disappointment without even thinking of the trap Satan set for Job and is setting for us, giving in to a sweeping sexual desire without waiting for the right framework. The mess of pottage that is dangerous to you and to me is any temptation to gratify the 'feelings' of the immediate moment in a way that shows we 'despise' the promises of the living God for our future." [Note: Edith Schaeffer, "What Is My Mess of Pottage?" Christianity Today (March 14, 1975), p. 50.] This section is a warning that profane (secular) people who live to satisfy their fleshly appetites will lose more valuable things of lasting spiritual worth. Christians who live for the present will not lose their salvation, but they will lose some of their eternal reward (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:10-15).26 Chapter 26 Verses 1-6Isaac was evidently considering going to Egypt to escape the famine. He was in Gerar when God spoke to him. This was God's first revelation to Isaac (cf. Genesis 25:23). Therefore, it appears that Isaac may have previously moved north from Beer-lahai-roi. Of course, constant relocating was common for the nomadic patriarchs, and these places were not far from one another.The major migration of the Philistines into Canaan took place in the twelveth century B.C. However, there were some Philistines already in Canaan at this time, as is clear from this reference and others in Genesis (cf. Genesis 21:32; Genesis 21:34).God's will for Isaac to remain in the land was definite, and He communicated it clearly to the patriarch. Perhaps God wanted Isaac to stay in the land so he would learn that God would "be with you and bless you" (Genesis 26:3). God reiterated His promise to Abraham to give Isaac a promise to believe and encouragement to obey Him. Promises of protection are also prominent in the Jacob story (cf. Genesis 26:24; Genesis 28:15; Genesis 28:20; Genesis 31:3; Genesis 31:5; Genesis 31:42; Genesis 32:10).
The promise, however, was that God would protect and bless Isaac, multiply his descendants, and give them "all these lands" (Genesis 26:4; i.e., the lands held by the various Canaanite tribes). One reason for God's blessing of Isaac was Abraham's obedience to God (Genesis 26:5; cf. Genesis 22:18). Isaac became the spiritual beneficiary of a godly parent, but he had the opportunity to increase God's blessing on him through his own obedience to God."The Abrahamic blessing will pass to Isaac. Everything included in that blessing will now belong to the son, and in turn will be passed on to his sons. But there is a contingency involved: if they are to enjoy the full blessings, they will have to obey the word of the LORD. And so obedience is enjoined here, with the example of how well Abraham obeyed." [Note: The NET Bible note on 26:3.] Genesis 26:5sounds like Abraham kept the commands, statutes, and laws of the Mosaic Covenant before they were in existence. It seems to contradict Genesis15:6that says God justified Abraham because of his faith."Ultimately, we should attempt to find the meaning of this verse in the larger strategy and purpose of the Pentateuch. Did the author of the Pentateuch intend to depict Abraham as a model of faith or as a model of obedience to the law? Curiously enough, the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars have read this passage as if the verse intended to show Abraham's life as an example of obedience to the law (Gesetzesgehorsam)."It appears reasonable to conclude ... that the importance of Genesis 26:5lies in what it tells us about the meaning of the deuteronomic terms it uses. It is as if the author of the Pentateuch has seized on the Abrahamic narratives as a way to explain his concept of 'keeping the law.' The author uses the life of Abraham, not Moses, to illustrate that one canfulfill the righteous requirement of the law. In choosing Abraham and not Moses, the author shows that 'keeping the law' means 'believing in God,' just as Abraham believed God and was counted righteous (Genesis 15:6). In effect the author of the Pentateuch says, 'Be like Abraham. Live a life of faith and it can be said that you are keeping the law.'" [Note: John H. Sailhamer, "The Mosaic Law and the Theology of the Pentateuch," Westminster Theological Journal 53 (Fall 1991):253, 254. Cf. John 6:29.]
"Israel would immediately see Torah (Law) terminology in the record of Abraham, and would be prompted to keep the Law." [Note: Ross, "Genesis," p. 71.] Verses 1-113. Isaac and Abimelech 26:1-11God prevented Isaac from leaving the Promised Land and renewed the covenant with him, but then He had to protect Rebekah when Isaac lied about his relationship with her to Abimelech."In the short span of one chapter, the writer shows how the whole of the life of Isaac was a rehearsal of that which happened to Abraham. Thus the lesson that is conveyed is that God's faithfulness in the past can be counted on in the present and the future. What he has done for the fathers, he will also do for the sons." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 185.] Whereas the events of Isaac's life repeated those of Abraham's on several occasions, God dealt with Isaac differently and in harmony with his individual character. The many parallels between this chapter and the story of Abraham (esp. chs. 12-14 and 20-21) show that the writer wanted the reader to compare and contrast the two men. [Note: See Garrett, p. 136, or Waltke, Genesis, p. 366, for several striking parallels.] "The figure of even a great man may be dwarfed by comparison with that of a distinguished father or of a famous son. Thus the character of Isaac is overshadowed by the majesty of Abraham and the dramatic interest of Jacob. There was a third factor which diminished the importance of Isaac; he was the husband of a clever and masterful wife. No matter how exciting the scene in which he may appear, he is always assigned to a minor part. At least, by contrast with these other actors, his role in life was prosaic, uneventful, obscure." [Note: Charles R. Erdman, The Book of Genesis, p. 86.] "The chapter before us is full of illustrations of how difficulties should and should not be met." [Note: Thomas, p. 238.] Verses 7-11For an explanation of this strange incident, see the notes on chapter 20. When endangered, Isaac, like Abraham, resorted to an ethic in which the end justified the means. "Like father, like son." Isaac and Rebekah must have been childless at this time.A period of between 70 and 97 years had elapsed between Abraham's sojourn in Gerar and Isaac's. Abimelech could have been the same man in both cases
since lifespans of 150 years were not uncommon at that time. Abimelech demonstrated pious conduct in both cases. In the first, however, Abimelech took Sarah into his harem, but in the second he wanted to protect Rebekah from his people. Abimelech is a title rather than a personal name and means "royal father." Thus this may have been another ruler than the one Abraham dealt with.Verses 12-17This section of verses shows God's faithfulness in blessing Isaac as He had promised (cf. Genesis 26:3; Genesis 24:1; Genesis 25:11). Isaac enjoyed a bountiful harvest (Genesis 26:12). Abimelech testified to Isaac's power (Genesis26:16), which was another testimony to God's faithfulness.Verses 12-334. Isaac's wells 26:12-33Verses 18-22Isaac reopened the wells that Abraham had dug but the native inhabitants had later filled with earth. He also dug three new wells. In contrast with Abraham, Isaac "was called not so much to pioneer as to consolidate." [Note: Kidner, p. 154.] This incident shows God's blessing of Isaac, too. Water in the wilderness is a strong symbol of God's supernatural blessing in spite of nature.The incident also reveals the peaceful character of this patriarch who did not battle his neighbors for the wells, even though he was stronger than they (Genesis 26:16). His actions expressed his trust in Yahweh. [Note: See note on 48:22.] Isaac's decision to sojourn in Gerar and the territory of the Philistines (Genesis26:1-22) seems to have been unwise but not sinful. Though he sinned in misrepresenting his relationship to Rebekah out of fear (Genesis 26:7), his choice to live in Gerar was not sinful. It did, however, open him to temptation and trials that he probably would have avoided if he had stayed away from Gerar.Verses 23-25Isaac returned to Beersheba where Abraham had lived occasionally. God appeared to him there (his second revelation) calming his fears and reviewing the promises that He had given previously (Genesis 26:2-5). Isaac's response was to build an altar, worship Yahweh, and settle down there.Settlers could only continue to live in an area where there was a well. Wells were vital to the life of nomadic herdsmen. While there was probably at least one well at Beersheba already, Isaac dug another for his own use, or perhaps because he
needed more water. His ability to dig wells indicates both his wealth and his intention to establish permanent residence in the land.These verses seem to confirm the fact that Isaac's decision to move out of Philistine territory pleased God.Verses 26-33Abimelech again testified to God's blessing of Isaac and gave God glory (Genesis 26:28-29).Isaac and Abimelech made a parity covenant of mutual non-aggression. They sealed it by eating a meal together. Eating together was often a sacred rite in the ancient Near East. This covenant renewed the older one made between Abimelech and Abraham (Genesis 21:31). The exchange of oaths and Isaac's naming the town Beersheba again (cf. Genesis 21:31) also strengthened this agreement.". . . this account of Isaac's dealings with the Philistines portrays Isaac as very much walking in his father's footsteps. He receives similar promises, faces similar tests, fails similarly, but eventually triumphs in like fashion. Indeed, in certain respects he is given more in the promises and achieves more. He is promised 'all these lands [Genesis 26:4],' and by the end of the story he is securely settled in Beersheba and has a treaty with the Philistines in which they acknowledge his superiority." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 196.] God's people must maintain confident trust in God's promise of His presence and provision in spite of the envy and hostility of unbelievers that His blessing sometimes provokes.Verse 345. Jacob's deception for Isaac's blessing 26:34-28:9Reacting to Isaac's disobedient plan to bless Esau, Jacob and Rebekah stole the blessing by deception. Esau became so angry with Jacob over his trickery that Jacob had to flee for his life.Two reports of Esau's marriages (Genesis 26:34-35and Genesis 28:6-9) frame the major account (Genesis 27:1to Genesis 28:5) providing a prologue and epilogue. Esau's marriages are significant because Rebekah used them to persuade Isaac to send Jacob away to get a wife (Genesis 27:4b) and because they were the reason Isaac did so (Genesis 28:1).The main account centers on Isaac giving the blessing."AIsaac and the son of the brkh/bkrh(=Esau) (Genesis 27:1-5).BRebekah sends Jacob on the stage (Genesis 27:6-17).
CJacob appears before Isaac and receives blessing (Genesis27:18-29).C'Esau appears before Isaac and receives antiblessing (Genesis27:30-40).B'Rebekah sends Jacob from the stage (Genesis 27:41-45).A'Isaac and the son of brkh/bkrh(=Jacob!) (Genesis 27:46to Genesis 28:5)." [Note: Ross, Creation and . . ., p. 474. Cf. Fokkelman, p. 101.] Verse 34-35Esau's marriage 26:34-35We can identify three purposes for this brief section.1. Moses explained and justified the reason for Jacob's later departure for Paddan-aram (Genesis 27:46to Genesis 28:2).2. Moses identified the ancestors of the Edomites who later played a major role in Israel's history.3. Moses revealed Esau's carnal character again.Esau showed no interest in the special calling of his family but sought to establish himself as a great man in the world by marrying Canaanite women (cf. Genesis 11:4). These were evidently the daughters of Canaanite lords. [Note: Josephus, 1:18:4. See K. Luke, "Esau's Marriage," Indian Theological Studies 25:2 (June 1988):171-90.] The Canaanites were, of course, under God's curse (Genesis 9:25-27). Contrast Esau's method of securing wives with Abraham's plan to identify God's choice of a wife for Isaac."These preliminary notices [in Genesis 26:34-35] put into perspective the cunning deed of Jacob and Rebekah. They demonstrate that Esau was not fit to inherit the blessing." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 189.] 27 Chapter 27 Verses 1-4Abraham's life ended with happiness, success, and a strong character. In contrast, physical and spiritual decay marked Isaac's old age. [Note: Meir Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative, p. 350. See Bruce K. Waltke, "Reflections on Retirement from the Life of Isaac," Crux 32 (December 1996):4-14.] "In this the infirmity of his [Isaac's] flesh is evident. At the same time, it was not merely because of his partiality for Esau, but unquestionably on
account of the natural rights of the firstborn, that he wished to impart the blessing to him, just as the desire to do this before his death arose from the consciousness of his patriarchal call." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:274.] ". . . Isaac's sensuality is more powerful than his theology." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 206.] Verses 1-5Isaac's blessing 27:1-28:5Here we have the third round of Jacob's battle with Esau. The first was at birth (Genesis 25:21-28) and the second was over the birthright (Genesis 25:29-34). [Note: See Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, pp. 418-19, for clarification of the difference between a birthright and a blessing.] In all three incidents Jacob manipulated his brother-unnecessarily, in view of God's promise (Genesis 25:23)."This chapter (27)offers one of the most singular instances of God's overruling providence controlling the affairs of sinful men and so disposing of them that the interests of God's kingdom are safeguarded. Usually the guilt of Jacob is overemphasized, and Esau is regarded as relatively or entirely the innocent party in the transaction. This traditional view requires modification and correction." [Note: Leupold, 2:735.] "This chapter portrays an entire family attempting to carry out their responsibilities by their physical senses, without faith...."All the natural senses play a conspicuous part-especially the sense of taste in which Isaac prided himself, but which gave him the wrong answer. Reliance on one's senses for spiritual discernment not only proves fallible, but often fouls up life unduly."Most importantly, however, the story is about deception." [Note: Ross, "Genesis," pp. 72, 73.] An oral blessing was as legally binding as a written will in the ancient Near East. [Note: See Davis, p. 239.] "As in modern society, inheritance under Nuzi law was effected by testamentary disposition, although the [Nuzi] tablets indicate that such a testament was often made orally. One of the tablets tells of a lawsuit between brothers concerning the possession of their late father's slave girl, Sululi-Ishtar. The youngest of three brothers, Tarmiya, was defending his elder brothers' claim to Sululi-Ishtar and the tablet sets out his testimony:
'My father, Huya, was sick and lay on a couch; then my father seized my hand and spoke thus to me. "My other sons, being older, have acquired a wife; so I give herewith Sululi-Ishtar as your wife."'"In the end result the Court found in favour of Tarmiya, upholding his father's oral testamentary disposition."It also appears from another Nuzi tablet that even an oral testament commenced with an opening introductory statement such as: 'Now that I am grown old ....' which was the legal phraseology to indicate that what was to follow constituted a testamentary disposition. In similar manner, Isaac indicated to his elder son Esau that he wished to bestow upon him his testamentary blessing: 'Behold now, I am old, I know not the day of my death' (Genesis 27:2)." [Note: West, p. 71. See also Ephraim Speiser, "'I Know Not the Day of My Death,'" Journal of Biblical Literature 74 (1955):252-56.] Verses 5-17It seems consistent with the character of Rebekah as presented elsewhere in Genesis to interpret her actions here as predictable, if not commendable. A sincere desire to make sure that Isaac's blessing went to the divinely chosen, more responsible of her sons apparently motivated her. While her motive seems to have been good, her method evidenced lack of faith in God. [Note: See Sharp, pp. 164-68.] She tried to "pull the wool" over Isaac's eyes."Jacob is clearly less concerned with the rightness, the morality, of his mother's suggestion than he is with what happens to him if his disguise is discovered and his impersonation revealed." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 216.] People used the black, silk-like hair of the camel-goat of the East (Genesis27:16) as a substitute for human hair as late as the Roman period. [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:275, n. 1.] Verses 18-29The response to Isaac's blessing in Genesis 27:23is proleptic; it refers to the blessing in Genesis 27:27-29, not another blessing that preceded that one.Jacob's kiss recalls another deceptive show of affection, namely, Judas' kiss of Jesus (Matthew 26:48-49).Isaac uttered his blessing (Genesis 27:27-29) in poetic language and God's Spirit doubtless inspired it since it proved to be prophetic (cf. Genesis 49:1-27; Deuteronomy 33; et al.). It was an oracle.
The writer mentioned two of the elements in the Abrahamic promises specifically here: possession of the land, and numerous descendants. He generalized the third element, the blessing of the nations, in Genesis 27:29c."Since the intention to give the blessing to Esau the firstborn did not spring from proper feelings toward Jehovah and His promises, the blessing itself, as the use of the word Elohiminstead of Jehovah or El Shaddai(cf. xxviii. 3) clearly shows, could not rise to the full height of the divine blessings of salvation, but referred chiefly to the relation in which the two brothers and their descendants would stand to one another, the theme with which Isaac's soul was entirely filled. It was only the painful discovery that, in blessing against his will, he had been compelled to follow the saving counsel of God, which awakened in him the consciousness of his patriarchal vocation, and gave him the spiritual power to impart the 'blessing of Abraham' to the son whom he had kept back, but whom Jehovah had chosen, when he was about to send him away to Haran (xxviii. 3, 4)." [Note: Ibid., 1:276-77.] Verses 30-45Isaac evidently knew that he had been resisting God's will and finally accepted defeat submissively (Genesis 27:33). Besides in that culture a paternal blessing, much more a divine oracle, such as the one Isaac had uttered, was irrevocable. [Note: See A. C. Thiselton, "The Supposed Power of Words in the Biblical Writings," Journal of Theological Studies NS25:2 (October 1972):294.] "By showing that the blessing was irrevocable, even by the father who gave the blessing, the writer underscores an important feature of the blessing-its fulfillment is out of human hands." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 191.] Perhaps Isaac did not withdraw the blessing he had given Jacob because he realized that God had overruled his carnal preference for Esau (Genesis 27:39-40).Isaac's prophecy to Esau was no true blessing. At best he introduced a disturbing element into the blessing he had given Jacob because Jacob had used deception to obtain it.The mountains of Edom are some of the most desolate and barren of any on earth today. They stand to the southeast of the Dead Sea. Esau's descendants would subsist by hunting people, just as Esau had subsisted by hunting game.
The Edomites served, revolted from, and were conquered by the Israelites repeatedly during their history. Saul defeated them after they enjoyed a long period of independence (1 Samuel 14:47). Then David made them his vassals (2Samuel 8:14). They tried to revolt under Solomon but were unsuccessful (1 Kings9:14ff.). The Edomites were subject to Judah until King Joram's reign when they rebelled successfully. In Amaziah's reign Judah again subjugated them (2 Kings14:7). They finally achieved permanent freedom from Judah during Ahaz's reign (2 Kings 16:6). John Hyrcanus conquered Edom about 129 B.C., forced the Edomites to submit to circumcision, and incorporated them into the Jewish nation. Later through Antipater and Herod they established the Idumean dynasty over Judah that lasted until the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The writing prophets sometimes used the Edomites as the epitome of Israel's enemies.Rebekah feared the loss of both her sons as a result of her plot (Genesis 27:45). Esau might have killed Jacob, and Esau then might have fled, or the avenger of blood might have slain him (cf. Genesis 9:6).Verse 46Rebekah used her dislike for Esau's wives as an excuse to gain Isaac's permission for Jacob to go to Paddan-aram. Paddan-aram was the area around Haran. [Note: See the map "Abraham's Travels Outside the Promised Land" under my comments on 11:27-32 for its location.] Evidently Rebekah had kept Esau's hatred for Jacob from his aged father because she believed Isaac was near death (Genesis 27:41). Rebekah's deceit secured the blessing for Jacob, but it resulted in his having to flee from his home. As far as Genesis records, Rebekah never saw him again."... her broaching the subject of Jacob's marriage was a masterstroke: it played equally on Isaac's self-interest and his principles. The prospect of a third Hittite daughter-in-law and a distracted wife would have unmanned even an Abraham." [Note: Kidner, p. 157.] "Rebekah's manipulative language to spare Jacob again displays the poverty of Isaac and Rebekah's relationship. As demonstrated by the previous deception, Isaac and Rebekah do not seem able to communicate honestly with one another on important spiritual matters." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 382.] Isaac evidently realized that his desire to give the blessing to Esau was not God's will, so having given it to Jacob (Genesis 27:27-29) he blessed him further
(Genesis 28:1-4). [Note: Concerning Isaac's desire that Jacob marry someone from outside the Promised Land, see the note at 24:3-4.] This account is another remarkable demonstration of God's ability to use the sins of men and women to accomplish His purposes and at the same time punish the sinners for their sins."What man intends for evil God utilizes for good." [Note: Davis, p. 238. Cf. Romans 8:28.] Many years later the aged Jacob blessed Joseph's younger son Ephraim rather than his older brother Manasseh (Genesis 48:14-19). He must have remembered how he had deceived his father Isaac to get his blessing. Joseph's approach to Jacob on that occasion was honorable by contrast, and his life was free of the consequences of deceit. This was not true of Jacob's life.Jacob reaped what he sowed (Galatians 6:7). Laban later deceived him, and later still his own sons (in the case of the sale of Joseph) did so even more cruelly than he deceived Isaac. [Note: For some helpful insights into Jacob's character, see R. Paul Stevens, "Family Feud," His 42:3 (December 1981):18-20.] 28 Chapter 28 Verses 6-9Esau's further marriages 28:6-9Esau sought to obtain his parents' approval by marrying one of Abraham's descendants.However "he failed to consider that Ishmael had been separated from the house of Abraham and family of promise by the appointment of God; so that it only furnished another proof that he had no thought of the religious interests of the chosen family and was unfit to be the recipient of divine revelation." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:281.] This great story teaches that when God's people know His will they should not resort to deceptive, manipulative schemes to attain spiritual success but must pursue God's will righteously. Every member of Isaac's family behaved in a self-centered and unprincipled manner, yet God graciously overcame their sins. This reminds us that His mercy is the ultimate ground of salvation.Verses 10-17
The "ladder" (Genesis 28:12, Heb. sullam) evidently resembled a stairway or ramp. Some interpreters take it as an allusion to a ziggurat while others believe it refers to the slope or ascent of the mountain of Bethel. [Note: See C. Houtman, "What Did Jacob See In His Dream At Bethel?" Vetus Testamentum 27:3 (July 1977):337-51.] "The ladder was a visible symbol of the real and uninterrupted fellowship between God in heaven and His people upon earth. The angels upon it carry up the wants of men to God, and bring down the assistance and protection of God to men. The ladder stood there upon the earth, just where Jacob was lying in solitude, poor, helpless, and forsaken by men. Above in heaven stood Jehovah, and explained in words the symbol which he saw. Proclaiming Himself to Jacob as the God of his fathers, He not only confirmed to him all the promises of the fathers in their fullest extent, but promised him protection on his journey and a safe return to his home (Genesis 28:13-15). But as the fulfillment of this promise to Jacob was still far off, God added the firm assurance, 'I will not leave thee till I have done (carried out) what I have told thee.'" [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:281-82.] Other visions of God's heavenly throneroom appear in 1 Kings 22:19-22; Job 1:6-8; Job 2:1-3; Isaiah 6; Ezekiel 1; Zechariah 1:10; Zechariah 6:5; Revelation 4-5; et al. This was God's first revelation to Jacob, and it came in a dream (cf. John1:51). Other passages contain promises of the land (Genesis 12:7; Genesis13:14-16; Genesis 15:18; Genesis 17:8; Genesis 24:7), but this one (Genesis28:13-14) is closest in terminology to the one in chapter 13, which also features a Bethel setting.Jacob was the second person in the Bible to hear the assurance "I am with you" (Genesis 28:15). Isaac was the first (cf. Genesis 26:3; Genesis 26:24). This was a promise that God later repeated to Moses (Exodus 3:12); Joshua (Joshua 1:5), Gideon (Judges 6:16), regarding Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23), and to all Christians (Matthew 28:20; Hebrews 13:5).Perhaps God's revelation surprised Jacob because he was preparing to leave the Promised Land (Genesis 28:16-17). He may have felt that God would abandon him since he was leaving the land that God had promised his forefathers.The "house of God" (Genesis 28:17, Bethel) is the place where God dwells. The "gate of heaven" is the place where Jacob entered heaven (in his dream).
"The term 'fear' is used in the Bible to describe a mixture of terror and adoration, a worshipful fear (cf. Exodus 19:16)." [Note: Ross, Creation and . . ., p. 491.] "As Abraham's vision anticipated narratives from the latter part of the Pentateuch, so Jacob's vision anticipated the events which were to come in the next several chapters." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 193.] Verses 10-226. Jacob's vision at Bethel 28:10-22"From a 'stone pillow' to a 'stone pillar,' this account tells how Jacob's lodging place at Bethel became the most celebrated place of worship among the patriarchal narratives." [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 442.] Yahweh appeared at the top of an angel-filled stairway restating the promise to Abraham and adding more promises of blessing and protection for Jacob. The patriarch acknowledged God's presence, memorialized the place with a monument stone and a name, and vowed to worship the Lord there if He did bless and protect him."The two most significant events in the life of Jacob were nocturnal theophanies. The first was this dream at Bethel when he was fleeing from the land of Canaan, which ironically was his by virtue of the blessing. The other was his fight at Peniel when he was attempting to return to the land. Each divine encounter was a life-changing event." [Note: Allen P. Ross, "Jacob's Visions: The Founding of Bethel," Bibliotheca Sacra 142:567 (July-September 1985):226.] Bethel receives more mention in the Old Testament than any other city but Jerusalem. This indicates its importance in biblical history.Verses 18-22Jacob set the stone up as a memorial to this revelation and God's promise (Genesis 28:18). Pouring oil on it constituted an act of consecration. Jacob did not build an altar in response to God's revelation, as his forefathers had done.Jacob vowed to convert his pillar into an altar if God would fulfill His promise (Genesis 28:15). This is the only recorded time that a patriarch proposed a vow with God (cf. Genesis 31:13). He swore that Yahweh would be his God if God proved faithful to him. Jacob's vow (Genesis 28:20-21; cf. Genesis 31:13; Genesis 35:1-3; Genesis 35:7) can be translated "Since ... " rather than "If . . . " This was probably not as crass a bargain as it appears to have been, though the
record of Jacob's life shows that he typically was keen on negotiating deals. Jacob was apparently a believer in Yahweh already, but his commitment to God at this time appears to have been somewhat selfish and conditional. He had not yet fully surrendered and dedicated himself to God. [Note: On tithing, see the note on 14:20.] "The assurance of God's presence should bring about in every believer the same response of worship and confidence it prompted in Jacob. This is the message from the beginning: God by grace visits His people and promises them protection and provision so that they might be a blessing to others. They in turn were to respond in faith, fearing Him, worshiping Him, offering to Him, vowing to Him, and making memorials for future worshipers at such places." [Note: Ross, "Genesis," p. 75.] Jacob's relationship with Yahweh was quite different from what Abraham or Isaac's relationship had been. God tested Abraham, but Jacob tested God. God told Abraham to leave his country before he entered into blessing, but Jacob imposed conditions on God before he vowed to bless God. [Note: J. H. Walton, Genesis: The NIV Appication Commentary, pp. 573-74.] He was willing to accept God's promises, but he did not commit himself to God until God proved faithful to him personally. God blessed Jacob because of God's election and Abraham and Isaac's faith more than because of Jacob's faith at this time.Many believers bargain with God as Jacob did here. They agree to worship Him on their terms rather than because God has proven Himself faithful in the past. God often accommodates such weak faith, but the fact that He does does not commend the practice of bargaining with God.The revelation of God's presence and promised blessings inspires genuine worship. This worship is the appropriate response to such revelation.29 Chapter 29 Verses 1-12"More than any other book in the OT, Genesis emphasizes the east (see Genesis 3:24; Genesis 4:16; Genesis 10:30; Genesis 11:2;Genesis13:11; Genesis 25:6[and Genesis 29:1]) as a direction of some significance." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 252.] Jacob had travelled about 450 miles from Beersheba to Haran (Genesis 29:4). Notice the absence of prayer for divine guidance to the woman of God's
choosing, which dominates the story of Abraham's servant's visit to the same area for the same purpose (ch. 22). Also, Jacob arrived alone on foot whereas Abraham's servant came with a well-laden camel train."True to his character, Jacob proceeds arrogantly, questioning the shepherds' carefree behavior (Genesis 29:7). For all the criticism one might level at Jacob's conduct, he was no slacker in his labor ethic (Genesis 31:6; Genesis 31:38-41)." [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 462.] The well was probably a cistern that had a mouth with a large circumference (Genesis 29:8). A very large stone that required several men to remove it evidently covered it. After someone moved the stone, the flocks would gather around the edge of the well to drink. The well from which Rebekah drew water for Eliezer (Genesis 24:16) may have been a different kind.The male shepherds may have been unable to roll the stone away because the well belonged to Laban; their inability may have been moral rather than physical. [Note: Bush, 2:116-17.] Jacob wept for joy (Genesis 29:11), but he did not praise God. He had ended his journey, was now in the right place, and had met the right person, he thought. This is one of the few places in Scripture that we read of a man kissing a woman. Jacob apparently acted solely on the basis of Rachel's physical attractiveness."When Abraham's servant had discovered Rebekah's identity, he worshiped the Lord (Genesis 24:24; Genesis 24:26), but here Jacob flexed his muscle, proving his capacity to serve Laban's house." [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 463.] "This scene [Genesis 29:1-14] is chiefly about God's providence versus Jacob's prayerlessness ..." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 402.] The suggestion of some interpreters that Laban adopted Jacob as his son is questionable. [Note: See John Van Seters, "Jacob's Marriages and Ancient Near East Customs: A Reexamination," Harvard Theological Review 62:4 (October 1969):377-95.] Verses 1-307. Jacob's marriages and Laban's deception 29:1-30The long account of Jacob's relationship with Laban (chs. 29-31) is the centerpiece of the Jacob story (chs. 25-35). It is a story within a story, and it too has a chiastic structure. At its center is the account of the birth of Jacob's sons, the forefathers of the tribes of Israel (Genesis 29:31-35).
Jacob met Rachel at the well and watered the flocks in spite of opposition against doing so. His love for her led him to serve Laban for seven years to obtain her as his wife. Laban deceived Jacob into marrying Leah, the first-born, so Jacob had to work another seven years for Rachel."In Laban Jacob met his match and his means of discipline." [Note: Kidner, p. 159.] "Jacob is now in the greatest of all schools, that of experience, and there are many lessons to learn. These three chapters (xxix-xxxi.) cover forty years [sic, probably twenty years] of his life, and are the record of a large part of his training." [Note: Thomas, p. 269. Cf. Exodus 2:16-21.] Verses 13-20Weak eyes were dull and lacking in luster rather than bright (Genesis 29:17). Fiery eyes were, and still are, considered the height of beauty among Near Eastern people. [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:285; von Rad, p. 291.] "Regarding marriage generally, the Nuzi tablets provided that if a man worked over a period of time for the father of a girl whom he wished to marry, then he would have the right to take the girl as his wife." [Note: West, p. 70.] "Seven yearswas a handsome offer: Jacob was clearly not risking a refusal-a fact which Laban would not fail to note and exploit, as Jacob had exploited Esau's eagerness (Genesis 25:32)." [Note: Kidner, p. 160.] Casual laborers received between one-half and one shekel a month in old Babylonia, which was a large marriage gift in exchange for Rachel's hand. [Note: G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles, eds. and trans., The Babylonian Laws, 1:470-71.] The chiastic structure of Genesis 29:20-30focuses attention on the complication caused by deception."AJacob's payment for his wife (Genesis 29:20)BConsummation of the marriage to Leah by deception (Genesis 29:21-24)CJacob's accusation against Laban (Genesis 29:25)C'Laban's defense (Genesis 29:26)B'Consummation of the marriage to Rachel by negotiation (Genesis29:27-30a)A'Jacob's payment for his wife (Genesis 29:30b)." [Note: Ross, Creation and . . ., p. 498.]Verses 21-30
"This was about one of the meanest pranks ever played on a man." [Note: Leupold, 2:795.] Jacob had pretended to be his older brother, and now Leah pretended to be her younger sister. Laban and Leah deceived Jacob as Jacob and Rebekah had deceived Isaac. Perhaps Jacob's eating and drinking at the feast had clouded his mind (Genesis 29:22). The darkness of his tent at night may have made it hard for him to see, too. [Note: Josephus, 1:19:6-7.] Furthermore, in that culture a bride customarily entered her husband's presence veiled. [Note: S. R. Driver, Genesis, p. 271.] Von Rad wrote "heavily veiled," and Aalders "completely veiled." [Note: Von Rad, p. 291; Aalders, p. 115.] One year an Indian student of mine told me that his father did not see his mother's face for three days after their wedding. It is still customary among some Indians for the bride to remain veiled even after the consummation of the marriage. [Note: See also J. A. Diamond, "The Deception of Jacob: A New Perspective on an Ancient Solution to the Problem," Vetus Testamentum 34:2 (April 1984):211-13.] It was customary for the bride's father to give her a large present when she got married: a dowry. In the ancient world the gift normally consisted of clothing, furniture, and money, and it served as a nest egg for the wife in case her husband died or divorced her. Some dowries were exceptionally valuable, such as slave-girls (Genesis 24:61; Genesis 29:29) or a city (1 Kings 9:16). Laban was being generous. [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 236. Cf. West, p. 70.] As Jacob had deceived Isaac by taking advantage of his inability to see due to poor eyesight (Genesis 27:36), so Laban deceived Jacob by taking advantage of his inability to see in the dark tent (Genesis 29:25). Earlier Jacob had deceptively pretended to be the older brother (ch. 27), and now Laban tricked him by replacing the younger with the older sister. Laban was just as deceitful as Jacob (Genesis 29:26)."For despicability Laban takes the prize in the Old Testament." [Note: Leupold, 2:798.] He should have told Jacob of this custom beforehand if indeed it was a custom, which seems questionable.The "bridal week" was the week of feasting that followed a marriage (Genesis29:27; cf. Judges 14:12; Judges 14:17). Jacob received Rachel seven days after he had consummated his marriage to Leah (cf. Genesis 29:28; Genesis 29:30). The Hebrew name "Rachel" means "ewe," and "Leah" means "cow." Ironically, Laban treated them as cattle and used them for bargaining and trading. "Zilpah"
means "small nose," and "Bilhah" means "carefree." Jacob married two women in eight days. Notice that Jacob was behaving like his parents, who each favored one son above the other, by favoring one of his wives above the other. In both cases serious family problems followed. The Mosaic Law later prohibited marrying two sisters at the same time (Leviticus 18:18). Bigamy and polygamy were never God's will, however (Genesis 2:24). [Note: See Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 249.] "Jacob had planned to take Rachel as his wife, but God intended him to have Leah." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 195.] Evidence will follow that Leah was the more "spiritual" of the two sisters.God remains faithful to His promises to bless His people, but in the process He may discipline them for their previous unresolved sins and often does so in kind (i.e., with talionic judgment; cf. Proverbs 3:12; Galatians 6:7; Hebrews 12:5-6). [Note: For a fascinating narration of this story in expanded form, see Thomas Mann, "Jacob Takes a Bride," Bible Review (Spring 1986):53-59, which is an excerpt from Mann's Joseph and His Brothers.] "Jacob was getting what he deserved. In this light the seven extra years that Jacob had to serve Laban appear as a repayment for his treatment of Esau. By calling such situations to the attention of the reader, the writer begins to draw an important lesson from these narratives. Jacob's deceptive schemes for obtaining the blessing did not meet with divine approval. Through Jacob's plans God's will had been accomplished; but the writer is intent on pointing out, as well, that the schemes and tricks were not of God's design." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 199.] Verse 318. Jacob's mishandling of God's blessing 29:31-30:24God formed Jacob's family, the ancestors of the tribes of Israel, as He had promised Jacob at Bethel. Unfortunately Jacob and his wives lived in envy and friction over how God chose to bless them. The real issue of the two sisters' conflicts in this pericope is the same as that of the brothers Esau and Jacob's struggle. Who will take the lead and be first, and who will have to serve?"Jacob had planned to take Rachel as his wife, but God intended him to have Leah. Thus in two major reversals in Jacob's life, we can begin to see the writer's theme taking shape. Jacob sought to marry Rachel, but Laban tricked him. Then Jacob sought to build a family through Rachel, but she was barren; and God opened Leah's womb." [Note: Ibid., p. 200.]
This record of Jacob's children, the center of the Jacob story structurally, is important for at least three reasons.1. It shows God's faithfulness in providing descendants as He had promised."Now the account centers on the fulfillment of Yahweh's promise to be with Jacob and to bless him." [Note: Leupold, 2:800.] 2. It gives the origins and circumstances surrounding the births of the tribal heads of Israel."The themeof the Pentateuch is not difficult to discern. It is the story of the birth and adolescence of a nation." [Note: Whybray, p. 9.] 3. It explains much of the tribal rivalry that follows in Israel's history.The section culminates with the birth of Joseph (Genesis 30:24), which proved to be the cue for Jacob to return home (Genesis 30:25).Verses 31-35Moses recorded the births of Leah's first four sons: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah. When the clause "the LORD saw" occurs (Genesis 29:31), His acting decisively, often for the weak and oppressed, follows soon (cf. Genesis 6:5; Genesis 7:1; Genesis 18:21; Genesis 31:12; Exodus 2:25; Exodus 4:31).30 Chapter 30 Verses 1-8Rachel's reaction to her barrenness and Jacob's response contrast with how Rebekah and Isaac, and Sarah and Abraham behaved in similar circumstances. Sarah resorted to a custom acceptable in her culture, though contrary to God's will, to secure an heir for Abraham (cf. Genesis 16:1-2). Isaac prayed that God would open Rebekah's womb and waited (Genesis 25:21). Rachel and Jacob followed the example of Sarah and Abraham.The conflict between Rachel and Leah focuses on love and motherhood. Rachel had Jacob's love, but she could not become a mother. Conversely Leah was the mother of Jacob's children, but she could not win his love. [Note: See Samuel Dresner, "Rachel and Leah: Sibling Tragedy or the Triumph of Piety and Compassion?" Bible Review 6:2 (April 1990):25.] The account of the birth of Bilhah's sons, Dan and Naphtali, follows (Genesis30:5-8).Verses 9-13
Zilpah, Leah's maid, bore Jacob two sons: Gad and Asher."The terms wifeand concubineare used more loosely in the patriarchal period. Three women in the patriarchal period are called both wifeand concubine: Hagar (Genesis 16:3; Genesis 25:6indirectly), Keturah (Genesis 25:1; cf. Genesis 25:6; 1 Chronicles 1:32), and Bilhah (Genesis30:4; Genesis 35:22). Each of these concubines is an auxiliary wife to the patriarch, not a slave, but subordinate to the wife who is her mistress. After the patriarchal period, the term wifeis never used as a synonym for concubine. Zilpah, though never called a concubine (cf. Genesis 30:9), has the same social position as Bilhah (cf. Genesis 37:2)." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 411.] Verses 14-20The mandrake, a member of the potato and tomato family, is a plant that bears bluish flowers in winter and yellowish plum-size fruit in summer. The fruit has a strong, pleasant fragrance, and was thought to help barren women conceive. Some Arabs still use it as an aphrodisiac and call it "devil's apple" (cf. Song ofSolomon 7:13). [Note: von Rad, p. 295. See H. Moldenke and A. Moldenke, Plants of the Bible, pp. 137-39; M. Zoary, Plants of the Bible, pp. 188-89.] "The outcome was ironical, the mandrakes doing nothing for Rachel, while Leah gained another son by parting with them." [Note: Kidner, p. 162.] "Just as Jacob had purchased the birthright for a pot of stew (Genesis25:29-34), so also Leah purchased the right to more children by Jacob with the mandrakes of her son Reuben (Genesis 30:14-16)." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 201.] "'Sleep' (skb), as a euphemism for sex, is never used for loving marital intercourse in this book, only for illicit or forced sex: Lot's daughters with Lot (Genesis 19:32-35); the Philistines with Rebekah (Genesis 26:10); Shechem with Dinah (Genesis 34:2; Genesis 34:7); Reuben with Bilhah (Genesis 35:22); Potiphar's wife with Joseph (Genesis 39:7; Genesis39:10; Genesis 39:12; Genesis 39:14)." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 413.] Leah received her other children, Issachar, Zebulun, and Dinah, because "God gave heed to Leah" (Genesis 30:17), not because of some magic supposedly connected with the mandrakes.Jacob may have had daughters besides Dinah (cf. Genesis 37:35and Genesis46:7). She may be the only one mentioned by name because she is the only one whose experience Moses recorded later in Genesis (ch. 34).
Verses 22-24God eventually granted Rachel a son, Joseph. He was born at the end of Jacob's fourteenth year in Laban's service.The jealousy, bickering, superstition, and weak faith demonstrated by Jacob and his wives stand out in this section. God's gift of children was gracious; He gave them in spite of, rather than because of, the behavior of the parents. Rachel acknowledged this finally (Genesis 30:23-24) as did Jacob. The use of the names "Elohim" and "Yahweh" reflects the attitudes of the various characters to God and shows their relationships with Him."On the human plane the story demonstrates the craving of human beings for love and recognition, and the price of thwarting it; on the divine level it shows once again the grace of God choosing difficult and unpromising material." [Note: Kidner, p. 161.] "Jacob's partiality and his general handling of his family led to strife and mother groupings that were to affect the history of Israel for centuries thereafter." [Note: H. Vos, p. 113.] Believers should not envy and strive, which leads to bitter conflicts, but should obey God trusting Him to dispense His blessings wisely, justly, and compassionately.The actions of Jacob, Rachel, and Leah in this chapter, and those of Abraham and Sarah in chapter 16, raise questions about surrogate parenting. Today husbands and wives who cannot have children naturally sometimes choose to secure the services of a third person who can provide a needed function and thus enable them to have children. For example, if the wife cannot carry a baby in her womb for a full term pregnancy some doctors recommend that the couple use the services of another woman. If acceptable, they implant the couple's fertilized egg in her womb that she agrees to "rent" for the nine-month gestation period. Another example is the securing of sperm from a donor if the husband is sterile. There are many ways in which childless couples can now become parents with this kind of help from a third, and sometimes fourth party. These situations are somewhat similar to what we find in Genesis 16, 30. The common tie is that in all these cases someone other than the husband and wife is essential to the conception of the child. I do not believe that adoption is similar because in adoption a husband and wife simply agree to rear a child that has been or will be born. They do not require a third party for the conception of the child as in surrogate parenting.
Verses 25-439. Jacob's new contract with Laban 30:25-43Jacob and Laban ("White") made an agreement that each man felt he could manipulate to his own advantage. However, God sovereignly overruled to bless Jacob as He had promised in spite of Laban's deceit and Jacob's deviousness (cf. Job 5:13; Psalms 7:15; 1 Corinthians 3:19).As the previous pericope shows how Yahweh provided descendants for Jacob as He had promised (seed), this one demonstrates how He made Jacob wealthy (blessing). In both cases God acted in spite of and independent of the bickering, superstition, deceit, and disobedience of Jacob and his wives."By crossing the heterozygotes among themselves, Jacob would produce, according to the laws of heredity, twenty-five percent spotted sheep. Thus he multiplies his flock. Jacob has displayed ingenuity; he has not practiced deception."Jacob's knowledge of zoology is far from primitive. But perhaps such knowledge has been given him by God, just as his son's capacity to interpret dreams was a gift from God." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 284. Cf. Sarna, Understanding Genesis, p. 212; and Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 257.] Jacob was evidently relying on a popular superstition, namely, that certain experiences of the mother during pregnancy influenced the condition of her offspring, to mislead Laban (Genesis 30:37-39). At least one writer thought that Jacob was mistakenly counting on this custom to ensure fertility among his flocks."All marking of the offspring such as that which Jacob thought he was accomplishing in Laban's flocks, is completely impossible....In the placenta and umbilical cord, which constitutes the only connection between the mother and the fetus, there are no nerves....Thus, absolutely no mechanism exists whereby the mother can mark her offspring in the way that Jacob thought he was accomplishing the marking." [Note: Frank L. Marsh, Studies in Creationism, pp. 368-69.] Whether Jacob was very smart or very superstitious, the success of Jacob's plan was due to the grace of God ultimately (cf. Genesis 31:10-12)."As with many of the tricks which Jacob attempts in these narratives, God blessed Jacob in spite of them, not because of or through them." [Note:
Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 196. Cf. Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 502.] The herdsmen believed the stronger members of the flock mated in the summer and the weaker in the fall (Genesis 30:41-42). [Note: See Martha A. Morrison, "The Jacob and Laban Narrative in Light of Near Eastern Sources," Biblical Archaeologist 46:3 (Summer 1983):155-64, which contains many helpful explanations of herding practices, contracts involving herding, marriage customs, and the significance of household gods.] Jacob's ownership of camels (Genesis30:43) shows that he was very rich since these animals were rare and costly. [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 503.] Jacob's behavior was devious in that he sought to prosper at the expense of his employer. The text records that Jacob became very wealthy (Genesis 30:43), but it does not say that his wealth was a blessing from God. Jacob made his own fortune, but the text says that God made Abraham rich. God allowed Jacob to become wealthy through his own toil and deception. God probably would have done more for Jacob than he could have done for himself if Jacob had placed himself under God's authority. This is what God usually does.The lesson of this section is that people who experience God's material blessing need to acknowledge that it comes from Him rather than from their own abilities.31 Chapter 31 Verses 1-16The increasing antagonism of Laban's household encouraged Jacob to obey God's command to return to the Promised Land (Genesis 31:1-2)."The true character of Laban is clearly seen from the fact that his daughters entirely sided with Jacob against their own father ....They too had experienced their father's selfishness and greed, and were ready to approve of their husband's project and to go with him." [Note: Thomas, p. 285.] Verses 1-21Jacob's departure for Canaan 31:1-21God had been faithful in blessing Jacob, as He had promised Abraham and Isaac. Moses recorded the testimony to that fact in this section. Jacob acknowledged that God was responsible for his prosperity. God's goodness and
His command to return to the Promised Land (Genesis 31:3), as well as Laban's growing hostility (Genesis 31:5), motivated Jacob to leave Paddan-aram.It is unclear from what Jacob reported to his wives when the Angel of God appeared to him in the dream (Genesis 31:10-13). This may have occurred before or at the same time as the revelation referred to earlier in this passage. It seems likely, however, that this was the same revelation, God's second to Jacob.In this revelation Jacob learned that God had been responsible for his becoming richer (Genesis 31:12). Jacob credited God with this and with his own survival (Genesis 31:5; Genesis 31:7). This is the first time in the narrative that Jacob emerges as a man of public faith. He finally takes the leadership in his home, and his wives, for the first time, follow his lead."This is another case of the 'Ruth effect,' where the foreign wife commits herself and future to the God of her adopted family." [Note: Ibid., p. 510.] Verses 17-21"Rachel's theft of her father's idols [teraphim] ... reflects the Hurrian custom of keeping household gods....Nevertheless, the real significance of what she did, and perhaps the reason for the theft, lies in the fact that according to the Nuzi tablets he who possessed the household gods was the legitimate heir." [Note: West, p. 70.] Other writers, however, dispute this significance of the household gods at this time, as well as Rachel's motivation."The supposed role of the teraphim . . . as constituting the title-deeds to inheritances ... seems also to be fallacious; ....Rachel simply took them for her own protection and blessing." [Note: Kitchen, The Bible . . ., p. 70. Cf. Barker, p. 135.] These gods were usually small figurines (two to three inches long), sometimes carried on the body as charms, many of which archaeologists have discovered. They may have represented departed ancestors or gods that their makers venerated. [Note: See Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 273.] Rachel may also have hoped they would make her a fruitful mother. [Note: See M. Greenberg, "Another Look at Rachel's Theft of the Teraphim," Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962):247; Harry A. Hoffner Jr., "The Linguistic Origins of Teraphim," Bibliotheca Sacra (July-September 1967):230-38; Gerhard Mehlman, "Genesis 31:19-39: An Interpretation," Journal of Reform Judaism 29:3 (Summer 1982):33-36; and Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, pp. 518-19.]
"It is curious that Rachel, and not Leah should have almost always turned out to be Jacob's greatest hindrance in life." [Note: Thomas, p. 285.] The writer identified Jacob's deception as such when he fled from Paddan-aram (Genesis 31:20).Verses 22-42God revealed Himself to people other than the patriarchs in these days (Genesis31:29; cf. Abimelech in Genesis 20:3). Many scholars believe that Job also lived in the patriarchal period."Jacob and Rachel are again two of a kind. This time both almost bring ruin on the family by their risk taking: she by her rash theft, he by his rash vow ([Genesis 31:32] cf. his sons' rash vow in Genesis 44:6-12)." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 430.] The teraphim were already "nothing gods," but they became unclean and suffered humiliation when Rachel, who claimed to be unclean, sat on them while menstruating (Genesis 31:34-35; cf. Leviticus 15:20).Under traditional ancient Near Eastern law, a shepherd was not held responsible for losses to his master's flocks due to attacking wild beasts and, in some cases, thieves. [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 277.] Yet Jacob had borne these losses (Genesis 31:39). Laban had cheated Jacob."God has corked the bottle of his [Laban's] aggressiveness." [Note: Fokkelman, p. 166.] "Each of the three patriarchs had to be ingloriously extricated from some adventure." [Note: Kidner, p. 165.] Note the similarity between Jacob's escape from Laban and his descendants' escape from Egypt in the Exodus.Jacob believed that he was innocent until proved guilty, but Laban felt he was guilty until proved innocent. "The fear of Isaac" (Genesis 31:42; Genesis 31:53) is the God whom Isaac feared. Jacob's words in Genesis 31:42summarize his whole life in Harran.Verses 22-55Laban's confrontation with Jacob 31:22-55God had promised to be with Jacob and to return him to Canaan (Genesis28:15). We see God doing this, in spite of Laban's opposition, in this section."It was only by divine prospering and protection (24) that Jacob brought anything, even his life, back from exile." [Note: Kidner, p. 165.]
"Whatever wealth Abraham may have forfeited upon leaving the family unit of Terah in Haran comes to his heirs in this most unimaginable way." [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 517.] Verses 43-55Jacob and Laban made a parity covenant, set up a stone pillar (Heb. misbah, standing stone) to mark the spot, and ate a meal together as part of the rite involved in establishing a covenant (Genesis 31:44-48). They may have erected the heap of stones (Heb. gal, cairn, Genesis 31:46) both as a table for the meal and as a memorial of the event. Standing stones sometimes marked supposed dwelling places of the gods (cf. Genesis 28:17-18), and cairns often marked graves (cf. Joshua 7:26; Joshua 8:29; 2 Samuel 18:17).Galeed ("witness heap," Genesis 31:47) is the name from which Gilead came. Gilead became a common name for this mountainous area east of the Jordan River between the Sea of Galilee (Cinnereth, Hebrew for "lyre" denoting the shape of the lake) and the Dead (Salt) Sea (cf. Genesis 31:21; Genesis 31:23; Genesis 31:25).The so-called "Mizpah [lit. watchtower] blessing" was not really a promise between friends but a warning between antagonists who did not trust each other (Genesis 31:49). They called on God to keep each other true to the terms of the covenant they had just made. They could not check on each other themselves."This covenant also might be called a nonaggression pact." [Note: H. Vos, p. 122.] "It is impossible to avoid noticing the curious misconception of the term 'mizpah' which characterizes its use today. As used for a motto on rings, Christmas cards, and even as the title of an organization, it is interpreted to mean union, trust, fellowship; while its original meaning was that of separation, distrust, and warning. Two men, neither of whom trusted the other, said in effect: 'I cannot trust you out of my sight. The Lord must be the watchman between us if we and our goods are to be kept safe from each other.'" [Note: Thomas, p. 287.] Laban had two deities in mind when he said "The God of Abraham and the god of Nahor" (Genesis 31:53), as the Hebrew plural verb translated "judge" indicates. Jacob swore by the "Awesome One of Isaac," which indicates that he was worshipping the God of his fathers. Laban also swore by the pagan god his fathers worshipped.
Those who are obediently following God's call and are experiencing His blessing can be confident that He will protect them.32 Chapter 32 Verse 1-2These angels (messengers) must have resembled the angels Jacob had seen at Bethel (Genesis 28:12) for him to have recognized them as angels. They joined his own company of travelers for Jacob's protection (cf. Psalms 34:7). This is the reason for the name "Mahanaim" (i.e., double host or double camp). Jacob probably saw the camp of angels as a source of comfort to his own camp as he prepared to enter the Promised Land."Although outside the land of promise, he was not outside the hand of promise." [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 547.] Verses 1-2111. Jacob's attempt to appease Esau 32:1-21Chapters 32 and 33 can be viewed as one episode in the life of Jacob. They describe his return to the Promised Land including his meeting with Esau. There are thematic parallels between these chapters and chapter 31.In spite of the vision of God's assisting messengers, Jacob divided his people into two groups as a precaution when he heard Esau was coming to meet him with 400 men. Furthermore he sought to pacify Esau's anger with an expensive gift in addition to praying for God's deliverance.Jacob had been able to handle his problems himself by hook or by crook until now. At this point in his experience God brought him to the end of his natural resources."As Jacob is at the precipice of receiving the promise of Canaan, he is not yet morally ready to carry out the blessing. Jacob must possess his own faith, obtaining the blessing through personal encounter, not by heredity alone." [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 537.] "The events of this chapter are couched between two accounts of Jacob's encounter with angels (Genesis 32:1; Genesis 32:25). The effect of these two brief pictures of Jacob's meeting with angels on his return to the land is to align the present narrative with the similar picture of the Promised Land in the early chapters of Genesis. The land was guarded on its borders by angels. The same picture was suggested early in the Book of Genesis when Adam
and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden and 'cherubim' were positioned on the east of the garden to guard the way to the tree of life. It can hardly be accidental that as Jacob returned from the east, he was met by angels at the border of the Promised Land. This brief notice may also be intended to alert the reader to the meaning of Jacob's later wrestling with the 'man' ... at Peniel (Genesis 32:25-30). The fact that Jacob had met with angels here suggests that the man at the end of the chapter is also an angel." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 208.] Verses 3-12Why did Jacob initiate contact with Esau (Genesis 32:3)?"He knows that there can be no peace and quiet until his relations with Esau are assured and put on a proper footing. Not until that matter was settled could Jacob feel certain of his future." [Note: Thomas, p. 293. Cf. Matthew 5:23-25a.] Esau may have had a large army because he had had to subjugate the Horite (Hurrian) population of Seir (Genesis 32:6). His soldiers probably consisted of his own servants plus the Canaanite and Ishmaelite relations of his wives.Jacob's reaction to Esau's apparently hostile advance against him was to try to protect himself (Genesis 32:7-8). This was Jacob's standard response to trouble. Yet this time he knew it would not be enough. So, he called on God for help (Genesis 32:9-12). We need to be right with God before we can be right with our brothers.Jacob's prayer (his first recorded prayer) reflects his deeply felt need for God's help and his own humility (Genesis 32:9-12). One writer likened its form to the penitential psalms. [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 443.] He reminded God of His past dealings with his forefathers and with himself (Genesis 32:9). He confessed his personal unworthiness and lack of any claim upon God's favor (Genesis 32:10). By calling himself "your servant" he became ready to serve others. He requested divine deliverance and acknowledged his own fear (Genesis 32:11). Finally he claimed God's promise of a continuing line of descendants (Genesis 32:12). This is an excellent model prayer.Verses 13-21Though he hoped for God's help, Jacob did not fail to do all he could to appease his brother (Genesis 32:13-15). He offered his magnanimous gifts diplomatically to pacify his offended brother.
"As the narrative unfolds, however, it was not Jacob's plan that succeeded but his prayer. When he met with Esau, he found that Esau had had a change of heart. Running to meet Jacob, Esau embraced and kissed him and wept (Genesis 33:4). All of Jacob's plans and schemes had come to naught. In spite of them all, God had prepared Jacob's way." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 209.] Jacob's ability to give Esau 580 animals proves that God had made him enormously wealthy."Jacob's behavioral response was classically narcissistic." [Note: Shepperson, p. 183.] In view of God's promises believers can pray with confidence for His deliverance and do not need to give away His provisions to appease their enemies.Verses 22-3212. Jacob at the Jabbok 32:22-32"Hebrew narrative style often includes a summary statement of the whole passage followed by a more detailed report of the event. Here Genesis 32:22is the summary statement, while Genesis 32:23begins the detailed account." [Note: The NET Bible note on 32:22.] This site was probably just a few miles east of the Jordan Valley (Genesis 32:22). The Jabbok joins the Jordan River about midway between the Sea of Chinnereth (Galilee) and the Salt (Dead) Sea. [Note: On the location and significance of the Jabbok River, see Bryant G. Wood, "Journey Down the Jabbok," Bible and Spade (Spring 1978):57-64.] It was when Jacob was alone, having done everything he could to secure his own safety, that God came to him (Genesis 32:24). An unidentified man assaulted Jacob, and he had to fight for his life. The "man" was the Angel of the Lord (Genesis 32:28-30; cf. Hosea 12:4). Note that God took the initiative in wrestling with Jacob, not vice versa. God was bringing Jacob to the end of himself. He was leading him to a settled conviction that God was superior to him and that he must submit to God's leadership in his life (cf. Romans 12:1-2)."The great encounter with God came when Jacob knew himself to be exposed to a situation wholly beyond him." [Note: Kidner, p. 168.] This was not a vision or a dream, but a real event. The injury to Jacob's hip joint proves this. It was God's third revelation to Jacob.
Jacob's refusal to release the man indicates the sincerity of his felt need for God's help (Genesis 32:26; cf. John 15:5). Again Jacob demonstrated his strong desire for blessing."Jacob completed, by his wrestling with God, what he had already been engaged in even from his mother's womb, viz. his striving for the birthright; in other words, for the possession of the covenant promise and the covenant blessing . . . . To save him from the hand of his brother, it was necessary that God should first meet him as an enemy, and show him that his real opponent was God Himself, and that he must first of all overcome Him before he could hope to overcome his brother. And Jacob overcame God; not with the power of the flesh however, with which he had hitherto wrestled for God against man (God convinced him of that by touching his hip, so that it was put out of joint), but by the power of faith and prayer, reaching by firm hold of God even to the point of being blessed, by which he proved himself to be a true wrestler of God, who fought with God and with men, i.e., who by his wrestling with God overcame men as well." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:305-6.] With his wrestling with God Jacob began a new stage in his life (Genesis 32:28); he was a new man because he now began to relate to God in a way new for him. As a sign of this, God gave him a new name that indicated his new relationship to God. "Israel" means "God's warrior.""The acknowledgment of the old name, and its unfortunate suitability [Jacob, Genesis 32:27], paves the way for the new name [Israel, Genesis 32:28]." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 333.] ". . . the name Israel denoted a spiritual state determined by faith; and in Jacob's life the natural state, determined by flesh and blood, still continued to stand side by side with this. Jacob's new name was transmitted to his descendants, however, who were called Israel as the covenant nation. For as the blessing of their forefather's conflict came down to them as a spiritual inheritance, so did they also enter upon the duty of preserving this inheritance by continuing in a similar conflict." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:307.] "Elohim" (very strong one) occurs here to bring out the contrast between God and His creature. Jacob prevailed, in the sense of obtaining his request, by acknowledging his dependence and cleaving to God as his deliverer."The transformation pertains to the way in which Jacob prevails. Heretofore he prevailed over people by trickery. Now he prevails with God, and so with
humans, by his words, not by the physical gifts conferred on him at birth or acquired through human effort." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 446.] "One wonders if 'Why is it that you inquire about my name?' [Genesis 32:29] is another way of asking, 'Jacob, don't you realize who I am?'" [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 336.] Another view is that God withheld His name to heighten Jacob's awe at this great event and to impress the significance of the event on Jacob all the more.Jacob believed that he had seen God face to face (Genesis 32:30). The ancients believed that anyone who saw God face to face would die (cf. Genesis 16:13; Exodus 33:20; Judges 13:21-22). He was probably also grateful that the Angel had not dealt with him more severely, as he deserved. "Peniel" sounds more like "face of God" in Hebrew than the more common Penuel, which means the same thing. Perhaps Peniel was an older form of the place name and Penuel a newer form. Penuel seems to have been more common (cf. Judges 8:8). Or perhaps these names describe two places located closely together, though this seems less likely.The result of this spiritual crisis in Jacob's life was obvious to all who observed him from then on (Genesis 32:31). It literally resulted in a change in his walk. [Note: See Harry Foster, "Walking with a Limp," Toward the Mark (September-October 1982):97-100.] "When God touched the strongest sinew of Jacob, the wrestler, it shriveled, and with it Jacob's persistent self-confidence." [Note: Allen P. Ross, "Jacob at the Jabbok, Israel at Peniel," Bibliotheca Sacra 142:568 (October-December 1985):350.] Every Christian does not need to have this type of drastic experience. Abraham and Isaac did not. God has told us that we can do nothing without Him (John15:5) and that we should believe Him. It is only when we do not believe Him that He must teach us this lesson. Sometimes He has to bring us very low to do it. Every Christian should yield himself or herself to the lordship of God (Romans6:13; Romans 6:19; Romans 12:1-2)."If only the swimmer yields to the water, the water keeps him up; but if he continues to struggle, the result is disastrous. Let us learn to trust, just as we learn to float." [Note: Thomas, p. 298.] To become strong in faith the believer must forsake self-sufficiency."The narrative is presented in a deliberately enigmatic manner to channel the reader's imagination in certain directions." [Note: Stephen Geller, "The
Struggle at the Jabbok: The Uses of Enigma in a Biblical Narrative," Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 14 (1982):39. See also Edward M. Curtis, "Structure, Style and Context as a Key to Interpreting Jacob's Encounter at Peniel," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30:2 (June 1987):129-37.] 33 Chapter 33 Verses 1-17Jacob arranged his family to preserve those who were most precious to him if his brother proved to be violently hostile (Genesis 33:1-3)."This kind of ranking according to favoritism no doubt fed the jealousy over Joseph that later becomes an important element in the narrative. It must have been painful to the family to see that they were expendable." [Note: The NET Bible note on 33:2.] His going ahead of them to meet Esau shows the new Israel overcoming the fear that had formerly dominated the old Jacob. His plan does not seem to me to reflect lack of trust in God as much as carefulness and personal responsibility. However, Jacob was obviously fearful and weak as he anticipated meeting his brother. Faith does not mean trusting God to work for us in spite of our irresponsibility; that is presumption. Faith means trusting God to work for us when we have acted responsibly realizing that without His help we will fail. His insistence on giving presents to Esau may have been an attempt to return to him the blessing that should have been his, to undo his sins of earlier years (cf. Genesis 33:11). [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, pp. 298-99.] Jacob gave God the glory for giving him his family; he confessed that his family was a gift from God (Genesis 33:4-5). This attitude is evidence of a basic change in Jacob's approach to life. [Note: For some interesting insights into eastern behavior as reflected in Genesis 33:4, see Imad Shehadeh, "Contrasts between Eastern and Western Cultures," Exegesis and Exposition 2:1 (Summer 1987):3-12.] Whereas he had previously been dishonest and devious, now he was honest and forthright about his intentions (Genesis 33:10)."Now that they are reunited, Esau desires a fraternal relationship, but Jacob is unable to move beyond a formal relationship."Only the restraining intervention of God kept Laban from retaliation against Jacob (Genesis 31:24; Genesis 31:29). Esau is apparently in no
need of a similar divine check. His own good nature acts as a check on him. Since his rage and hate of ch. 27, Esau himself has undergone his own transformation. No longer is he controlled by vile passions." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 345.] "I see your face as one sees the face of God," means "I see in your face, as expressive of your whole attitude toward me, the friendliness of God. I see this friendliness demonstrated in His making you friendly toward me" (Genesis 33:10; cf. 1 Samuel 29:9; 2 Samuel 14:17). Jacob had seen God's gracious face and had been spared at Peniel, and he now saw Esau's gracious face and was spared.Jacob's "language shows that he saw the two encounters with his Lord and his brother, as two levels of a single event: cf. 10b with Genesis32:30." [Note: Kidner, p. 171. Cf. von Rad, pp. 327-28.] Jacob's reasons for declining Esau's offer of an escort evidently did not spring from fear (Genesis 33:14-15). He gave a legitimate explanation of why it would be better for him to travel separately: the condition of his animals. Jacob may have been counting on God's protection and therefore felt no need of Esau's men. Alternatively Jacob may have mistrusted Esau having been deceived himself and having been deceptive. [Note: von Rad, p. 328.] Still another view is that Jacob was returning to the Promised Land on God's orders, and that did not include going to Seir. [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 299.] His reference to visiting Esau in Seir (Genesis 33:14) does not mean that Jacob planned to go directly to Seir, where he did not go immediately. He could have been deceiving his brother again. Perhaps Jacob meant that he would visit his brother in his own land in the future. Scripture does not record whether Jacob ever made such a trip.Jacob and his family settled first at Succoth ("Booths") east of the Jordan River (Genesis 33:17). Evidently he lived there for some time since he built a house and huts for his livestock.This incident illustrates the truth of Proverbs 16:7, "When a man's ways are pleasing to the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.""At almost every point in this story, Esau emerges as the more appealing, more humane, and more virtuous of the two brothers." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 347.] "This is only the second-and it is the last-conversation between Esau and Jacob mentioned in Genesis. On the first occasion (Genesis 25:29-34)
Esau failed to perceive Jacob's capacity for exploitation. On the second occasion he fails to perceive Jacob's hesitancy and lack of excitement about going to Seir. In both cases, Jacob succeeds in deceiving Esau." [Note: Ibid., p. 348.] Verses 18-20Jacob then crossed the Jordan River and moved his family into the land of Canaan. He chose Shechem ("peaceful") as his home. By purchasing land there he showed that he regarded Canaan as his permanent home and the home of his seed. The Israelites eventually buried Joseph at Shechem (Joshua 24:32). Shechem was only about a mile from the Sychar of Jesus' day (cf. John 4:5; John 4:12).God had granted Jacob's request by bringing him safely back into the Promised Land (cf. Genesis 28:20-21). As he had vowed, Jacob worshipped the God of his father as his God. He called Yahweh "El-Elohe-Israel" meaning, "The mighty God is the God of Israel." Jacob used his own new name, Israel (Genesis 32:29). He built an altar, Jacob's first, to worship God as Abraham had done at Shechem when he had first entered Canaan (Genesis 12:6-7). The altar would have served the double purpose of providing a table for Jacob's sacrifice and serving as a memorial for Jacob's descendants in the years to come.What were Jacob's motivation and relationship to God when he met Esau? This question rises often in the study of this chapter. The answer is not obvious. Some commentators have felt that Jacob completely backslid and returned to his former lifestyle of self-reliance and deceit. [Note: E.g., Thomas, pp. 309-16.] Most interpreters attribute good motives to Jacob. [Note: E.g., Keil and Delitzsch, 1:307-11; Aalders, pp. 148-53.] I believe the truth probably lies somewhere between these extremes. It seems to me that Jacob's experience at Peniel had a life-changing impact on him. Jacob seems to be referring to it in Genesis 33:10. Nevertheless his former lifestyle had become so ingrained-Jacob was over 90 years old at this time-that he easily slipped back into his former habits. I believe we have a clue to this in the use of his name "Jacob" in the text rather than "Israel." In short, Jacob seems to have had a genuine experience of coming to grips with himself and yielding his life to God at Peniel. Nevertheless from then on, his motives and attitudes vacillated. At times he trusted God as he should have, but at others, many others, he failed to trust God.The divine Author's main concern in this section was not Jacob's motivation, however; He could have clarified that for us. Rather it seems to have been the
faithfulness of God in sparing Jacob's life and returning him to the Promised Land as He had promised (Genesis 28:13-15). The Jacob narrative also contains evidence that God was faithful to bless others through Abraham's descendants (Genesis 12:3), including Laban (cf. Genesis 30:27) and Esau (cf. Genesis33:11).A major lesson of this chapter is that those who have received God's grace may trust in God's promise of protection when they seek reconciliation with others.34 Chapter 34 Verses 1-17Here is another instance of a man seeing a woman and taking her for himself (cf. Genesis 6:2).Moses used the name "Israel" here for the first time as a reference to God's chosen people (Genesis 34:7). The family of Jacob had a special relationship to God by divine calling reflected in the name "Israel" (prince with God). Therefore Shechem's act was an especially "disgraceful thing" having been committed against a member of the family with the unique vocation (cf. Deuteronomy 22:21; Joshua 7:15; Judges 20:10; 2 Samuel 13:12; et al.)."What had happened to Dinah was considered by Jacob's family to be of the same nature as what later was known as 'a disgraceful thing in Israel' [i.e., rape]." [Note: Aalders, p. 156.] As was customary in their culture, Jacob's sons took an active part in approving their sister's marriage (Genesis 34:13; cf. Genesis 24:50). They were correct in opposing the end in view: the mixing of the chosen seed with the seed of the Canaanites. Yet they were wrong in adopting the means they selected to achieve their end. In their deception they show themselves to be "chips off the old block," Jacob. The Hivites negotiated in good faith, but the Jacobites renegotiated treacherously (vv.13-17; cf. Proverbs 3:29; Amos 1:9)."Marriage was always preceded by betrothal, in which the bridegroom's family paid a mhd'marriage present' to the bride's family (1 Samuel18:25). In cases of premarital intercourse, this still had to be paid to legitimize the union, and the girl's father was allowed to fix the size of the marriage present (Exodus 22:15-16[16-17]; limited by Deuteronomy 22:29to a maximum of fifty shekels)....Here it seems likely that Shechem is
offering both a 'marriage present' to Jacob and 'a gift' to Dinah." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, pp. 312-13.] Verses 18-31We can explain the agreement of the men of the city, including Hamor (meaning "donkey," a valued and respected animal) and Shechem (Genesis 34:18), to undergo circumcision. Other nations besides Jacob's family practiced this rite at this time as an act of consecration. [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:313-14.] Jacob was not suggesting that these men convert from one religion to another. [Note: J. Milgrom, "Religious Conversion and the Revolt Model for the Formation of Israel," Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982):173.] Normally circumcision was practiced on adults rather than on infants before God told Abraham to circumcise the infants born in his family (Genesis 17:12-14).It was "sometimes an initiation into marriageable status." [Note: Kidner, p. 174.] Dinah, Simeon, and Levi were the children of Jacob and Leah, the unloved wife (Genesis 34:25). Simeon and Levi doubtless felt closer to Dinah than some of her other half-brothers did for this reason. But Reuben, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun were also Leah's children and Dinah's full brothers. The fact that only Simeon and Levi reacted as they did against the men of Shechem suggests that they responded with excessive recklessness. [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 590.] Perhaps Jacob's indifference to Dinah's plight, evidenced by his lack of action, encouraged the violent overreaction of her brothers. [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, pp. 308-10.] While Simeon and Levi took the lead in this atrocity, all of Jacob's sons evidently participated with them in the looting of the city (Genesis 34:27; cf. Genesis 34:28-29). This was only the first of several notorious incidents that took place at Shechem (cf. Judges 9:30-49; Jeremiah41:4-8; Hosea 6:9).Jacob's distress arose because of two facts (Genesis 34:30). His sons had committed murder and robbery, and his family had now broken a covenant, a very serious act in their society."His [Jacob's] censure is more a peevish complaint." [Note: von Rad, p. 334.] "It is ironic to hear Jacob venting his disgust over Simeon's and Levi's failure to honor their word, especially in terms of its potential consequence for Jacob, for he had done exactly that on more than one occasion." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 371.]
Deception proceeded to murder and pillage. As a result of this sin Jacob passed over Simeon and Levi when he gave his primary blessing (Genesis 49:5-7). It went to Judah instead."The crafty character of Jacob degenerated into malicious cunning in Simeon and Levi; and jealousy for the exalted vocation of their family, into actual sin." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:315.] "Of course, fear is natural in such a situation, but the reasons Jacob gives for damning his sons betray him. He does not condemn them for the massacre, for abusing the rite of circumcision, or even for breach of contract. Rather, he protests that the consequences of their action have made him unpopular. Nor does he seem worried by his daughter's rape or the prospect of intermarriage with the Canaanites. He is only concerned for his own skin." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 316. Cf. 19:8.] It is interesting that Simeon and Levi referred to Dinah as "our sister" (Genesis34:31) rather than as Jacob's daughter, which would have been appropriate in addressing Jacob. This implies that since Jacob had not showed enough concern for Dinah her blood brothers felt compelled to act in her defense. This is an early indication that Jacob's family was already crumbling dysfunctionally, which becomes obvious when Joseph's brothers turn on him, sell him as a slave, and lie to their father (Genesis 37:12-36).The significance of this chapter is fourfold at least.1. It explains why Jacob passed over Simeon and Levi for special blessing.2. It shows the importance of keeping the chosen seed separate from the Canaanites. [Note: See Calum M. Carmichael, "Forbidden Mixtures," Vetus Testamentum 32:4 (1982):394-415.] "The law [of Moses] said that Israel was not to intermarry with the Canaanites or make treaties with them but was to destroy them because they posed such a threat. This passage provides part of the rationale for such laws, for it describes how immoral Canaanites defiled Israel by sexual contact and attempted to marry for the purpose of swallowing up Israel." [Note: Ross, Creation and . . ., p. 569.] Noah's curse on Canaan and his seed had warned the rest of humanity that bad things would happen to people who mixed with the Canaanites (cf. Genesis 9:25-27)."People who live on the borderland between church and world are like those who lived in the old days on the borders between England and Scotland-they are never safe." [Note: Thomas, p. 325.]
3. It gives a reason for the sanctification of Jacob's household that follows (Genesis 35:2-4).4. It demonstrates the sovereign control of God."While the story in this chapter operates at a level of family honor and the brothers' concern for their ravaged sister, the story nevertheless also carries along the theme that runs so clearly through the Jacob narratives, namely, that God works through and often in spite of the limited self-serving plans of human beings. The writer's purpose is not to approve these human plans and schemes but to show how God, in his sovereign grace, could still achieve his purpose through them." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 200; and idem, "Genesis," p. 214.] "What message does such a sordid episode have in the Jacob-Joseph narratives? At this point forward, Genesis turns its attention to Jacob's sons, the progenitors of Israel's twelve tribes. After the tension of the Jacob-Esau struggle was alleviated in chap. 33's account of the twin's pacification, the author sets out to demonstrate the seedy character of Jacob's descendants, raising the specter that the promises are again in peril." [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, pp. 576-77.] Abraham had dealt honorably with the Hittites (ch. 23), and Isaac had behaved peacefully with the Philistines (2612-33). But now Jacob's sons became the agressors in conflict with the Hivites. Simeon and Levi's unrepentant treachery stands in stark contrast to Esau and Jacob's recent moral transformations. In contrast to the Isaac incident in chapter 27, this chapter contains no prayer, no divine revelation, no promised blessing, and no explicit mention of God. [Note: Ibid., p. 578.] Younger zealots such as Simeon and Levi may bring reproach on God's covenant through their misguided zeal. This may happen when spiritual leaders such as Jacob are indifferent to pagan defilement and fail to act decisively against it. [Note: For an interesting summary of post-biblical rabbinic traditions concerning the characters and events of this chapter, see Jeffrey K. Salkin, "Dinah, The Torah's Forgotten Woman," Judaism 35:3 (Summer 1986):284-89.] ". . . this story shows Jacob's old nature reasserting itself, a man whose moral principles are weak, who is fearful of standing up for right when it may cost him dearly, who doubts God's power to protect, and who allows hatred to divide him from his children just as it had divided him from his brother." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 318.]
Many believers bring the wrath of unbelievers on themselves and on other believers by their ungodly behavior, as Jacob, Simeon, and Levi did.35 Chapter 35 Verses 1-8Jacob's renewed consecration to Yahweh 35:1-8About 10 years had passed since Jacob had returned from Paddan-aram, and he had not yet returned to Bethel to fulfill his vow there (Genesis 28:20-22). He should have headed there immediately rather than settling near Shechem. His negligence evidently was due in part to the continuing presence of the idols that Rachel and probably others had brought from Haran. Perhaps their allegiance to these gods restrained Jacob's total commitment to Yahweh (cf. 1 Kings 11:3-4).God appeared to Jacob (the fourth time) and commanded him to fulfill his vow (Genesis 35:1). This revelation encouraged Jacob to stop procrastinating. This is the first and only time God commanded a patriarch to build an altar. The command constituted a test of Jacob's obedience similar to Abraham's test when God instructed him to offer up "a burnt offering" on Mt. Moriah (Genesis 22:2). In preparation for his trip to Bethel Jacob purged his household of idolatry by literally burying Rachel's idols along with other objects associated with the worship of these gods. He also purified himself from the defilement of the blood his family had shed in Shechem (ch. 34)."It is significant that Jacob called God the one 'who answered me in the day of my distress and who has been with me wherever I have gone' (Genesis35:3). That epithet serves as a fitting summary of the picture of God that has emerged from the Jacob narratives. Jacob was in constant distress; yet in each instance God remained faithful to his promise and delivered him." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 217.] The oak referred to here (Genesis 35:4) seems to have been the oak of Moreh (lit. "teacher") where God had appeared to Abraham shortly after he had entered the land (Genesis 12:6)."At the same spot, possibly prompted by Jacob's example, Joshua was one day to issue a very similar call to Israel (Joshua 24:23ff.)." [Note: Kidner, p. 175.] God blessed Jacob for his commitment, expressed in his burying the idols and earrings (perhaps taken from the Shechemites), by placing the fear of Jacob's
family in the hearts of the Canaanites whom they passed on their way to Bethel (Genesis 35:5-8; cf. Proverbs 16:7). Perhaps God used the memory of Simeon and Levi's fierce treatment of the Shechemites to accomplish this."Throughout his life Jacob has had to contend with his own fears-fear of God (Genesis 28:17), fear of Laban (Genesis 31:31), fear of Esau (Genesis 32:8; Genesis 32:12[Eng. 7, 11]). Nobody had been in fear of him. Angry, yes; fearful, no." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 377.] Jacob faithfully fulfilled his vow to God at Luz, which he renamed Bethel (house of God, Genesis 35:15). He named the place of his altar El-Bethel (God of Bethel, Genesis 35:7) in memory of God's first revelation to him there. This is the first revival recorded in the Bible.Deborah, Rebekah's nurse (cf. Genesis 24:59), must have been an important member of Jacob's household to merit this notation by the writer. She may have left Beersheba with Jacob or may have joined him later after the death of Rebekah. The reference to Deborah is probably a way of reminding the reader of Rebekah and alluding to her death in a veiled manner. [Note: Gary A. Rendsburg, "Notes on Genesis XXXV," Vetus Testamentum 34:3 (July 1984):361-65.] This may have been appropriate in view of Rebekah's deception of Isaac (ch. 27). [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 473.] Verses 9-15Yahweh's reconfirmation of the covenant 35:9-15God then appeared again to Jacob at Bethel (the fifth revelation) after he had fulfilled his vow to God and built an altar there (Genesis 35:9-12). This revelation came 30 years after the first one at Bethel. In this case God appeared in visible (bodily?) form (Genesis 35:13). In the former instance Jacob had seen a vision. God confirmed Jacob's name change (cf. Genesis 32:28). This new name, Israel, was a pledge that God would do what He now promised Jacob: to give him numerous descendants and the land of Canaan. [Note: See Chee-Chiew Lee, "[Goim] in Genesis 35:11and the Abrahamic Promise of Blessings for the Nations," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 52:3 (September 2009):467-82.] Here God summed up all the long-range promises that He had made to Jacob at various times in his life."The purpose of the second renaming ... is to erase the original negative connotation and to give the name Israel a more neutral or even positive connotation-the connotation it is to have for the remainder of the Torah. It does so by removing the notion of struggle associated with the wordplay in
23:28 ... and letting it stand in a positive light ..." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 203. Cf. idem, "Genesis," pp. 217-18.] God's use of his name "God Almighty" (El Shaddai) is significant in view of what God promised Jacob. It would take an omnipotent God to fulfill these promises (cf. Genesis 17:1-2). God expanded the former promises and added to the significance of the name "Israel" (Genesis 35:10-11; cf. Genesis 28:4; cf. Genesis 28:13-15; Genesis 31:3; Genesis 31:13; Genesis 32:12; Genesis 32:28).Jacob solemnized this occasion by setting up a second pillar (cf. Genesis 28:18) that perpetuated the memory of God's faithfulness for the benefit of his descendants. He not only set the stone apart as special by pouring oil on it, as he had done 30 years earlier, but also made an offering to God there and renamed the place "Bethel.""Bethel occupies something of the same focal place in Jacob's career that the birth of Isaac occupied for Abraham, testing his fluctuating obedience and his hold on the promise, for more than twenty years." [Note: Kidner, p. 174.] God's blessing of Jacob when his dedication was complete illustrates God's response to those who fully obey Him."The importance of God's words to Jacob in Genesis 35:11-12cannot be overemphasized. First, God's words 'be fruitful and increase in number' recalled clearly the primeval blessing of Creation (Genesis 1:28) and hence showed God to be still 'at work' in bringing about the blessing to all mankind through Jacob. Second, for the first time since Genesis 17:16('kings of peoples will come from her'), the mention is made of royalty ('kings,' Genesis35:11) in the promised line. Third, the promise of the land, first given to Abraham and then to Isaac, was renewed here with Jacob (Genesis 35:12). Thus within these brief words several major themes of the book have come together. The primeval blessing of mankind was renewed through the promise of a royal offspring and the gift of the land." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 218.] We can enjoy the fellowship with God that He created us to experience only when we commit ourselves wholeheartedly to Him and obey His Word."It is noteworthy that there are certain things in connection with the spiritual life that must be entirely given up and destroyed, for it is impossible to sanctify or consecrate them. They must be buried and left behind, for they cannot possibly be devoted to the service of God....There are things that have to be cut off and cannot be consecrated. Books have to be burned (note
xix. 19). Evil habits have to be broken. Sin must be put away. There are things that are beyond all reclamation ...". . . if only we yield ourselves wholly and utterly to the hand of God, our lives, whatever the past may have been, shall be monuments, miracles, marvels of the grace of God." [Note: Thomas, pp. 331, 336.] Still all of Jacob's problems were not behind him."Just as Abraham had two sons and only one was the son of promise, and just as Isaac had two sons and only one was the son of the blessing, so now Jacob, though he has twelve sons, has two wives (Leah and Rachel); and each has a son (Judah and Joseph) that can rightfully contend for the blessing. In the narratives that follow, the writer holds both sons, Joseph and Judah, before the readers as rightful heirs of the promise. As the Jacob narratives have already anticipated, in the end it was Judah, the son of Leah, not Joseph, the son of Rachel, that gained the blessing (Genesis 49:8-12)." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 218.] Verses 16-22Ben-oni means "son of my pain (Genesis 35:18)." For Rachel, Benjamin's birth was a fatally painful experience. However the birth of his twelfth son mollified Jacob's sorrow over Rachel's death. He named his son Benjamin meaning "Son of my good fortune." [Note: See James Muilenberg, "The Birth of Benjamin," Journal of Biblical Literature 75 (1956):194-201.] Oniin Hebrew can mean either "trouble" or "wealth." This is the only son that Jacob named, which suggests his renewed leadership of the family, at least over Rachel's sons. Benjamin was born on land that later became part of his tribe's allotment. His birth there gave him title to it.Jacob buried Rachel near Ephrath, an older name for Bethlehem (house of bread; Genesis 35:19-20). Both Bethlehem and Kiriath Jeraim became known as Ephrath(a) because the clan of Ephrath settled in both places (cf. 1 Chronicles2:50).The opening section of the Isaac toledot(Genesis 25:19-26) contained the record of two births: Esau's and Jacob's. Its closing section (Genesis 35:16-29) documented two deaths: Deborah's and Rachel's. Ironically Rachel, who had cried in desperation to Jacob, "Give me children, or else I die" (Genesis 30:1), died giving birth to a child.The tower of Eder ("Migdal-eder") was simply a watchtower built to help shepherds protect their flocks from robbers (Genesis 35:21; cf. 2 Kings 18:8; 2
Chronicles 26:10; 2 Chronicles 27:4). Since the time of Jerome, the early church father who lived in Bethlehem, tradition has held that this Eder lay very close to Bethlehem.A concubine was sometimes a slave with whom her owner had sexual relations. She enjoyed some of the privileges of a wife, and people sometimes called her a wife in patriarchal times, but she was not a wife in the full sense of the term.Reuben may have wanted to prevent Rachel's maid from succeeding Rachel as his father's favorite wife. He probably resented the fact that Jacob did not honor his mother. [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 327.] Reuben's act constituted a claim against (a challenge to) his father as well as being an immoral act (cf. Deuteronomy 22:30; 2 Samuel 16:21-22; 1 Kings 2:13-25). In the ancient Near East a man who wanted to assert his superiority over another man might do so by having sexual relations with that man's wife or concubine (cf. 2 Samuel 16:21-22). Ancient Near Easterners regarded this act of physical domination as an evidence of personal superiority."Taking the concubine of one's predecessor was a perverted way of claiming to be the new lord of the bride." [Note: Jordan, p. 65.] Reuben's act, therefore, manifested rebellion against Jacob's authority as well as unbridled lust. It resulted in his losing the birthright. Judah obtained the right to rule as head of the family, and Levi got the right to be the family priest eventually. The double portion of his father's inheritance went to Joseph who realized it through his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh (cf. 1 Chronicles 5:1-2)."At an early stage in the narrative Reuben had played some small part in the all too brief restoration to his mother of her conjugal rights (Gen. XXX. 14ff.), but now, at the end of the Jacob narrative, it is by his agency that the supplanter is well and truly supplanted." [Note: George G. Nicol, "Genesis XXIX. 32 and XXXV. 22a: Reuben's Reversal," Journal of Theological Studies 31:2 (October 1980):538.] As at Shechem, Jacob appears to have reacted passively. Moses wrote that he heard of Reuben's act, but not that he did anything about it.Verses 16-29The birth of Benjamin, death of Rachel, and sin of Reuben 35:16-29Was Jacob disobedient to God when he left Bethel? God had told him to go to Bethel and "live there" (Genesis 35:1). This may have been a command to dwell there while he fulfilled his vow. On the other hand, God may have wanted Jacob
to establish permanent residence there. This seems unlikely, however, since Jacob remained a semi-nomad.Verses 22-27This paragraph is important because it records the entrance of Jacob into his father's inheritance. Jacob presumably visited Isaac in Hebron on various occasions following his return from Paddan-aram. However on this occasion he moved his family to his father's encampment and evidently remained there as Isaac's heir.Jacob had left Beersheba with only a staff in his hand. Now he returned with 12 sons, a large household, and much livestock. The most important aspect of God's blessing was his 12 sons, grouped here with their four mothers, through whom God would fulfill His promises to the patriarchs.Benjamin was not born in Paddan-aram but near Bethlehem (Genesis 35:16-18). Therefore the statement that Jacob's 12 sons were born in Paddan-aram (Genesis 35:26) must be understood as a general one, possibly a synecdoche.Verse 28-29With the record of Jacob entering into his father's inheritance the history of Isaac's life concludes. He was buried in the cave of Machpelah near Hebron (Genesis 49:29-31). Isaac lived for 12 years after Jacob's relocation to Hebron, however. He probably shared Jacob's grief over the apparent death of Joseph, but died shortly before Joseph's promotion in Egypt. [Note: See Keil and Delitzsch, 1:320, for a chronology of these events.] "The end of the Jacob narratives is marked by the death of his father, Isaac. The purpose of this notice is not simply to record Isaac's death but rather to show the complete fulfillment of God's promise to Jacob (Genesis 28:21). According to Jacob's vow, he had asked that God watch over him during his sojourn and return him safely to the house of his father. Thus the conclusion of the narrative marks the final fulfillment of these words as Jacob returned to the house of his father, Isaac, before he died." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 220.] It is very important that God's people follow through and keep the commitments they have made concerning participation in His program. When they commit themselves to Him in purity and worship, He commits Himself to blessing them.36 Chapter 36
Verse 1D. What became of Esau 36:1-37:1Moses included this relatively short, segmented genealogy (toledot) in the sacred record to show God's faithfulness in multiplying Abraham's seed as He had promised. It also provides connections with the descendants of Esau referred to later in the history of Israel. Among his descendants were the Edomites (Genesis36:8) and the Amalekites (Genesis 36:12). Lot, Ishmael, and Esau all walked out of the line of promise. This list also includes earlier inhabitants of the area later known as Edom whom Esau brought under his control. [Note: The NET Bible note on 36:1.] We can divide this chapter as follows.Esau's three wives and five sons, Genesis 36:1-8Esau's five sons and 10 grandsons, Genesis 36:9-14Chiefs (political or military leaders) descended from Esau, Genesis 36:15-19Chiefs of the Horites (with whom the Edomites intermarried and whom they dispossessed), Genesis 36:20-30Kings of Edom, Genesis 36:31-39A final list of chiefs, Genesis 36:40-43Different names of Esau's wives appear here as compared with what Moses recorded earlier (Genesis 36:2; cf. Genesis 26:34; Genesis 28:9). [Note: For an explanation, see Keil and Delitzsch, 1:321-22.] People added surnames to given names later in life. Women often received new names when they married. Esau married a Hittite (Genesis 36:2), a Hivite (Genesis 36:2) who was a descendant of a Horite (Hurrian, Genesis 36:20), and an Ishmaelite (Genesis 36:3). Some commentators connected the Horites with cave dwellers since the Hebrew word for cave is hor. [Note: E.g., Speiser, p. 283; and Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 223.] Esau's sons were born in Canaan and then moved out of the Promised Land to Seir. Jacob's sons, except for Benjamin, were born outside Canaan in Paddan-aram and later moved into the Promised Land."That there are two toledotheadings for Esau makes his treatment in two consecutive sections exceptional in the book. The first section [Genesis 36:1-8] focuses on family and homeland, and the second [Genesis 36:9to Genesis37:1] centers on his offspring as a developing nation. These two sections are flanked by the major narrative toledotsections of Isaac (Genesis 25:19to Genesis 35:29) and Jacob (Genesis 37:2to Genesis 50:26)." [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 632.]
The Kenizzites (Genesis 36:11; Genesis 36:15) later affiliated with the tribe of Judah. [Note: J. Milgrom, Numbers, pp. 391-92.] The Amalekites separated from the other Edomites and became an independent people early in their history (Genesis 36:12). [Note: See the chart illustrating their family relationship among my comments on 25:1-6.] A group of them settled in what later became southern Judah as far as Kadesh Barnea and the border of Egypt (Genesis 14:7; Numbers13:29; Numbers 14:43; Numbers 14:45). Another branch of the tribe settled in the hill country of Ephraim that was in central Canaan (Judges 12:15). The largest group of Amalekites lived in Arabia to the southeast of Canaan and Edom. They united on occasion with their neighbors, the Midianites (Judges 6:3; Judges 7:12) and the Ammonites (Judges 3:13). Saul defeated the Amalekites (1 Samuel14:48; 1 Samuel 15:2) as David did (1 Samuel 27:8; 1 Samuel 30:1; 2 Samuel8:12). Some Simeonites finally exterminated them during Hezekiah's reign (1Chronicles 4:42-43)."What is most interesting about the king list [Genesis 36:31-39] is that it reflects an elective kingship rather than a dynastic one...."These 'kings' may have indeed been charismatic individuals who, like the judges, assumed their office without regard to heredity." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 400.] This list of Edomite kings demonstrates the partial fulfillment of God's promise that kings would come from Abraham's loins (Genesis 17:16)."It might seem unusual that such detail concerning the descendants of Esau be included, but the relationship between Esau and Jacob, and then between the nations of Edom and Israel, is a theme of the entire Old Testament." [Note: Davis, p. 259. For archaeological discoveries relating to the Edomites, see Itzhaq Beit-Arieh, "New Light on the Edomites," Biblical Archaeological Review 14:2 (March-April 1988):28-41.] "What Israelites did to Canaanites, Esauites did to Horites. Thus Genesis 36 is moving backward from the conquerors (Genesis 36:9-19) to the conquered (Genesis 36:20-30)." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 397.] Genesis 36:31is probably a post-Mosaic explanation written after Israel had kings to show that the Edomites were also a powerful people with kings, even before there were kings in Israel. [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 656.] This is further proof of God's blessing on Esau, one of Abraham's descendants.Jacob was living at Hebron when Joseph's brothers sold him, and he may have continued living there until he moved to Egypt (Genesis 37:1; cf. Genesis 35:27).
"Verse 1 [of chapter 37] belongs structurally to the preceding narrative as a conclusion to the Jacob story. It shows Jacob back in the Land of Promise but still dwelling there as a sojourner like his father before him. The writer's point is to show that the promises of God had not yet been completely fulfilled and that Jacob, as his fathers before him, was still awaiting the fulfillment." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 225. Cf. Hebrews 11:39.] Perhaps the major lesson of this genealogy is that secular greatness develops faster than spiritual greatness. Consequently the godly must wait patiently for the fulfillment of God's promises.37 Chapter 37 Verses 2-4Joseph was tending his father's flock with his brothers, the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. This description prefigures Joseph's later shepherding role in relation to his brothers, after they became dependent on him. David also tended sheep in preparation for his role as a leader of people.Joseph's "bad report" implies that the brothers were participating in serious wicked behavior. This is not hard to believe in view of their former treatment of the Shechemites and their later treatment of Joseph and Jacob.The use of the name Israel (Genesis 37:3) suggests that Jacob's special love for Joseph had a divine origin and was part of God's plan for the chosen family. However, Jacob's favoritism of Joseph over his other sons was wrong and fueled the brothers' hatred of Joseph. Favoritism had a long history in Jacob's family (Isaac's preference for Esau, Rebekah's for Jacob, and Jacob's preference for Rachel). In every case it created major problems. Leah was hated, and her sons hated (cf. Genesis 29:31; Genesis 29:33)."Son of his old age" means wise son, or son of wisdom. Joseph was old for his years; he had the wisdom of age in his youth. Joseph was born when Jacob was 91 years old, but he was not Jacob's youngest son. One of Joseph's brothers was younger than he: Benjamin.The "varicolored tunic" was probably also a long robe. The sons of nobles wore long robes with long sleeves and ornamentation, like Joseph's, as did Tamar, King David's daughter (2 Samuel 13:18).
"It was a mark of distinction that carried its own meaning, for it implied that exemption from labor which was the peculiar privilege of the heir or prince of the Eastern clan." [Note: Thomas, p. 356.] Such a garment identified the possessor of the birthright. This sign of Jacob's love for Joseph constantly irritated the jealous brothers."Jacob's partiality for Rachel and for her two sons doomed his family to the same strife he had experienced in his father's household." [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p, 689.] "The story of Jacob features rocks; that of Joseph features robes (Genesis37:3; Genesis 37:23; Genesis 39:12; Genesis 41:14). These palpable objects symbolize something of the characters' social and/or spiritual situations." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 499.] Verses 2-111. God's choice of Joseph 37:2-11Joseph faithfully served his father even bringing back a bad report of his brothers' behavior to him for which Jacob expressed his love by giving Joseph preferential treatment. However his brothers envied and hated him. God confirmed His choice of Joseph as leader, an event that perplexed Jacob and infuriated Joseph's brothers.Verses 2-26E. What Became of Jacob 37:2-50:26Here begins the tenth and last toledotin Genesis. Jacob remains a major character throughout Genesis. Moses recorded his death in chapter 49. Nevertheless Joseph replaces him as the focus of the writer's attention at this point. [Note: For some enriching insights into the similarities between the stories of Jacob and Joseph, see Peter Miscall, "The Jacob and Joseph Stories As Analogies," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 6 (February 1978):28-40.] These chapters are not entirely about Joseph, however. The writer showed interest in all the sons of Jacob and among them especially Judah. [Note: See Bryan Smith, "The Central Role of Judah in Genesis 37-50," Bibliotheca Sacra 162:646 (April-June 2005):158-74.] "The emphasis now shifts from Jacob's personal struggles to receive the blessing promised to Abraham and Isaac, to the events in Jacob's life that lead up to the formation of Israel as a nation." [Note: Aalders, 2:179.] The story of Joseph also links the history of the patriarchs with their settlement in Egypt.
"The Joseph story ... develops the theme of the Pentateuch by showing the gradual fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3. In particular, it shows how God blesses the nations through the descendants of Abraham [cf. Genesis 50:20]." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 344.] "The theme of the Joseph narrative concerns God's hidden and decisive power which works in and through but also against human forms of power. A 'soft' word for that reality is providence. A harder word for the same reality is predestination. Either way God is working out his purpose through and in spite of Egypt, through and in spite of Joseph and his brothers." [Note: Brueggemann, Genesis, p. 293.] One writer concluded that the genre of the Joseph story in chapters 37-50 is a court narrative. He provided many observations on the narrative features of the story. [Note: Richard D. Patterson, "Joseph in Pharaoh's Court," Bibliotheca Sacra 164:654 (April-June 2007):148-64.] "The Joseph story, though different in style from that of the patriarchs, continues the theme of the patriarchal narratives-God overcomes obstacles to the fulfillment of the promise." [Note: Longman and Dillard, p. 60.] "Rarely has God's providence been so evident in such an extended passage." [Note: Wolf, p. 121.] The books of Ruth and Esther also emphasize divine providence. Human responsibility is as much a revelation of this section as divine sovereignty.Verses 5-11Joseph's dreams were revelations from God (cf. Genesis 40:8; Genesis 41:16; Genesis 41:25; Genesis 41:28). Joseph, his brothers, and his father did not grasp their significance fully until God brought them to pass. Joseph regarded his dreams as important, however, and therefore did not hesitate to make them known to his family."This is the first dream in the Bible in which God does not speak (cf. Genesis 20:3; Genesis 28:12-15; Genesis 31:11; Genesis 31:24). It forms a transition in the dominant means of God's revelation from theophany in Genesis 1-11, to dreams and visions in Genesis 12-35, and now to providence in Genesis 36-50. These three stages resemble the three parts of TaNaK (i.e., the OT). In the Torah('Law'), God speaks to Moses in theophany; in the Nebiim('Prophets'), he speaks in dreams and visions; and in the Ketubim('Writings'), he works mostly through providence." [Note: Ibid., p. 500.]
In the first dream (Genesis 37:7) God revealed that Joseph's brothers would come to him for bread. Note the agricultural motif in both the dream and its fulfillment. His brothers did not fail to note Joseph's position of superiority over them (Genesis 37:8), and they resented still more humiliation from him.In the second dream (Genesis 37:9), which was even grander, Joseph was himself supreme over the whole house of Israel. The repetition of the main point of the dream confirmed that what God predicted would certainly happen (cf. Genesis 41:32). Jacob took note of these revelations but resented the possibility that his son might be in a position of authority over him (Genesis 37:10-11). Many people today also are offended by God's election of some to special prominence and usefulness, especially close family members."Joseph is depicted as morally good but immature and bratty. His tattling, boasting, and robe parading inflames his brother's hatred against him." [Note: Ibid., p. 498.] "God's future agent and mouthpiece in Egypt could hardly make a worse impression on his first appearance: spoiled brat, talebearer, braggart." [Note: Sternberg, p. 98.] Textual references cannot establish whether Joseph at this time realized that his dreams were divine prophecies or not. People often regarded dreams as divine revelations in the ancient East. [Note: Ross, Creation and . . ., p. 600.] If Joseph did, the fact that he related them boldly to his family may indicate his faith. [Note: Cf. Erdman, p. 113.] "More than likely, the dream, and its recounting, is to be understood as an unsuspecting prophecy uttered by Joseph. God has a plan for his life, a destiny in his future, and Joseph spontaneously shares the enthusiasm that revelation spawns." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 410.] God chooses faithful, righteous individuals for positions of leadership, but those chosen may experience the jealous hatred of their brethren."Divine sovereignty is not a rigid detailed blueprint that manipulates and straitjackets human behavior." [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 692.] Verses 12-17It was not uncommon for shepherds to lead their flocks many miles from home in search of pasture. Shechem was about 60 miles north of Hebron. Jacob owned land there (Genesis 33:19). Dothan was 17 miles farther north.Verses 12-36
2. The sale of Joseph into Egypt 37:12-36Joseph's brothers met his second recorded visit to them with great antagonism. They plotted to kill him and so render his dreams impossible to fulfill. For practical reasons they decided to sell him and to deceive Jacob into thinking that a wild beast had killed him. In spite of their plan God kept Joseph alive and safe in Egypt. Ironically, by selling Joseph into Egypt his brothers actualized the dreams they sought to subvert. The focus of this pericope is deceit, which is a recurring feature of the Jacob and Joseph narratives.Verses 18-24The extreme measures Joseph's brothers considered to silence him have led some commentators to conclude that it was not just personal hatred springing from jealousy that motivated them (cf. Cain, Genesis 4:9). They may have wanted to alter the will of God as revealed in Joseph's dreams as well."The brothers' hate is therefore a rebellion against the matter contained in the dreams, against the divine power itself, standing behind them, who had given the dreams. The expression usually translated by 'the dreamer' [Genesis 37:19] means much more than our English word, namely, the one empowered to prophetic dreams." [Note: von Rad, p. 353.] Reuben, as the first-born, looked after his father's interests and, knowing what sorrow Joseph's death would bring to Jacob, sought to spare Joseph's life and release him from the pit later. Perhaps Reuben wanted to get back in the good graces of his father (cf. Genesis 35:22). Joseph's place of confinement was evidently a dry well or cistern.Verses 25-28Dothan lay on a caravan route that ran from Damascus to Egypt. [Note: See Ammon Ben-Tor, "The Trade Relations of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age," Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 29:1 (February 1986):1-27.] The next time the brothers would eat a meal in Joseph's presence he would sit at the head table (Genesis 43:32-34).Moses referred to the traders that bought Joseph as Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:25; Genesis 37:27-28) and Midianites (Genesis 37:28). Probably the caravan contained a mixture of both of these groups of Abraham's descendants who were nomadic caravan merchants (cf. Genesis 39:1; Judges 8:24). Residents of this area sometimes used these names interchangeably. "Ishmaelite" is the more generic term for a Bedouin nomad. It became a general designation for desert tribes. "Midianite" is the more specific ethnic term. [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . .
Chapters 18-50, p. 423.] Alternatively, "Ishmaelites" may designate a league of tribes with the Midianites constituting one element (cf. Genesis 25:13-17). [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 355.] Rather than agents of death, the traders proved to be God's instruments of deliverance.Judah, like Reuben, did not relish killing Joseph. Yet he was not willing to let him go free either. Probably he dreaded the prospect of Joseph receiving the rights of the first-born since he, Judah, was in line for Jacob's blessing. His suggestion that the brothers sell Joseph implies that he knew slave trading was common in Egypt. The price agreed on for Joseph was the same price that God later specified the Israelites should pay for a slave between the ages of five and 20 years under the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 27:5). These prices were evidently standard in the ancient Near East at this time. Shepherds employed by others earned about eight shekels a year. [Note: Ibid., p. 356.] "If Joseph steps onto the pages of sacred history as a bratty do-gooder, Judah enters as a slave trader who has turned his back on Abraham's God-given vision. He is callous toward his father and cynical about the covenant family." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 508.] The significance of the action of Joseph's brothers was greater than may appear at first."They had not only sold their brother, but in their brother they had cast out a member of the seed promised and given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, from the fellowship of the chosen family, and sinned against the God of salvation and His promises." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:332.] Verses 29-36Reuben was absent during the sale of Joseph. When he returned and found Joseph missing he felt great distress. Jacob would have held him responsible for Joseph's safety since Reuben was the oldest of the brothers. Joseph's brothers covered one sin with another."The message accompanying the cloak [Genesis 37:32] has a certain blunt brutality about it. They did not try to soften the blow." [Note: Leupold, 2:973.] Jacob had deceived his father with the skin of a goat (Genesis 27:16). Now his sons were deceiving him with the blood of a goat (Genesis 37:31).Had Jacob believed more strongly in God's revelations in Joseph's dreams he might not have jumped to the conclusion that Joseph was dead, and his sorrow might not have been as great (cf. 2 Samuel 18:33). Jacob's fears were
groundless, but he did not realize this because he chose in this instance to live by sight rather than by faith.The Pharaoh referred to (Genesis 37:36) was probably Ammenemes II (1929-1895 B.C.), and the capital of Egypt during this period (the twelveth dynasty) was Memphis. This is where Joseph was taken. Potiphar, as Pharaoh's bodyguard captain, would have been in charge of the king's executioners who carried out the capital sentences ordered by Pharaoh. "Potiphar" is a shortened form of Potiphera (Genesis 41:45) meaning "he whom Ra [the sun-god] has given." The meaning of the Hebrew word saris, translated in Genesis 37:36"officer" or "official," changed in meaning in the first millennium B.C. to "eunuch." [Note: Kitchen, Ancient Orient ..., pp. 115-66.] Josephus called Potiphar Pharaoh's chief cook, which may or may not have been correct. [Note: Josephus, 2:4:1. See Magen Broshi, "The Credibility of Josephus," Journal of Jewish Studies 33:1-2 (Spring-Autumn 1982):379-384.] This chapter is the first of many in the record of Joseph's experiences that demonstrates God's ability to cause the wrath of men to praise Him (Psalms76:10). He can make even bad situations work for the accomplishment of His purposes and for the blessing of His elect (Romans 8:28)."Envy is the root of almost every sin against our brethren. And whenever it is harbored, there is an end of all peace, rest, and satisfaction. Envy is 'the rottenness of the bones' (Prov. xiv. 30), and no one can stand against it (Prov. xxvii. 4). 'Where envying is, there is confusion and every evil work' (James iii. 16)." [Note: Thomas, pp. 361-62.] "The Genesis account presents Joseph as a very unusual young man, possessed of a strong and sterling character, of a high morality and fidelity to God and his superiors. He was also characterized by gentleness in human relations. Remarkably, Joseph's spiritual and moral strength does not appear to be based on or related to God's periodic and direct revelations, as was true of Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham. Presumably then Jacob must have put a lot of character building truth into the young man's life at an early time. It does not appear that he could have obtained such information from any other source. If this is the case, Jacob did a much better job with Joseph than with his other sons." [Note: H. Vos, p. 134.] "They [Joseph's older brothers] had been brought up under the influence of the old Jacob, while Joseph had been the companion of the changed Jacob or 'Israel.'" [Note: Thomas, p. 355.]
Joseph's motives are not completely clear in the text. Consequently students of his life have made judgments about his character that are both positive and negative. Most have concluded that he was one of the greatest men in history. [Note: See Thomas Mann's 1,600-page Joseph and His Brothers.] A few have contested this view and have believed that he was selfish and manipulative. [Note: E.g., Maurice Samuel, Certain People of the Book; idem, "Joseph-The Brilliant Failure," Bible Review 2:1 (Spring 1986):38-51, 68.] I believe the textual evidence favors the former view primarily, though some of his early actions seem to be unwise at best and arrogant at worst.People who serve faithfully as unto the Lord often experience severe persecution, but God will preserve them so they can fulfill their God-given destiny.38 Chapter 38 Verses 1-11Levirite marriage (the marriage of a man to his deceased brother's wife to provide his brother with an heir) was a common custom in the ancient Near East at this time (Genesis 38:8-10). [Note: de Vaux, pp. 37-38. See Mathews, Genesis11:27-50:26, pp. 705-10, for an excursus on levirate marrage.] It was common also in Asia, Africa, and other areas, but it evidently originated in Mesopotamia. The Mosaic Law did not abolish it but restricted it in Israel to preserve the sanctity of marriage (cf. Deuteronomy 25:5-10)."The enormity of Onan's sin is in its studied outrage against the family, against his brother's widow and against his own body. The standard English versions fail to make clear that this was his persistent practice. When(9) should be translated 'whenever.'" [Note: Kidner, p. 188.] Onan's refusal to give Tamar a child not only demonstrated a lack of love for his deceased brother. It also revealed Onan's selfish heart that wanted for himself what would have gone to his elder brother's heir. If Tamar had borne him a son, that child would have been the perpetuator of Er's name as well as that of Onan (cf. Ruth 4:5; Ruth 4:21-22). God judged Onan's sin severely because descendants were important in His plans for the Israelite patriarchs. Onan was frustrating the fulfillment of God's promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (cf. Genesis 11:4). This is the first text that states explicitly that God put someone to death.
Judah sinned against Tamar by forcing her to live as a widow (Genesis 38:11). He wrongly blamed Tamar for the death of his sons (cf. Genesis 38:26) rather than blaming his sons. Tamar had every right to children. Moreover as a member of the chosen family, Judah should have made certain that she had another legitimate opportunity to bear children.Judah comes across at the beginning of this incident again as a hard and callous man. He had previously suggested selling Joseph into slavery to make money from him and deceiving Jacob despite Reuben's protests (Genesis 37:26-27; Genesis 37:29-30). Now the writer portrayed him as showing no grief over the deaths of his sons, in contrast to Jacob who mourned inconsolably over Joseph's apparent death (Genesis 37:34-35). Judah also ordered the burning of his daughter-in-law (Genesis 38:24).Verses 12-30When Judah deceived Jacob (Genesis 37:31-32), a goat and an item of clothing featured in the trick, and here a goat and an item of clothing again figure in Tamar's deception of Judah. Tamar's strategy for obtaining her right was not commendable. She played the role of a common whore (Heb. zona). Judah's Canaanite friend described her as a shrine prostitute later (Genesis 38:21, Heb. qedesa), but he probably said this to elevate her social status in the eyes of the other men he was addressing. Though ancient Near Eastern society condemned adultery, it permitted prostitution. [Note: Anchor Bible Dictionary, 1992 ed., s.v. "Prostitution (OT)," by E. A. Goodfriend.] By wearing a veil Tamar hid her identity from Judah but also presented herself as a betrothed (to Shelah) woman, since engaged women wore veils (cf. Genesis 24:65; Genesis 29:21-25). However the fact that she sought to obtain seed by Judah shows her legitimate desire for children at least. It probably also reveals her desire to enter into the Abrahamic promises by bearing children for Judah and his sons. Jacob's family experienced deception again."Tamar qualifies as a heroine in the story, for she risked everything for her right to be the mother in the family of Judah and to protect the family." [Note: Ross, Creation and . . ., p. 612.] "Although Tamar's actions in this regard may seem strange to us, there is evidence that among ancient Assyrian and Hittite peoples, part of the custom was that the levirite responsibility could pass to the father of the widow's husband if there were no brothers to fulfill it. Thus Tamar was only
trying to acquire that to which she had a legal right." [Note: Aalders, 2:194.] Moses did not clarify her motivation. Whether or not she understood and believed the promises to the patriarchs regarding their sacred vocation, she did become an ancestor of the Messiah (Ruth 4:18-22; Matthew 1:3; Matthew 1:16)."Just as in chapter 20 where the seed of Abraham was protected by the 'righteous' (saddiq, Genesis 20:4; NIV, 'innocent') Abimelech (cf. also Genesis 26:9-11), it is the woman Tamar, not Judah the patriarch, who is ultimately responsible for the survival of the descendants of the house of Judah." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 232.] Judah's response to his sins against God and Tamar seems to have been genuine repentance (Genesis 38:26). He confessed his wrong and repented by ceasing from further sexual relations with her, his daughter-in-law. It is evidently because his repentance was genuine that Jacob did not exclude him from receiving a special blessing as he excluded Reuben, Simeon, and Levi. Because he humbled himself God raised him to be the chief of the house of Israel and blessed the children that he fathered even though they were a result of his sin. Compare God's blessing of Solomon even though he was the fruit of the unlawful union of David and Bathsheba."The scene marks the beginning of Judah's transformation when he declares of Tamar, 'She is righteous, not I' (lit., Genesis 38:26)." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 506.] ". . . in its biographical sketches, character change is what Genesis is all about: Abram becomes Abraham; Jacob becomes Israel. Particularly in Jacob's family we see examples of character change: Reuben, violator of his father's concubine, later shows great concern for both Joseph and his father, while the upstart cocky Joseph becomes the wise statesman who forgives his brothers. Thus, this chapter has a most important role in clarifying the course of the subsequent narrative; without it we should find its development inexplicable." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 364.] Perez (meaning a breach or one who breaks through) was the first of the twins born (Genesis 38:27-30). He became the ancestor of David and Messiah (Ruth4:18-22; Matthew 1:3; Matthew 1:16). Moses may have included the unusual circumstances surrounding the birth of these twins in the record to emphasize God's selection of the son through whom the line of blessing would descend.
"He [Judah] and his brothers sold their younger brother into Egypt, thinking they could thwart God's design that the elder brothers would serve the younger Joseph. Yet in Judah's own family, despite his attempts to hinder Tamar's marriage, God's will worked out in a poignant confirmation of the principle that the elder would serve the younger." [Note: Ross, "Genesis," p. 89. See also the NET Bible note on 38:29.] The scarlet thread marked the second-born, Zerah (dawning, i.e., red or scarlet). It did not indicate the Messianic line. That line came through the other son, Perez. The thread is perhaps just a detail of the story that explains the names given."A key to this story is the remarkable similarity between the births of Perez and Zerah and of Jacob and Esau. Both births involve twins; in both the younger thrusts ahead of the elder and displaces him; and in both the one who is naturally expected to get the birthright, but loses it, is associated with red: red stew in the case of Esau and a red string in the case of Zerah." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, pp. 506-7.] The only mothers in the Bible who bore twins were Rebekah and Tamar."As the Jacob narrative began with an account of the struggle of the twins Jacob and Esau (Genesis 25:22), so now the conclusion of the Jacob narrative is marked by a similar struggle of twins. In both cases the struggle resulted in a reversal of the right of the firstborn and the right of the blessing....The brevity and austerity with which the narrative is recounted leaves the impression that the meaning of the passage is self-evident to the reader. Indeed, coming as it does on the heels of a long series of reversals in which the younger gains the upper hand on the elder, its sense is transparent." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 232. For a comparison of the births of Jacob and Esau with those of Perez and Zerah, see K. Luke, "Two Birth Narratives in Genesis," Indian Theological Studies 17:2 (June 1980):155-80.] Judah's hedonistic willfulness in this chapter contrasts with Joseph's self-control in sexual temptation in the next. Here promiscuous Judah grasps Tamar's seductive offer and enlarges his family. Later chaste Joseph resists Potiphar's wife's seductive offer and ends his career (temporarily) in prison.God corrects those who disregard His plan and pursue lives of self-gratification often using talionic justice (i.e., reaping the same kind of punishment as the sin that they sow) in His discipline.
39 Chapter 39 Verses 1-6The clause "the Lord was with Joseph" occurs four times in this chapter (Genesis39:2-3; Genesis 39:21; Genesis 39:23) and explains the reason for his success. The divine name "LORD," Yahweh, appears seven times in this chapter (Genesis39:2-3[twice], 5 [twice], 21, and 23) but only one other time in the Jacob toledot (Genesis 37:2to Genesis 50:26): in Genesis 49:18. God had previously promised to be with Isaac and Jacob (Genesis 26:3; Genesis 26:24; Genesis26:28; Genesis 28:15; Genesis 28:20; Genesis 31:3). Yahweh is the name for God used. The covenant-keeping God of the patriarchs was with this son of Jacob far from home. Joseph had a fine physique and a handsome face, features that he seems to have inherited from his mother Rachel (cf. Genesis 29:17). He proved faithful in a little and therefore the Lord placed him in charge of much (cf. Luke 16:10). Note that God blessed Potiphar because of Joseph (cf. Genesis12:3a)."The whole sequence of Genesis 39:2-6is a particularly apt and clear example of the meaning of blessing in the Old Testament. Assistance and blessing belong together, though they are different. Blessing embraces both people and the rest of creation. The narrator simply presupposes that the blessing can flow over from the one whom Yahweh assists to a foreign people and adherents of a foreign religion precisely because of the one whom Yahweh assists. The power inherent in the blessing is expansive ..." [Note: Westermann, Genesis 36-50, p. 63.] Verses 7-23Joseph was evidently in his mid-twenties at this time. He was in a "no win" position with Potiphar's wife. As a slave he had to obey her, but as a trustworthy and moral servant of Potiphar he had to refuse her. The typical male clothing in patriarchal times consisted of mid-calf-length shorts and a tunic that resembled a long T-shirt (cf. Genesis 3:21; Genesis 37:3). [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 376.] Joseph regarded obedience to God as his primary responsibility (Genesis39:9) and therefore chose as he did (cf. Psalms 51:4).Note that Potiphar's wife's invitation was for Joseph to lie "beside" (Heb. 'esel) her (Genesis 39:10; cf. Genesis 39:15-16; Genesis 39:18; Genesis 41:3), not to lie "with" her, the more common phrase that describes sexual intercourse (cf.
Genesis 34:7; Genesis 39:14). Evidently she invited his physical familiarity, which she hoped would lead to intercourse. Joseph, realizing where this first step might lead, wisely set a boundary for himself and refused even to be alone with her (Genesis 39:10). [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 735.] "This story about Joseph reverses a well-known plot in the patriarchal narratives. Whereas before it was the beautiful wife ... of the patriarch who was sought by the foreign ruler, now it was Joseph, the handsome patriarch ... himself who was sought by the wife of the foreign ruler. Whereas in the earlier narratives it was either the Lord (Genesis 12:17; Genesis 20:3) or the moral purity of the foreign ruler (Genesis 26:10) that rescued the wife rather than the patriarch, here it was Joseph's own moral courage that saved the day....Whereas in the preceding narratives, the focus of the writer had been on God's faithfulness in fulfilling his covenant promises, in the story of Joseph his attention is turned to the human response."The Joseph narratives are intended then to give balance to the narratives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Together the two sections show both God's faithfulness in spite of human failure as well as the necessity of an obedient and faithful response." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," pp. 234, 235.] Success in temptation depends more on character than on circumstances. Character rests on commitment to the will of God. We can see Joseph's character in his loyalty to Potiphar concerning what his master had entrusted to his care (Genesis 39:9). We also see it in his responsibility to God for what belonged to someone else (Genesis 39:9). It is further obvious in his responsibility to God respecting his special personal calling (Genesis 37:5-9; Genesis 45:5-9). Additionally, we see it in his responsibility to God concerning his sacred vocation as a member of the house of Israel."It is too little observed, and especially by young men who have most need to observe it, that in such temptations it is not only the sensual that needs to be guarded against, but also two much deeper-lying tendencies-the craving for loving recognition, and the desire to respond to the feminine love for admiration and devotion . . . a large proportion of misery is due to a kind of uncontrolled and mistaken chivalry." [Note: Dods, p. 344.] Joseph's punishment was light in view of the charge against him. Joseph's integrity had obviously impressed Potiphar, but he may also have had questions
about his wife's chastity (cf. Psalms 105:18). Joseph's slavery in Potiphar's house prefigures Israel's Egyptian bondage.Because God was still with Joseph (Genesis 39:21; Genesis 39:23), and because his character had not changed, Joseph experienced the same kind of favor at the hand of the chief jailer that he had from Potiphar. The Lord honored Joseph as one who had honored Him (1 Samuel 2:30)."Yokes borne in youth have at least three results; they prove personal integrity, they promote spiritual maturity, and they prepare for fuller opportunity. In nature and in human life the best things are not the easiest but the hardest to obtain...."How nobly Joseph comported himself amidst all these trials and hardships! He might have sulked and become embittered; but instead of this his spirit was unconquerable by reason of its trust in God. He steadfastly refused to be unfaithful to his God, whatever might be the consequences. In duty he was loyal, in temptation he was strong, and in prison he was faithful. When this spirit actuates our life, difficulties become means of grace and stepping-stones to higher things. On the other hand, if difficulties are met in a fretful, murmuring, complaining, disheartened spirit, not only do we lose the blessings that would otherwise come through them, but our spiritual life suffers untold injury, and we are weakened for the next encounter of temptation whenever it comes. There is scarcely anything in the Christian life which reveals more thoroughly what our Christianity is worth than the way we meet difficulties by the use of the grace of God." [Note: Thomas, pp. 375-76. Cf. James 1.] This chapter reveals that dedication to God's calling enables His servants to resist temptation. [Note: See Doug Mennen, "How the Wise Man Overcomes Temptation," Exegesis and Exposition 3:1 (Fall 1988):90.] 40 Chapter 40 41 Chapter 41 Verses 1-8The "magicians" were "men of the priestly caste, who occupied themselves with the sacred arts and sciences of the Egyptians, the hieroglyphic writings, astrology, the interpretation of dreams, the foretelling
of events, magic, and conjuring, and who were regarded as the possessors of secret arts (vid. Ex. vii. 11) and the wise menof the nation." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:349.] Divination tries to understand the future, and magic seeks to control it. God withheld the Egyptian diviners from comprehending the meaning of Pharaoh's dreams even though the clue to their interpretation lay in the religious symbols of Egypt."For the cow was the symbol of Isis, the goddess of the all-sustaining earth, and in the hieroglyphics it represents the earth, agriculture, and food; and the Nile, by its overflowing, was the source of fertility of the land." [Note: Ibid.] Yet these symbols had multiple meanings to the Egyptians, which probably accounts for the difficulty of interpretation. [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 391.] "Seven-year famines were a familiar feature of life in the ancient Near East." [Note: Ibid., p. 398.] Verses 9-24Joseph carefully gave God the glory for his interpretive gift in his response to Pharaoh (Genesis 41:16)."As far as Joseph was concerned, absolute truthfulness in guarding God's honor was far more important than personal advantages." [Note: Leupold, 2:1025-26.] "Like Daniel before Nebuchadnezzar, he expressly disclaims all ability of himself to unfold the secret counsels of heaven, or exercise that wisdom for which Pharaoh seems very willing to give him credit. The same humility has been in every age a distinguishing ornament of all God's faithful servants." [Note: Bush, 2:277.] Verses 25-36Joseph also presented God as sovereign over Pharaoh (Genesis 41:25; Genesis41:28). The Egyptians regarded Pharaoh as a divine manifestation in human form. By accepting Joseph's interpretation of his dreams Pharaoh chose to place himself under Joseph's God. God rewarded this humility by preserving the land of Egypt in the coming famine.". . . the writer has gone out of his way to present the whole narrative in a series of pairs, all fitting within the notion of the emphasis given by means of the repetition: 'The matter is certain and swift' (Genesis 41:32). The
repetition of the dreams, then, fits this pattern." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 214.] "The intention of prophecies concerning judgments to come, is to excite those threatened with them to take proper measures for averting them." [Note: Bush, 2:281. Cf. von Rad, p. 376.] "The writer's emphasis on the 'good' and 'evil' represents Joseph's wisdom and discernment as an ability to distinguish between the 'good' (tob) and the 'evil' (ra'). Such a picture suggests that in the story of Joseph the writer is returning to one of the central themes of the beginning of the book, the knowledge of 'good' (tob) and 'evil' (ra'). While Joseph is able to discern between 'good and evil,' it is clear from this story that ultimately such knowledge comes only from God (Genesis 41:39). Joseph is the embodiment of the ideal that true wisdom, the ability to discern between 'good and evil,' comes only from God. Thus the lesson of the early chapters of Genesis is artfully repeated in these last chapters." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 240.] "Joseph prefigured the victors Moses and Daniel, the bookends of Israel's period of captivity, whose wisdom prevailed over the Gentiles (cf. 1Corinthians 1:18to 1 Corinthians 2:16)." [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 740.] Verses 37-45Pharaoh recognized Joseph as one who had unique supernatural powers (Genesis 41:38; cf. Daniel 5:14). He probably did not identify the "spirit" in Joseph as the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity. There is no evidence that Pharaoh understood or believed in the God of Israel much less comprehended his triunity. Most likely he thought some deity had manifested himself or herself through Joseph.It was not unknown in Egypt for the Pharaohs to appoint individuals who lacked previous social station or political rank to positions of authority in the government."At any time the king would-and did-appoint outsiders. In fact, the noteworthy careers, as preserved for us in tomb inscriptions, broke through all departmental limitations. Men of humble origin could rise to the top once their gifts were recognized; and we find that they were called to a succession of posts which would seem to us to have required entirely different preparatory training." [Note: Henri Frankfort, Ancient Egyptian Religion, p. 35. Cf. Kitchen, The Bible . . ., p. 74; J. K. Hoffmeier, Israel in
Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition, pp. 93-95; Wenham, Genesis 16-50, pp. 395-96; and Waltke, Genesis, p. 533.] To naturalize Joseph, Pharaoh gave him an Egyptian name (Genesis 41:45; cf. Daniel 1:7) and an Egyptian wife from an appropriate level of society. Joseph's father-in-law was evidently a high-ranking priest in the celebrated temple of the sun located in the city of On (Gr. Heliopolis) 10 miles northeast of modern Cairo."The high priest at On held the exalted title 'Greatest of Seers.' Joseph thus marries into the elite of Egyptian nobility." [Note: Sarna, Understanding Genesis, p. 288.] Joseph's marriage to an Egyptian seems to have been Pharaoh's order, and God permitted it. The patriarchs generally avoided marrying Canaanites because of God's curse on Canaan (Genesis 9:25), but marriage to non-Canaanite Gentiles was less serious. Joseph's wife and in-laws did not turn him away from his faith in Yahweh or his high regard for God's promises to his forefathers (cf. Moses).Verses 46-57The notation of the birth of Joseph's sons is, of course, very significant in view of God's purposes concerning Abraham's family (Genesis 41:50-52). Joseph acknowledged God's goodness to him in naming both his sons. An allusion to the blessing aspect of the patriarchal promises occurs in Genesis 41:49."If the name of Joseph's first son (Manasseh) focuses on a God who preserves, the name of Joseph's second son (Ephraim) focuses on a God who blesses." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 512.] Some readers of Genesis have wondered why Joseph did not inform Jacob of his welfare quickly since he must have realized that Jacob would have worried about his disappearance. In naming Manasseh, Joseph said God had enabled him to forget all (his troubles in) his father's household (Genesis 41:51). Perhaps Joseph did not try to contact Jacob because he thought his father had set him up for what happened to him at Dothan. [Note: Marc Shapiro, "The Silence of Joseph," Journal of Reform Judaism 36:1 (Winter 1989):15-17.] This seems very unlikely to me since Jacob's sorrow over Joseph's apparent death seems genuine. Perhaps Joseph did not try to contact Jacob because, through the remarkable events by which God exalted him, he came to realize that God would fulfill the rest of His promises contained in his dreams. [Note: Delitzsch, 2:306; Waltke, Genesis, p. 535.] He may have concluded that his best course of action would be to continue to let God take the initiative as He had done so consistently
in his life to that time. Joseph had evidently come to trust God in place of his father. In this sense he had forgotten his father's household."'Forget' does not mean here 'not remember' but rather to have something no longer (cf. Job 39:17; Job 11:16. See, too, the Arabic proverb, 'Whoever drinks water from the Nile forgets his fatherland if he is a foreigner'). The phrase refers, therefore, more to an objective external fact than to a subjective, psychological process." [Note: von Rad, p. 379.] One might say that for Joseph life in Canaan was a closed chapter of his life. [Note: Cf. Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 766.] "Just as Adam is seen in the Creation account as dependent on God for his knowledge of 'good and evil,' so Joseph also is portrayed here in the same terms ... Just as Adam is made God's 'vicegerent' to rule over all the land, so similarly Joseph is portrayed here as the Pharaoh's 'vicegerent' over all his land (Genesis 41:40-43). As Adam was made in God's image to rule over all the land, so the king here gave Joseph his 'signet ring' and dressed him in royal garments (Genesis 41:42). The picture of Joseph resembles the psalmist's understanding of Genesis 1 when, regarding that passage, he writes, '[You have] crowned him with glory and honor./ You made him ruler over the works of your hands;/ you put everything under his feet' (Psalms 8:5-7). Just as God provided a wife for Adam in the garden and gave man all the land for his enjoyment, so the king gave a wife to Joseph and put him over all the land (Genesis 41:45)...."The picture of Joseph, then, looks back to Adam; but more, it looks forward to one who was yet to come. It anticipates the coming of the one from the house of Judah to whom the kingdom belongs (cf. Genesis 49:10). Thus in the final shape of the narrative, the tension between the house of Joseph and the house of Judah, which lies within many of these texts, is resolved by making the life of Joseph into a picture of the one who is to reign from the house of Judah." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 242. See also idem, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 215.] God controls the fortunes of nations to protect and provide for His covenant people.42 Chapter 42 Verses 1-7
Twenty-one years after his brothers sold Joseph into slavery they bowed before him in fulfillment of his youthful dreams (Genesis 42:6-7; cf. Genesis 37:5-9). Ronald Hyman analyzed Joseph's skillful use of questions to uncover his brothers' attitudes and intentions as well as the key role of questions in the whole Joseph narrative-there are 30 to 40 of them. [Note: Ronald T. Hyman, "Questions in the Joseph Story: The Effects and Their Implications for Teaching," Religious Education (Summer 1984):437-55.] "The time was when Joseph's brethren were men of high respectability in the land of Canaan, whilst Joseph himself was a slave or a prisoner in the land of Egypt. Now, by a signal reverse, Joseph was governor over all the land of Egypt, while they appeared before him as humble suppliants, almost craving as an alms those supplies of food for which they were both able and willing to pay the price demanded." [Note: Bush, 2:298.] "The double identification of Joseph as hassallit[administrator] and hammasbir[dispenser] recall Joseph's two earlier dreams, the one in which the sun, moon, and eleven stars bowed before him (his position of authority), and the other in which the brothers' sheaves bowed before his sheaf (his position of provider)." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 519. Cf. Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, p. 163.] People who sell their brother into slavery are not trustworthy. Therefore Joseph retained power over his brothers until he could trust them.The chiastic structure of Genesis 42:7-24focuses attention on the brothers' imprisonment."AJoseph knew his brothers and remembered (Genesis 42:7-9a).BJoseph accused them of being spies, but they explained their situation (Genesis 42:9-13).CJoseph set out a test whereby they could prove they were honest men (14-16).DJoseph put them in prison (Genesis 42:17).C'Joseph set out a new test for the brothers to prove they were honest (Genesis 42:18-20).B'The brothers confessed their guilt concerning their brother, and Reuben accused them of their fault (Genesis 42:21-22).A'Joseph understood and wept (Genesis 42:23-24)." [Note: Ross, Creation and . . ., p. 649.] Verses 8-17
Joseph remembered his dreams (Genesis 42:9), and the proof of God's faithfulness undoubtedly encouraged his confidence as he proceeded to deal with his brothers. He played a role before them charging them with a crime punishable with death in Egypt. Such a serious accusation encouraged his brothers to be as honest as possible, which is what Joseph wanted.A family will rarely risk almost all of its sons in a dangerous spying mission, which probably explains the brothers' statement that they were all sons of one man (Genesis 42:11).Probably Joseph wanted to be sure that his brothers had not killed Benjamin since they had contemplated killing himself (Genesis 42:15).The three-day imprisonment provided Joseph with time to plan his strategy, and it impressed the brothers with the importance of cooperating with Joseph (Genesis 42:17). These three days also gave the brothers a taste of what Joseph had endured for three years. Joseph may have intended that they serve one day's imprisonment for each year he had suffered incarceration because of their hatred."A vindictive Joseph could have dismayed his brothers with worthless sackloads, or tantalized them at his feast as they had tantalized him (Genesis 37:24-25); his enigmatic gifts were a kinder and more searching test. Just how well-judged was his policy can be seen in the growth of quite new attitudes in the brothers, as the alternating sun and frost broke them open to God." [Note: Kidner, p. 199. Cf. Waltke, Genesis, p. 542.] Verses 18-24Joseph's profession of faith in God (Elohim) told his brothers that he realized he was under divine authority and therefore would be fair with them. His test guaranteed Benjamin's safe passage to Egypt, something Joseph had every reason to worry about in view of his brothers' treatment of himself. Earlier, when he saw only 10 brothers and not Benjamin, he probably wondered if the 10 had already done away with Benjamin.The brothers saw divine retribution in what had happened to them (Genesis42:21-23). The brothers confessed their guilt in dealing with Joseph as they had done in his hearing. However, Joseph wanted to assure himself that they had also borne the fruits of genuine repentance (i.e., taken a different course of action with Benjamin and Jacob). Therefore he did not reveal himself to them at this time. Joseph's heart had not become hard toward his brothers because of their treatment of him. He did not hate them (Genesis 42:24).
"There is nothing more striking in the character of Joseph than the utter absence of revengeful feeling, whether it was against his brothers, or against Potiphar, or against the chief butler." [Note: Thomas, p. 407.] Rather his heart remained tender, and his brothers' confession moved him. Reuben as the eldest and most responsible son would have been the logical choice to retain as a hostage. Yet because Joseph had overheard that Reuben had talked his brothers out of killing Joseph (Genesis 42:22), Joseph passed him over and selected Simeon, who was the next oldest. Perhaps Joseph also remembered Simeon's cruelty and callousness toward his father (Genesis 34:25; cf. Genesis 49:5-7).Verses 25-28Joseph restored his brothers' money to them out of the goodness of his heart. His gracious act would satisfy their needs but also cause them to search their souls further as they contemplated the implications of their good fortune. When they first discovered the money in one of their sacks, they regarded what God was doing to them as divine punishment (Genesis 42:28). This is the first time in the story that the brothers mentioned God. Their aroused consciences saw God at work behind what they were experiencing (cf. Genesis 42:21-22)."'Silver, money' (keseph) is mentioned twenty times (Genesis 42:25to Genesis 45:22). In the first scene of Acts 1 [Genesis 37:2-36], the brothers put a total of twenty pieces of silver before a brother (Genesis 37:28). Now they put their brother over a fortune in silver. As might be expected in an act about family reconciliation [Genesis 42:1to Genesis 46:27], other key words are 'brother' (ca. 50x) and 'father' (ca. 40x)." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, pp. 541-42.] Verses 29-38Each time Jacob's sons had left home they returned with more money but minus a brother (chs. 37, 42). [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 535.] Did Jacob think they had sold Simeon?"Joseph's brothers soften the news considerably, making it sound like Simeon was a guest of Joseph ... instead of being bound in prison. They do not mention the threat of death and do not at this time speak of the money in the one sack." [Note: The NET Bible note on 42:34.] The money in the sack widened the breach between Jacob and his sons but drew the brothers closer together. Jacob despaired because he distrusted his sons and the Egyptian ruler, and he had forgotten the promises of God (Genesis
42:36). He therefore concluded that, "All these things are against me." In reality God was causing all those things to work together for good for Jacob (cf. Romans 8:28). He would soon realize God's blessing."A great portion of our present trouble arises from our not knowing the whole truth." [Note: Bush, 2:309.] Reuben's offer of his two sons was pathetically weak (Genesis 42:37). He claimed willingness to suffer in Jacob's place, but would he really put his own sons before his brother? And how would killing Jacob's grandsons console Jacob? It is no wonder that Jacob declined Reuben's offer (Genesis 42:38).Throughout this chapter we can observe the attitude of Joseph's brothers changing. Faced with a personal crisis they acknowledged their guilt. They regarded their suffering as righteous divine punishment, and they began to place Jacob's interests above their own. However their repentance was not yet complete. The process of contrition had to run further before reconciliation was possible. [Note: See Waltke, Genesis, p. 550, for further development of the "severe mercies" God used to heal Jacob's fractured family.] "The motives and actions of Joseph and his family members are not patterns to be copied or avoided. The author's goal is to show that God's designs for Israel's fathers are working toward the end of redeeming the household of faith." [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 768.] When believers have unresolved guilt in their hearts, God often convicts their consciences to discover if they are spiritually sensitive enough to participate in His program.43 Chapter 43 Verses 1-15Judah evidently took the lead and spoke for his brothers because Jacob had already refused Reuben (Genesis 42:37-38), Simeon was in Egypt, and Levi had previously forfeited his father's confidence (ch. 34). As Reuben had done (Genesis 42:37), Judah offered to bear responsibility in Jacob's place, but in contrast to Reuben, Judah took personal responsibility for Benjamin's safety (Genesis 43:9). From this point on, Judah becomes the leader of Jacob's sons (cf. Genesis 49:8-10; Matthew 1:2; Matthew 1:17; Luke 3:23; Luke 3:33).Facing a crisis like his meeting with Esau (chs. 32-33), Jacob again prepared a lavish present to appease "the man," Joseph (cf. Proverbs 18:16).
"Jacob has no guarantee El Shaddai will do anything. His if I am to be bereaved, bereaved I shall beis the same construction as Esther's 'if I perish, I perish' (Esther 4:16) ..." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 545. See also S. B. Berg, The Book of Esther: Motifs, Themes, and Structure, pp. 123-42, for linguistic and thematic parallels between the Esther story and the Joseph story.] Compare also Rebekah's complaint when she thought she might lose both Jacob and Esau (Genesis 27:45)."The 'and Benjamin' [Genesis 43:15] hangs like the resigned sigh of a father trapped between the need to live and the possibility of a life made utterly empty through another loss." [Note: W. L. Humphreys, Joseph and His Family: A Literary Study, p. 45.] Verses 16-25A better translation of, "I had your money," (Genesis 43:23) is, "Your money had come to me."Verses 26-34Again the brothers fulfilled God's prophecy in Joseph's dreams by bowing before Joseph (Genesis 43:26-28; cf. Genesis 37:5-9). Benjamin was 16 years younger than Joseph, so he would have been 23 at this time (Genesis 43:29). Joseph was 39 (Genesis 41:46; Genesis 45:6).". . . according to the prevailing custom of the East, the very fact that they had been invited to Joseph's table was in itself an encouraging circumstance. Though the Orientals are for the most part a revengeful people, yet if you eat with them, you are thenceforward sure of having their protection. Even should you have done them the greatest injury, yet you need be under no apprehension from their resentment." [Note: Bush, 2:316.] The caste system in Egypt required that Joseph as a member of the upper class eat at a table separate from his Egyptian companions. The Hebrews sat at a third table since they were foreigners (Genesis 43:32). The Hebrews and other foreigners ate animals that the Egyptians regarded as sacred. [Note: Cf. Herodotus, Histories, 2:18, 41.] The Egyptians also followed strict rules for the ceremonial cleansing of their food before they ate it. This made the Hebrews "loathsome" to the Egyptians. [Note: See also the note on 46:34.] This segregation later allowed the Israelites to develop into a numberous nation within the borders of Egypt.
Joseph hosted a meal for his brothers who years before had callously sat down to eat while he languished in a pit. [Note: Sarna, Understanding Genesis, p. 302.] Joseph showed respect to Benjamin as his distinguished guest by giving him larger and better servings of food than his brothers received (Genesis 43:34). Special honorees frequently received double portions, but a fivefold portion was the sign of highest privilege. With this favor Joseph sought not only to honor Benjamin but also to test his other brothers' feelings toward Benjamin. He wanted to see if they would hate him as they had hated himself, his father's former favorite. Evidently they passed this test."Coming forth from this crucible, the formerly callous brothers emerge a bonded family, shining with integrity and love toward one another..." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 557.] "Those who would participate in God's program must be willing to take responsibility for their actions, make restitution when they are culpable, and accept their lot gratefully and without jealousy." [Note: Ross, Creation and . . ., p. 662.] 44 Chapter 44 Verses 1-5That Joseph practiced divination is not clear from Genesis 44:5or Genesis44:15. He may have, but this seems inconsistent with his character as a man of faith in Yahweh. It also seems unlikely since Joseph had the gift of interpreting dreams (divine revelations) from God. If anyone needed to resort to divination it would not have been Joseph. Some interpreters, however, believe Joseph's claim was just part of his ruse. [Note: E.g., Waltke, Genesis, p. 559; and Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 799.] The first statement made by Joseph's servant may have been a lie (Genesis 44:5). The second statement made by Joseph did not claim to practice divination (Genesis 44:15). Joseph said that such a person as he could do it. Leon Wood believed that Joseph meant that he had information not available to ordinary people. The Hebrew verb in both Genesis 44:5; Genesis 44:15is nahash(to whisper, mumble formulations, prophesy), not qasam, the word normally translated "to divine." [Note: Wood, The Prophets ..., pp. 32-33.] These references to divination seem intended to impress Joseph's brothers with the value of the cup that had disappeared. The Hebrew word translated "cup" here, gabia', refers to a chalice or goblet, not to a common
drinking cup, a kos. The brothers inferred that Joseph used it for purposes other than simply drinking.Verses 6-13The brothers' promise was not only rash but foolish since the contents of their sacks had surprised them previously (Genesis 44:9). Years earlier Laban had searched through Jacob's possessions for his teraphim that remained hidden in Rachel's tent. Jacob had rashly pronounced a death sentence on the guilty person (cf. Genesis 31:23; Genesis 31:25; Genesis 31:33; Genesis 31:35). Now the Egyptians searched for Joseph's cup of divination and found it in the sack of Benjamin, Rachel's son. The brothers here also rashly pronounced a death sentence on the guilty person.Joseph's steward did not hold the brothers to their promise but simply stated that the "guilty" person would become a slave (Genesis 44:10). Joseph had set his brothers up with a perfect excuse to abandon Benjamin and free themselves from slavery.Tearing one's clothing was a sign of great personal distress in the ancient Near East (Genesis 44:13; cf. Genesis 37:29). Here it expressed the brothers' sincere agony at the prospect of having to turn Benjamin over to the Egyptians and return to Jacob only to break his heart. They tore their clothes in anguish, as Jacob had done when he received news of Joseph's apparent death (Genesis37:34). The brothers did not suspect that they were the victims of fraud any more than Jacob did when his sons gave him Joseph's bloody coat. [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 564.] "That all the brothers suffered such distress is a telling sign of the new sense of unity they had developed. They had already been informed that the innocent will be released (Genesis 44:10). Moreover, that they all return to Egypt underscores their commitment to Benjamin. The brothers are of one accord without any grumbling or dissent. ... They were guilty [previously] but did not show remorse; now they are innocent and demonstrate deepest agony." [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 800.] Verses 14-17Judah acted as spokesman because he had promised Jacob that he would take responsibility for Benjamin's safety (Genesis 44:16; cf. Genesis 43:8-9). Judah regarded this turn of events as divine condemnation for the brothers' treatment of Joseph and Jacob years earlier. [Note: See D. Daube, Studies in Biblical Law,
pp. 248-55; and Sternberg, p. 306.] Really it was divine discipline that God designed to produce repentance. Judah did not try to get rid of the privileged son this time. Instead he volunteered to share his fate at great personal sacrifice.Joseph allowed Judah and the other brothers to depart and return home without Benjamin (Genesis 44:17). However Judah's refusal to do so demonstrated the sincerity of the brothers' repentance.Verses 18-34Judah explained the whole story. He did not try to hide or excuse the brothers' guilt. This is the longest speech in Genesis. Key words are "servant" (10 times), "my lord" (7 times), and "father" (13 times)."No orator ever pronounced a more moving oration." [Note: Bush, 2:329.] "I would give very much to be able to pray before our Lord God as well as Judah prays here before Joseph. For this is a perfect pattern of prayer, yes, of the true feeling which should be in a prayer." [Note: Martin Luther, Luther's Works, 7:368.] Jacob had not changed in that he still doted on his youngest son. However the brothers had changed; they now loved their father and Benjamin. Note Judah's appeal to Jacob's old age and Benjamin's youth (Genesis 44:20), descriptions designed to stress each one's vulnerability and so elicit Joseph's pity. Judah manifested concern for Jacob as well as Benjamin (Genesis 44:31). Rather than hating their father for favoring Joseph and then Benjamin, the brothers were now working for his welfare. The supreme proof of Judah's repentance, and the moral high point of his career, was his willingness to trade places with Benjamin and remain in Egypt as a slave (Genesis 44:33-34; cf. John 15:13). This is the first instance of human substitution in Scripture (cf. Genesis 22:13)."A spiritual metamorphosis for the better has certainly taken place in Judah....He who once callously engineered the selling of Joseph to strangers out of envy and anger is now willing to become Joseph's slave so that the rest of his brothers, and especially Benjamin [whom Jacob loved more than Judah], may be freed and allowed to return to Canaan to rejoin their father." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 570.] Jesus Christ, Judah's descendant, demonstrated the same attitude."Jacob will crown Judah with kingship [Genesis 49:10] because he demonstrates that he has become fit to rule according to God's ideal of kingship that the king serves the people, not vice versa. Judah is transformed from one who sells his brother as a slave to one who is willing
to be the slave for his brother. With that offer he exemplifies Israel's ideal kingship." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 567.] God teaches His people to be loyal to one another by convicting them of previous disloyalty to get them to love one another unselfishly. Such self-sacrificing love is essential for the leaders of God's people.45 Chapter 45 Verses 1-1510. Joseph's reconciliation with his brothers 45:1-15Joseph emotionally revealed his identity to his brothers. He assured them of God's sovereign control of his life and directed them to bring Jacob to Egypt. He then demonstrated his love for his brothers warmly. This is one of the most dramatic recognition scenes in all literature.Judah so impressed Joseph with the sincerity of his repentance and the tenderness of his affection that Joseph broke down completely. He wept tears of joy uncontrollably (Genesis 45:1-2; cf. 2 Samuel 13:9). Joseph then explained his perspective on his brothers' treatment of him. He had discerned God's providential control of the events of his life. Four times he stated that God, not his brothers, was behind what had happened (Genesis 45:5; Genesis 45:7-9)."This statement ... is the theological heart of the account of Jacob's line (see Genesis 50:19-21; Acts 7:9-10). God directs the maze of human guilt to achieve his good and set purposes (Acts 2:23; Acts 4:28). Such faith establishes the redemptive kingdom of God." [Note: Ibid., p. 563.] "It is divine sovereignty that undergirds the optimism of Genesis. 'God sent me to preserve life,' says Joseph." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 433.] "Happy is the man whose eye is open to see the hand of God in every-day events, for to him life always possesses a wonderful and true joy and glory." [Note: Thomas, pp. 379-80.] Part of God's purpose was to use Joseph to preserve the house of Israel through the famine (Genesis 45:7)."In using terms like remnantand survivors, Joseph is employing words that elsewhere in the OT are freighted with theological significance. It may well be that in the deliverance of his brothers and his father Joseph perceives that far more is at stake than the mere physical survival of twelve human beings.
What really survives is the plan of redemption announced first to his great grandfather." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 576.] Joseph called God "Ha Elohim," the personal God, the God of their fathers (Genesis 45:8)."The theme of divine providential care is put into words by Joseph himself (Genesis 45:7-8; Genesis 50:20), summing up the whole patriarchal story." [Note: Whybray, p. 5.] Joseph had evidently been planning for his father's family to move down to Egypt if or when his brothers would prove that their attitude had changed (Genesis45:10). Goshen (a Semitic rather than an Egyptian name) was the most fertile part of Egypt (cf. Genesis 45:18). It lay in the delta region northeast of the Egyptian capital, Memphis.Joseph then embraced Benjamin and all his brothers to express his love and to confirm his forgiveness (Genesis 45:14-15). The writer highlighted the genuine reconcilation between Joseph and his brothers by recording that they talked with him (Genesis 45:15). Much earlier they could not speak to him (Genesis 37:4). After a threefold expression of Joseph's goodwill toward his siblings (weeping, explaining, and embracing), the shocked and fearful brothers gained the courage to speak. They now recognized Joseph as the one they had so cruelly abused and who was now able to crush them if he chose to do so.Outstanding in this section is the way in which Joseph's perception of God's ways made him gracious, forgiving, and accepting rather than bitter and vindictive. He saw the loving hand of his God behind the cruelty of his brothers. He had accepted all that had come to him as the will of God, and therefore he experienced the blessing of God. Reconciliation is possible when there is forgiveness, and forgiveness is possible when there is recognition of God's sovereignty."Some have questioned the morality of Yosef's actions, seeing that the aged Yaakov might well have died while the test was progressing, without ever finding out that Yosef had survived. But that is not the point of the story. What it is trying to teach (among other things) is a lesson about crime and repentance. Only by recreating something of the original situation-the brothers are again in control of the life and death of a son of Rachel-can Yosef be sure that they have changed. Once the brothers pass the test, life and covenant can then continue." [Note: E. Fox, In the Beginning, p. 202.]
Though the Bible never identifies Joseph as a type of Christ, many analogies are significant. Both were special objects of their father's love. Their brethren hated them both, rejected their superior claims, and conspired to kill them. Both became a blessing to the Gentiles. Both received a bride. Joseph reconciled with his brethren and exalted them, and so will Christ.Verses 16-28Israel's decision to move to Egypt 45:16-28Pharaoh's invitation was as generous as it was because Pharaoh held Joseph in high regard. This is another excellent example of hospitality: giving the best that one has to a starving and needy family. Pharaoh's invitation was an invitation, not a command. Pharaoh had no authority to command Jacob to move into Egypt. Jacob was free to accept or reject this offer. If Jacob chose to accept it, he would be free to return to Canaan whenever he chose. The fact that Jacob's family could not leave Egypt once they settled there was due to a new Pharaoh's new policies concerning the Israelites as residents of Egypt. It was not due to the action of this Pharaoh (Sesostris III).". . . when Pharaoh restates Joseph's offer and 'twice' gives the brothers the 'good' (Genesis 45:18; Genesis 45:20) of the land of Egypt, it is hard not to see in the purpose of this narrative a conscious allusion to the 'good' (Genesis 1:31) land given to Adam in Genesis 1. The picture of Joseph is a picture of restoration-not just the restoration of the good fortune of Jacob, but, as a picture, the restoration of the blessing that was promised through the seed of Jacob. This picture is also a blueprint for the hope that lies for the people of Israel at the end of the Pentateuch. They are to go into the land and enjoy it as God's good gift (e.g., Deuteronomy 30:5)." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 223.] Joseph's admonition to his brothers not to quarrel on their journey (Genesis45:24) is a bit unclear. Probably he meant just that: not to become involved in arguing and recriminations over the past (cf. Proverbs 29:9). Since Joseph had forgiven them, they should forgive one another (cf. Matthew 18:21-35). However the usual meaning of the Hebrew word is to fear (cf. Exodus 15:14). So part of his meaning may be that they should not be afraid of robbers as they returned to Canaan or fearful of returning to Egypt in the future. [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 430.] Jacob had suffered as a victim of his sons' deception and malice. He had also suffered because of his own failure to cling to the promises that God had given to
his forefathers, himself, and Joseph in his dreams. Jacob always had difficulty believing without seeing. Nevertheless when he believed that Joseph was alive and ruling over Egypt, his spirit revived and he returned to a position of trust in God. For this reason Moses called him "Israel" again in the text (Genesis 45:28). Often in Genesis a final comment by a chief actor in the drama anticipates the next scene, as here."Both Abraham and Jacob figuratively receive their sons back from the dead. Both sons prefigure the death and resurrection of Christ, but Joseph even more so. Both are not only alive but rulers over all (cf. Acts 2:32-34; Philippians 2:6-11). Jacob's response on hearing the incredibly good news prefigures the response of the disciples when the women tell them that Christ is alive, having been raised from the dead. They too greet the news at first with stunned disbelief and finally with unspeakable joy when it is proved with many infallible proofs (cf. Luke 24:9-49; John 21:1-9; John 21:24-25; Acts1:3). Their faith, like Jacob's, revives them, reorients their lives, and makes them pilgrims venturing from land plagued by famine to the best land imaginable." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 578.] Verses 16-3011. Israel's move to Egypt 45:16-46:30Joseph's brothers returned to Jacob with news of Joseph's survival and prosperity. Israel (Jacob) then moved to Egypt in response to Joseph's invitation and God's encouragement. The survival of Jacob's family in Egypt through the famine recalls the survival of Noah's family in the ark through the Flood.46 Chapter 46 Verses 1-7God's encouragement to move 46:1-7The structure of chapters 46 and 47 is also chiastic. [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 439.] AGod appears to Jacob (Genesis 46:1-4)BJacob journeys to Egypt (Genesis 46:5-27)CJoseph meets Jacob (Genesis 46:28-34)DJoseph's brothers meet Pharaoh (Genesis 47:1-6)C'Jacob meets Pharaoh (Genesis 47:7-10)B'Joseph cares for his family and Egypt (Genesis 47:11-26)
A'Jacob prepares to die (Genesis 47:27-31)Beersheba lay on the southern border of Canaan (Genesis 46:1). Jacob and his caravan stopped there to offer sacrifices to Yahweh. Earlier Abraham had planted a tamarisk tree there and called on the name of the Lord (Genesis21:33). Isaac had also built an altar there and called on the Lord after God had appeared to him (Genesis 26:24-25). It was perhaps at this altar that Jacob now presented his sacrifices. Jacob must have had mixed feelings as he looked forward to seeing Joseph again. At the same time he realized he was leaving the land promised to his family by God. This move was as momentous for Jacob as Abram's journey from Ur (Genesis 12:1-3), Jacob's flight to Paddan-aram (Genesis 28:1-22), or his return to Canaan (Genesis 31:3-54), all of which God encouraged with visions."In addressing God as God of his fatherhe was acknowledging the family calling, and implicitly seeking leave to move out of Canaan. His attitude was very different from that of Abram in Genesis 12:10ff." [Note: Kidner, p. 208. Cf. Genesis 26:24; 28:13-15; 32:9.] Jacob was probably aware of the prophecy that Abraham's descendants would experience slavery in a foreign land for 400 years (Genesis 15:13). Consequently he must have found it even more difficult to cross into Egypt (Genesis 46:2-4). God revealed Himself to Jacob (the sixth time) here to assure Jacob that this move was in harmony with His will for Jacob and his family. This is one of four "do not be afraid" consolations that God gave in Genesis (Genesis 46:3; cf. Genesis 15:1; Genesis 21:17; Genesis 26:24).God promised to make Jacob's family a great nation in Egypt (cf. Genesis 12:2; Genesis 15:13-14; Genesis 17:6; Genesis 17:20; Genesis 18:18; Genesis 21:13-18). Because of the Egyptians' disdain for Hebrew shepherds Jacob's family was not in danger of suffering amalgamation into Egyptian life as they had been in danger of being absorbed into Canaanite life. The Israelites' removal to Egypt was also a divine discipline. Jacob's sons had failed to stay separate from the Canaanites so God temporarily removed them from the land He had promised them. Note the parallels with Esau's migration to Seir (cf. Genesis 36:2-8and Genesis 46:8to Genesis 47:27).God promised to go with Jacob into Egypt (Genesis 46:4). Egypt was the womb God used to form His nation. [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 574.] Though Jacob was leaving God's land he was not leaving God behind. God further promised to bring Jacob back into the land. He did this by bringing his descendants back 400 years
later and by bringing Jacob personally back for burial in the land (Genesis 50:1-21). Moreover God promised that Jacob would not die until he had seen Joseph, implying that Joseph would be present when Jacob died (Genesis 49:29-33). "Joseph will close your eyes" (Genesis 46:4) refers to a custom that Jews still practice. The eldest son or closest relative would gently close the eyes of the deceased. [Note: Sarna, Understanding Genesis, p. 313.] "Jacob's decidedly dysfunctional family is on the verge of coming together again in genuine community." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 593.] Verses 8-27Israel's household's move to Egypt 46:8-27This section contains a list of the individuals in Jacob's family about the time he moved to Egypt. As in chapter 31, when he left Paddan-aram, this move was also difficult for Jacob. Moses recorded a total of 70 persons (Genesis 46:27; cf. Exodus 1:5). The 66 referred to in Genesis 46:26excluded Jacob, Joseph, Ephraim, and Manasseh, or perhaps Er and Onan (Genesis 46:12) and Ephraim and Manasseh. Stephen said there were 75, but he must have added Joseph's three grandsons and two great-grandsons (Acts 7:14). These five were born later, as were some or all of Benjamin's 10 sons (Genesis 46:21), in all probability.". . . according to a view which we frequently meet with in the Old Testament, though strange to our modes of thought, [they] came into Egypt in lumbus patrum[i.e., in the loins of their father]." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:371.] "It [Genesis 46:8] means: shortly after the children of Israel had come to Egypt there were to be found those seventy fathers from whom were derived the seventy clans that were the prevailing clans throughout Israel's early history." [Note: Leupold, 2:1115.] This was the humble beginning of the great nation of Israel."It can hardly go without notice that the number of nations in Genesis 10 is also 'seventy.' Just as the 'seventy nations' represent all the descendants of Adam, so now the 'seventy sons' represent all the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob-the children of Israel. Here in narrative form is a demonstration of the theme in Deuteronomy 32:8that God apportioned the boundaries of the nations (Genesis 10) according to the number of the children of Israel. Thus the writer has gone to great lengths to portray the new nation of Israel as a new humanity and Abraham as a second Adam. The
blessing that is to come through Abraham and his seed is a restoration of the original blessing of Adam, a blessing which was lost in the Fall." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 225.] Verses 28-30Israel's reunion with Joseph 46:28-30This reunion recalls Jacob's former meeting with Esau (Genesis 32:3). In both situations after a long period of separation Jacob sent a party ahead to meet his relative."The land of Goshen, where the Hebrews lived, adjoined Avaris-now known to have been sited at Tell el-Dab'a (notat Tanis, as so many textbooks wrongly aver)." [Note: Kitchen, The Bible . . ., p. 76. ] This opinion rests on belief in a late date for the Exodus in the thirteenth century B.C., however, and may not be correct.Jacob had said that the loss of his sons would bring him to his grave in mourning (Genesis 37:35; Genesis 42:38). Joseph's "resurrection" had enabled his father to die in peace. Similarly the resurrection of a greater Joseph has allowed many to face death with courage and hope (cf. Philippians 1:21-26; 1 Peter 1:3).Joseph encouraged his family to be completely honest with Pharaoh (Genesis46:34). Dishonesty long plagued Jacob's family, but now Joseph led them out of this destructive behavior.Believers should respond to divine providence by making their decisions in response to the initiative of His wise leaders. They should do so with confidence in His promises and dependent on His continuing guidance and provision.Verse 31God's provision of land and food for Israel 46:31-47:12The major purpose of this section is probably to show how God sustained and blessed Jacob's family in Egypt during the remaining five years of the famine (cf. Genesis 46:12-13). It is also to demonstrate how He partially fulfilled His promises to the patriarchs to make them a blessing to the whole world (Genesis46:25) as well as fruitful and numerous (Genesis 46:27).Verse 3112. Joseph's wise leadership 46:31-47:27As a result of Joseph presenting his family members to Pharaoh, they received the best of Egypt's land. Jacob blessed Pharaoh in return for his goodness. In the years that followed, Joseph bought almost all of Egypt for Pharaoh, saved the
Egyptians' lives, and furthered Israel's prosperity and blessing. Through him all the nations near Egypt also received blessing (cf. Genesis 12:3).Verses 31-34Egyptians loathed shepherds because agriculture was the basis of Egyptian society and the Nile River sustained it (Genesis 46:34). The Egyptians organized their fields carefully and controlled them relatively easily. The comparative difficulty of controlling sheep, goats, and cows led the Egyptians to think of those who cared for these animals as crude and barbaric. [Note: See Keil and Delitzsch, 1:374-75, and my note on 43:32.] Probably too the more civilized Egyptians distrusted any nomadic peoples. [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 445. ] This resulted in the Israelites living separate from the Egyptians where they increased and developed a distinct national identity and vocation as God had promised."Rameses III is said to have employed 3,264 men, mostly foreigners, to take care of his herds." [Note: Ibid., p. 446.] 47 Chapter 47 Verses 1-12Jacob's blessing of Pharaoh (Genesis 47:7; Genesis 47:10) is unusual since it implies that in one sense (i.e., as one of God's elect) Jacob was superior to Pharaoh. Pharaoh was a man of immense worldly power and influence. "The lesser is blessed by the greater" (Hebrews 7:7)."The least and most faltering of God's children has the superiority ... in the presence of the most elevated men of the world." [Note: Darby, 1:78.] Jacob seems to have described his life as a sojourn (Genesis 47:9) primarily because he had not come into final possession of the Promised Land. He had, of course, also lived in widely separated places during his lifetime: Paddan-aram, Canaan, and now Egypt. His years were fewer than his fathers: 130 compared with Abraham's 175 and Isaac's 180. This comparison also suggests that neither Abraham nor Isaac had experienced the difficulties and distresses that Jacob had during his lifetime."When we first encountered Jacob he was struggling inside his mother's womb with his twin brother. As we come to the end of Jacob's life, he is struggling for his life in a famine-devastated Canaan. In between these first and last moments of struggle have been many trying experiences for
Jacob. His life has had more sorrow than joy." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 612.] "These words [Genesis 47:9] appear to be the author's attempt at a deliberate contrast to the later promise that one who honors his father and mother should 'live long and do well upon the land' (Deuteronomy 5:15[sic 16]). Jacob, who deceived his father and thereby gained the blessing, must not only die outside the Promised Land but also, we learn here, his years were few and difficult. From his own words, then, we can see a final recompense for Jacob's actions earlier in the book." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 227.] The text describes the area where Jacob's family settled "the land of Rameses" here rather than Goshen (Genesis 47:11). "The land of Rameses" could have been another name for Goshen, or a larger area encompassing Goshen, or a district within Goshen.The use of the name "Rameses" here and elsewhere (Exodus 1:11; Exodus12:37; Numbers 33:3; Numbers 33:5) has become a kind of "red herring" for many interpreters. It has led them to conclude that these events occurred after one of the Pharaohs named Rameses lived. Rameses I reigned about 1347-1320 B.C. However the biblical chronological references (1 Kings 6:1; Exodus 12:40; et al.) point to a date for Israel's move to Egypt near 1876 B.C. How can we account for the use of the name Rameses here then?It is possible that the name Rameses (also spelled Raamses) was in use when Jacob entered Egypt even though extra-biblical references have not confirmed this. [Note: Merrill, Kingdom of . . ., pp. 70-71; and Walter C. Kaiser Jr., A History of Israel, pp. 74-75.] "Raamses" simply means "Ra [the sun god] has created it." [Note: International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, 1939 ed., s.v. "Raamses," by C. R. Conder.] Second, Rameses may have been the name of this district later, in Moses' day, when he wrote Genesis. He could have used the modern name when writing Genesis rather than an older one that was in use in Jacob's day. A third possibility is that Rameses was the district name even later in history (e.g., after Pharaoh Rameses). A later scribe may have substituted "Rameses" for an older name that was in use when Moses wrote or when Jacob entered Egypt.Other late names appear in Genesis. For example, the town of Dan (Genesis14:14), formerly Laish (Judges 18:29), received the name "Dan" during the judges period (ca. 1350-1050 B.C.). Evidently someone after Moses' day
substituted the modern name "Dan" for the older name in Genesis 14:14. This may account for references to the Philistines in Genesis too."How different is Jacob's descent to Egypt from his grandfather's (ch. 12)! Both seek out the safety of Egypt because of famine. To save himself Abraham engages in deceit. To save his family Jacob engages in blessing. The Pharaoh at Abraham's visit was only too happy to see Abraham return to his own country. The Pharaoh at Jacob's visit insists that Jacob stay and settle on some choice land. Abraham retreats from Egypt. For Jacob Egypt is his new home. Abraham leaves Egypt alive (and happy to be so!). Jacob will leave Egypt dead." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 613.] Verses 13-19"It was axiomatic in the ancient world that one paid one's way so long as one had anything to part with-including, in the last resort, one's liberty." [Note: Kidner, p. 211.] "Both Egyptian and Mesopotamian slavery differentiated generally between formerly free people who became debt slaves and foreigners (usually war captives) who were bought and sold as chattel. Mesopotamian laws and contracts indicate that creditors obtained the service of the debt slave until the debt was covered, but chattel slaves belonged to their owners without much chance of release. Although we cannot know from Genesis, there is reason to believe that the voluntary submission of the people assumes that the enslavement was not permanent (cp. the law established by Joseph, Genesis 47:26)." [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 851.] "The idea of slavery is not attractive to the modern mind, but in the ancient world it was the primary way of dealing with the poor and destitute. If people became slaves of Pharaoh, it was Pharaoh's responsibility to feed them and care for them. It was the best way for them to survive the famine." [Note: The NET Bible note on 47:19.] This is the first mention of horses in the Bible, the primary beast of burden and military mechine at this time (Genesis 47:17). Egypt was an important source of horses in Solomon's day (cf. 1 Kings 10:28-29).Verses 13-27God's provision of land and food for Pharaoh 47:13-27
This section demonstrates the fulfillment of Jacob's blessing on Pharaoh (Genesis 46:31to Genesis 47:6and Genesis 47:7-10). Joseph was able to save Egypt and its neighbors from a very severe famine and to alleviate the desperate plight of the Egyptians. Pharaoh received money from Egypt and Canaan (Genesis 47:13-14), livestock (Genesis 47:15-17), land and slaves (Genesis47:18-21; Genesis 47:23; Genesis 47:25), and 20 percent of future harvests (Genesis 47:23-26). Such a tax was not out of line with what was common in that day in the ancient Near East. Really it was small since the average was 33 and one third percent. [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 591; Thomas, pp. 451-52. See Brian Alexander McKenzie, "Jacob's Blessing of Pharaoh: An Interpretation of Genesis 46:31-47:26," Westminster Theological Journal 45 (Fall 1983):386-99.] God blessed Pharaoh because he had blessed the Israelites with the best of Egypt. Later, in Moses' time, God cursed another Pharaoh because he had dealt harshly with the Israelites (cf. Genesis 12:3)."This entire situation informs the meaning of Exodus 1:8-11, which states that a new king came to power who did not know Joseph. Consequently-and ironically-that king began to enslave the Israelites to work in his projects. Had he remembered Joseph, he would have realized how loyal and faithful Israel could be in their sojourn in the land. Because this Pharaoh treated Israel well, they flourished, and he became powerful and wealthy; but because that new king treated Israel harshly, he would have none of the blessing of God, nor would he be able to hinder the prosperity of the people of God. From the beginning to the end of the Egyptian sojourn, prosperity and growth came from God's blessing. Those who acknowledged it shared in it." [Note: Ross, Creation and . . ., p. 687. Cf. 12:3.] Verses 20-26Early Greek writers, as well as monument evidence, seem to confirm Joseph's political reforms and redistribution of land in Egypt. [Note: Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, and Strabo. See Keil and Delitzsch, 1:379, and Cambridge Ancient History, 1:306-310.] In a very real sense Joseph became a savior of the Gentiles as well as the Jews. [Note: See Frankfort, pp. 36-43.] His 20 percent tax was generous compared to what is known elsewhere in the ancient Near East. [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, pp. 851, 860; Sarna, Understanding Genesis, p. 322; and 1 Maccabees 10:29.] "We might also add that the exception made to temple lands (Genesis47:22; Genesis 47:26) shows that Joseph's action was not a crass land
grab without regard for Egyptian tradition and society's welfare." [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 852.] Verse 27Under Joseph's administration Israel prospered, in contrast to Egypt, and increased in number without suffering deprivation or loss of independence. The fulfillment of God's promise to increase the seed of the patriarchs was advancing under Joseph's rule.A wise leader knows that prosperity comes only from God, so he makes decisions in harmony with what God has revealed about how He has promised to bless.Verse 2813. Jacob's worship in Egypt 47:28-48:22Jacob demonstrated his faith in God's promises by demanding that his sons bury him in the Promised Land. He also showed he had learned that God will bless those He chooses to bless by blessing the younger Ephraim over the older Manasseh.Verses 28-31Jacob's request to be buried in Canaan 47:28-31Jacob lived 17 years in the care of Joseph who, ironically, had spent the first 17 years of his life in Jacob's care (Genesis 37:2). As Jacob's death seemed to be approaching, he called for Joseph and made him swear to bury him in the Promised Land rather than in Egypt (cf. Genesis 24:2-3). As the father of such a person as Joseph, Jacob could have had a very fine burial in Egypt. Notwithstanding, his request demonstrated his preference for the promise of God rather than the acclaim of the world (cf. Moses, Hebrews 11:24-25).Placing the hand under the "thigh" was a ritual connected with making a solemn promise (cf. Genesis 24:2-3). Jacob worshipped God for granting his wish. He evidently prostrated himself on his bed in thanksgiving to Yahweh and or out of respect for Joseph (cf. Genesis 37:9-10). He may have been too weak to bow down on the ground (cf. Genesis 48:12; 1 Kings 1:47)."Jacob, in life too often the cunning schemer who trusted his own wiliness to achieve his ends, now in the face of death shows that his ultimate hope is the promise of God." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 452.] 48 Chapter 48
Verses 1-11Jacob's adoption of Joseph's sons 48:1-11The events recorded in the last three chapters of Genesis deal with the last days of Jacob and Joseph. In these last chapters there are many other references to earlier episodes in the book."This constant harking back to earlier episodes and promises is totally in place in a book whose theme is the fulfillment of promises, a book that regularly uses analogy between episodes as a narrative technique. And at the close of a book it is particuarly [sic] appropriate to exploit these cross-linkages to the full. It reinforces the sense of completeness and suggests that the story has reached a natural stopping point." [Note: Ibid., p. 461.] "It is appropriate that the end of Genesis should draw to a close with repeated references to the thematic word of the book (b-r-k, 'to bless')." [Note: Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, p. 863.] This very important section explains how Ephraim and Manasseh came to have equal standing with Joseph's brothers and why Joseph did not become the head of a tribe. Manasseh would have been between 20 and 26 years old at this time (Genesis 41:50; Genesis 47:28). Ephraim, of course, was younger.It was as Israel, the prince with God, that Jacob performed this official and significant act (Genesis 48:2-4; cf. Hebrews 11:21). His action was in harmony with God's will and purpose for the chosen family, and it involved the patriarchal promises to which he referred (cf. Genesis 35:10-12)."Jacob may be losing his health, but he is not losing his memory. He can recall the incident of many years earlier when God appeared to him at Luz [Bethel] (Genesis 35:9-15). He repeats the promises of God about fertility, multiplication, that his seed will be an assembly of nations, and finally the promise of land. The only essential element of that theophany he does not repeat is the name change from Jacob to Israel. In this way, Jacob minimizes his role and maximizes God's role in that event." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 628.] By adopting Joseph's first two sons as his own and giving them equal standing with Joseph's brothers, Jacob was bestowing on Joseph the double portion of the birthright (Genesis 48:5; cf. Genesis 48:22; 1 Chronicles 5:1-2). He was also in effect elevating Joseph to the level of himself. Joseph was the first son of Jacob's intended first wife. Jacob's reference to Rachel (Genesis 48:7) shows that she,
as the mother of Joseph, was in his mind in this act. This act honored her. The other sons of Joseph received their own inheritances."Verse 7 has long puzzled biblical interpreters. Why the mention of Rachel at this point in the narrative, and why the mention of her burial site? If we relate the verse to what precedes, then the mention of Rachel here could be prompted by the fact that just as she had borne Jacob 'two sons' (Genesis44:27, Joseph and Benjamin) at a time when he was about to enter (Genesis48:7) the land, so also Joseph gave Jacob 'two sons' (Genesis 48:5) just at the time when he was about to enter Egypt." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 271.] Jacob's eyes were failing in his old age (Genesis 48:10) so he may not have recognized Ephraim and Manasseh (cf. Genesis 27:1). However it seems more likely that by asking "Who are these?" (Genesis 48:8) Jacob was identifying the beneficiaries as part of the legal ritual of adoption and or blessing (cf. Genesis27:18). The eyesight of both Isaac and Jacob failed in their old age."There is a slight touch of irony here: Jacob had secured Isaac's blessing by guile and deceit, while Joseph is securing the blessing for his sons by honesty and forthrightness." [Note: Davis, p. 294.] Jacob gave God the credit that he was able to see Joseph's sons (Genesis48:11). He had come to acknowledge God's providential working and grace in his life as he realized how faithful God had been to him in spite of his unfaithfulness.Verses 12-20Jacob's blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh 48:12-20Ephraim and Manasseh had been standing close to Jacob, between his knees, so he could see and touch them (Genesis 48:12). Ancient Near Eastern adoption ritual included placing the adopted child on the knees of the adopting parent to symbolize giving him birth in place of the birth mother. [Note: See I. Mendelsohn, "A Ugaritic Parallel to the Adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh," Israel Exploration Journal (1959):180-83.] Now Joseph took them back to where he had been standing, in front of his father. He then bowed before Jacob."Joseph may be the second most powerful man in Egypt, but he never loses his respect for his father, and he never ceases to be gracious toward him." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 635.] Arranging Manasseh and Ephraim in the normal order for Jacob's blessing, by their age, Joseph then brought them forward again (Genesis 48:13).
This is the first of many scriptural instances of the laying on of hands (Genesis48:14). By this symbolic act, a person transferred a spiritual power or gift to another. This rite was part of the ceremony of dedicating a person or group to an office (Numbers 27:18; Numbers 27:23; Deuteronomy 34:9; Matthew 19:13; Acts6:6; Acts 8:17; etc.), offering sacrifices, and the healings Jesus Christ and the apostles performed. In this case Jacob symbolically transferred a blessing from himself to Joseph's sons. Once uttered, blessings were irreversible (cf. Numbers23:20; Romans 11:29).Jacob's blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh also carried prophetic significance and force (Genesis 48:19-20). Under the inspiration of God, Jacob deliberately gave Ephraim the privileged first-born blessing and predicted his preeminence. This was the fourth consecutive generation of Abraham's descendants in which the normal pattern of the firstborn assuming prominence over the second born was reversed: Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, Joseph over Reuben, and Ephraim over Manasseh. We can see this blessing in the process of fulfillment during the Judges Period when the tribe of Ephraim had grown very large and influential. The combined tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh increased from 72,700 in the second year after the Exodus (Numbers 1:32-35) to 85,200 40 years later (Numbers 26:28-37). By contrast the tribes of Reuben and Simeon decreased from 105,800 to 65,930 during the same period. The Ephraimites took the lead among the ten northern tribes and flourished to the extent that the Jews used the name Ephraim equally with the name Israel. The Ephraimites occasionally demonstrated an attitude of superiority among the tribes that we can trace back to this blessing (e.g., Judges 12:1; et al.). The Hebrew phrase translated "a multitude (group) of nations" (Genesis 48:19) appears only here in the Old Testament and probably means a company of peoples, namely, numerous. The reference to Israel in Genesis 48:20applies to the nation in the future from Jacob's viewpoint.Verse 21-22Jacob's announcement of Joseph's birthright 48:21-22Jacob (Israel, the prince with God) firmly believed God's promise to bring his descendants back into the Promised Land (cf. Genesis 46:4). Jacob's prophetic promise to Joseph (Genesis 48:22) is a play on words. The word for "portion" means ridge or shoulder (of land) and is the same as "Shechem." Shechem lay in Manasseh's tribal territory. The Israelites later distributed the land among the tribes (Joshua 24:1) and buried Joseph at Shechem (Joshua 24:32). Jacob
regarded the land that he had purchased there (Genesis 33:18-20) as a pledge of his descendants' future possession of the whole land. In Jesus' day people spoke of Shechem (near Sychar) as what Jacob had given to Joseph (John 4:5).Jacob spoke as though he had taken Shechem from the Amorites by force (Genesis 48:22). Probably Jacob viewed Simeon and Levi's slaughter of the Shechemites as his own taking of the city (Genesis 34:27-29). [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 601.] Another view is that Moses used the perfect tense in Hebrew, translated past tense in English ("took"), prophetically. In this usage, which is common in the Old Testament, the writer spoke of the future as past. The idea was that, since God predicted them by divine inspiration, events yet future are so certain of fulfillment that one could speak of them as already past. Here the thought is that Israel (Jacob) would take Canaan from the Amorites, the most powerful of the Canaanite tribes, not personally, but through his posterity (cf. Genesis 15:16). [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:385.] Other scholars have suggested still another explanation."It is not impossible that the property which Jacob owned at Shechem was taken away by the Amorites after he left the region (cf. Genesis 35:4-5) and that he eventually returned and repossessed it by force of arms?" [Note: Davis, p. 294. Cf. H. Vos, p. 165; Aalders, 2:267; Leupold, 2:1158; Bush, 2:384; and Thomas, p. 464.] Apparently Jacob gave Joseph Shechem, which he regarded as a down payment of all that God would give his descendants as they battled the Canaanites in the future."For Joseph it was an honour that his father entrusted him with his funeral in Palestine (47.30f.). In 48.21f., the implication in family law is finally drawn: Joseph, instead of Reuben, receives the double heritage as a sign of his primogeniture (48.22a). Just as the son is commanded to bury the father in Palestine, so it is in Palestine that the priority of Joseph within the family takes effect. These two scenes thus enclose a detailed blessing for Joseph and his sons, so filling out the promise of his superiority in Palestine (48.22a)." [Note: Horst Seebass, "The Joseph Story, Genesis 48 and the Canonical Process," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35 (June 1986):30.] Believers whom God has shepherded for a lifetime can see God's purposes and plans for the future more clearly even though the maturing process has been
difficult for them. [Note: See William J. McIlwain Jr., "My Ways Are Not Your Ways," Exegesis and Exposition 3:1 (Fall 1988):92-100.] 49 Chapter 49 Verses 1-4Reuben. As the first-born, Reuben could have anticipated preeminence among his brothers, leadership of the tribes, priesthood within the family, and the double portion of the birthright. However, he forfeited these blessings preferring rather to give free reign to his lust (Genesis 35:22; cf. Esau). The leadership of the tribes therefore went to Judah, the priesthood to Levi eventually (cf. Exodus 32:25-29; Numbers 3:12-13), and the double portion to Joseph. Joseph was the first-born of the favored Rachel whereas Reuben was Leah's first-born. Joseph's priority was not due solely to Jacob's preference, however, but to the will of God as revealed in Joseph's dreams."About no other tribe do we know so little as about Reuben....The tribe produced no significant man, no judge, no king, no prophet." [Note: von Rad, p. 423.] No priest came from Reuben either. Irresolution marked the Reubenites in the time of Israel's judges (Judges 5:15-16)."This forfeiture is fulfilled historically in later times when the Reubenites living in Transjordan are integrated into the tribe of Gad."From this first oracle the teaching is clear that the behavior of one individual affects the destiny of his descendants." [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 647.] Verses 1-2814. Jacob's blessing of his sons 49:1-28Having blessed Pharaoh (Genesis 47:7-10) and Ephraim and Manasseh (Genesis 48:15-20), Jacob next blessed all 12 of his sons and foretold what would become of each of them and their descendants. He disqualified Reuben, Simeon, and Levi from leadership and gave that blessing to Judah. He granted the double portion to Joseph. This chapter is the last one in Genesis that gives the destinies of the family members of Abraham's chosen line. It contains blessings, curses, judgments, and promises, all of which are prominent in Genesis.
"These chapters, then, take the story from the first mention of Abram in Genesis 11:26to the first mention of Israel as a people, a people blessed by God with a special blessing." [Note: Whybray, p. 4.] The writer of Genesis called this section Jacob's blessing (Genesis 49:28). Isaac had prophetically outlined the future of his two sons' families (ch. 27). Earlier Noah had prophesied the future of Canaan's descendants (Genesis 9:25-27). Likewise Jacob by divine inspiration foretold major characteristics of each of the twelve tribes that would issue from his twelve sons (Genesis 49:1). Each blessing contains at least one of these elements: 1) a synopsis of the son's personality, 2) a hint as to his potential, and 3) a prophecy of his future."Jacob predicted how things would turn out for each of his sons and their descendants, should they continue to display the character they had displayed thus far." [Note: Joel D. Heck, "A History of Interpretation of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33," Bibliotheca Sacra 147:585 (January-March l990):20. See also Stigers, p. 325.] This is the first long poem in the Bible."This chapter, in that it is poetry, seems to be intended to be a high point of the toledot ya'aqob(i.e., chaps. 37-50), if not the whole book of Genesis." [Note: R. E. Longacre, Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence, p. 23.] This blessing rested on God's promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Each son learned how his branch of the family would benefit from and be a channel of blessing relative to the patriarchal promises. The natural character of each son and the consequences of that character would have their outcome in the future of the Israelites. The choices and consequently the characters of the patriarchs affected their descendants for generations to come, as is usually true."The Spirit of God revealed to the dying patriarch Israel the future history of his seed, so that he discovered in the character of his sons the future development of the tribes proceeding from them, and with prophetic clearness assigned to each of them its position and importance in the nation into which they were to expand in the promised inheritance." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:387.] "It is fitting that the Book of Genesis, which opened with the creative power of the divine word, closes with the notion of the effective power of the inspired predictive word of the patriarch." [Note: Sarna, Understanding Genesis, p. 331.]
Jacob assumed in his blessing that his family would increase and possess the land of Canaan. This optimism reveals his faith."God gave His people this prophecy to bear them through the dismal barrenness of their experiences and to show them that He planned all the future. For Jacob's family, the future lay beyond the bondage of Egypt in the land of promise. But the enjoyment of the blessings of that hope would depend on the participants' faithfulness. So from the solemnity of his deathbed Jacob evaluated his sons one by one, and carried his evaluation forward to the future tribes." [Note: Ross, "Genesis," p. 98.] The scope of his prophecy extends into the millennial age. God did not fulfill these prophecies completely during the lifetime of Jacob's sons. He did not do so during Israel's years in the land beginning with the conquest of Joshua and ending with the captivities either. Moreover, He has not done so since then."Jacob's last words to his sons have become the occasion for a final statement of the book's major theme: God's plan to restore the lost blessing [lost in the Fall] through the offspring of Abraham."By framing Jacob's last words between Genesis 49:1and Genesis 49:28, the writer shows where his interests lie. Jacob's words look to the future-'in days to come'-and draw on the past, viz., God's blessing of mankind. It is within that context we are to read and understand Jacob's words in this chapter." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," pp. 274, 275.] Verses 5-7Simeon and Levi.These two were brothers not only by blood but also in disposition. They were violent, wicked men (Genesis 34:25-31). Because of their wickedness they would have no independent tribal territory, but their descendants would live scattered among the other tribes. By the second census, just before the Israelites entered Canaan, the Simeonites had become the smallest tribe (Numbers 26). Moses passed over the Simeonites in his blessing of the Israelites (Deuteronomy 33). This tribe received only a few cities within the allotment of Judah rather than a separate geographical territory (Joshua 19:1-9). The Simeonites eventually lost their tribal identity and lived among the other tribes, especially Judah (cf. 1 Chronicles 4:27; 1 Chronicles 4:38-43).The Levites also received no large land grant, but Joshua gave them several cities in which they lived among the other tribes (Joshua 21:1-42). The Levites gained a special blessing at Mt. Sinai by siding with Moses when the other
Israelites apostatized (Exodus 32:26-28; Numbers 3:5-13; Numbers 18:6-32). This resulted in their becoming a tribe of priests in Israel.Even though these first three tribes suffered punishment for their sins, Jacob's prophecies about them were still a blessing. They retained a place in the chosen family and enjoyed the benefits of the patriarchal promises as Jacob's heirs."By demoting Reuben for his turbulence and uncontrolled sex drive, Jacob saves Israel from reckless leadership. Likewise, by cursing the cruelty of Simeon and Levi, he restricts their cruel rashness from dominating." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 603.] Verses 8-12Judah.Judah possessed a lion-like nature. As such he became the leader of the other tribes (Genesis 43:3-10; Judges 1:1-2; Judges 3:9; Judges 20:18; etc.). Through him came David and then Messiah, "the Lion of the Tribe of Judah" (Revelation 5:5). Judah led the other tribes in the march through the wilderness (Numbers 2:1-3) and in the monarchy.The scepter (Genesis 49:10) was and is the symbol of royal command, the right to rule. Judah was to exercise leadership among the tribes until Shiloh came at which time Shiloh would extend Judah's rule to worldwide dominion. Judah's leadership was not consistently preeminent in the history of Israel, however.Shiloh (lit. the "bearer of rest") is a proper name. It refers here not to the city in Canaan of that name but to a person who would arise in the tribe of Judah and bring peace to the world, namely, Messiah (cf. Genesis 3:15; Numbers 24:17). We should probably translate it "whose it (the ruler's staff) is" or "to whom it belongs" rather than transliterate it "Shiloh" (cf. Ezekiel 21:26-27). [Note: See Eugene H. Merrill, "Rashi, Nicholas de Lyra, and Christian Exegesis," Westminster Theological Journal 38 (1975):74-75.] Another live translation option is "until tribute is brought to him." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 478. See Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, pp. 892-97, for an extended discussion of the interpretive possibilities.] "Whichever of these interpretations is adopted, ... all at least agree that this line is predicting the rise of the Davidic monarchy and the establishment of the Israelite empire, if not the coming of a greater David. And if the primary reference is to David, traditional Jewish and Christian exegetes would agree that like other Davidic promises it has a greater fulfillment in the Messiah." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 478.]
Because Reuben, Simeon, and Levi had disqualified themselves, Judah received the leadership of the tribes and the blessing that normally went to the first-born. This is how the leadership of the tribes and the Messianic line fell to Judah. Jacob evidently forgave Judah's earlier sins because he repented and later sacrificed himself for Jacob's wellbeing.Everything after the word "until" (Genesis 49:10) describes millennial conditions."No Judean would tie his ass to a vine [Genesis 49:11], for it would be eaten up, of course. Anyone who can be so careless and who can wash his garments in wine, lives in paradisiacal abundance." [Note: von Rad, p. 425.] "The sense of the imagery is that wine, the symbol of prosperity and blessing, will be so plentiful that even the choicest vines will be put to such everyday use as tethering the animals of burden and vintage wine will be as commonplace as wash water. Genesis 49:12returns to the picture of the king of Judah. His eyes are darker than wine and his teeth whiter than milk. He is a picture of strength and power." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 277.] This prophecy is the first of many that follow in the Old Testament that associates bumper crops with the golden age of future blessing.Verses 13-21These verses contain Jacob's shorter blessings on the other sons except Joseph and Benjamin, whose blessings follow these."True to the poetic qualities of the text, the images of the destiny of the remaining sons are, in most cases, based on a wordplay of the son's name. The central theme uniting each image is that of prosperity." [Note: Ibid.] Zebulun(Genesis 49:13) later obtained territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Sea of Galilee. This was a thriving commercial area, though Zebulun may never have had permanent "waterfront property." It is possible, however, that Zebulun and Issachar shared some territory (cf. Deuteronomy 33:18-19), so Zebulun could have bordered the Sea of Galilee. Perhaps the men of Zebulun worked for the Phoenicians in their maritime trade (cf. Deuteronomy 33:19). Zebulun will extend to the sea in the Millennium when its borders will reach as far as Sidon on the Mediterranean coast (cf. Ezekiel 48:1-8; Ezekiel 48:23-27). An important caravan route from Mesopotamia to Egypt passed through his territory.
Issachar(Genesis 49:14-15) would prefer an agricultural way of life and what it produced rather than political supremacy among the tribes. Lower Galilee, including the valley of Jezreel, which Issachar obtained, was a pleasant and productive farming area. [Note: See Joel D. Heck, "Issachar: Slave or Freeman? [Genesis 49:14-15]," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29:4 (December 1986):385-96.] Dan(Genesis 49:16-18) would be a judge in Israel. This prophecy came to reality partially during Samson's judgeship. Dan's victories benefited all Israel. Yet this tribe led Israel into idolatry (Judges 18) and was therefore similar to a serpent (Genesis 49:17; cf. Genesis 3:1). Jacob asked Yahweh to deliver his other descendants from Dan's influence in the future (Genesis 49:18)."Jacob's heartfelt aside in 18 is enigmatic: it could arise from a father's prayer, like Abraham's for Ishmael (Genesis 17:18), or possibly from the sudden memory of his own treachery, long renounced, called up by the acts and the words (heel[s], 17, 19) associated with his own name." [Note: Kidner, p. 220.] Gad(Genesis 49:19) would also be effective in battle.Asher(Genesis 49:20) would enjoy very fruitful soil, namely, the lowlands of the Carmel (lit. vineyard) range north along the Mediterranean coast. This area contained some of the most fertile land in Canaan.Naphtali(Genesis 49:21) evidently would enjoy the admiration and appreciation of the other tribes in a special way (cf. Judges 4, 5). Jacob could have meant that Naphtali would exchange his freedom for a more sedentary domesticated lifestyle in the land, or that he would accommodate to the Canaanites. [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, p. 483.] Verses 22-26Joseph's blessing was especially abundant. The two tribes that bore his sons' names would see the fulfillment of it even though during his lifetime Joseph had faced much opposition. Judah received the leadership of the tribes, but Joseph obtained the double portion of the birthright (cf. 1 Chronicles 5:2).Jacob's names for God in this blessing are noteworthy: "the Mighty One of Jacob" (cf. Isaiah 1:24; et al.), "the Shepherd" (Genesis 48:15), and "the Stone of Israel" (cf. Deuteronomy 32:4; Deuteronomy 32:18, et al.)."Blessing is one of the key words of Genesis ... occurring some eighty-eight times in the book. Here in two verses [25 and 26], like the finale of a fireworks display, the root occurs six times (verb 1x, noun 5x) making a
brilliant climax to the last words of Jacob. The God-given blessings of the future will far outshine those already experienced." [Note: Ibid., p. 486.] Verse 27Benjaminproduced many warriors in Israel's history (e.g., Ehud, Saul, Jonathan, et al.) and demonstrated a warlike character among the tribes (Judges 5:14; Judges 20:16; 1 Chronicles 8:40; ch. 12; 2 Chronicles 14:8; 2 Chronicles 17:17; et al.).Verse 28In his twelve sons Jacob blessed all the future tribes of Israel. [Note: See Darby, 1:80-82, for further observations concerning the fulfillment of these prophecies.] This is only the second mention of the 12 tribes in the Bible, the previous reference being in Genesis 49:16, where we read "the tribes of Israel.""Within Jacob's words to each of the sons (after Judah), the theme of blessing has been evident in two primary images. First, the reverse side of the blessing is stressed in the imagery of the victorious warrior. The defeat of the enemy is the prelude to the messianic peace. Second, the positive side of the blessing is stressed in the imagery of great prosperity and abundance. Behind such imagery of peace and prosperity lies the picture of the Garden of Eden-the Paradise lost. The focus of Jacob's words has been the promise that when the one comes to whom the kingship truly belongs, there will once again be the peace and prosperity that God intended all to have in the Garden of Eden." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," pp. 278-79.] Sailhamer also proposed that this poetic section plays a significant role in the larger structure of the Pentateuch."At three macrostructural junctures in the Pentateuch, the author has spliced a major poetic discourse onto the end of a large unit of narrative (Genesis 49; Numbers 24; Deuteronomy 31). A close look at the material lying between and connecting the narrative and poetic sections reveals the presence of a homogeneous composition stratum. It is most noticeably marked by the recurrence of the same terminology and narrative motifs. In each of the three segments, the central narrative figure (Jacob, Balaam, Moses) calls an audience together (imperative: Genesis 49:1; Numbers 24:14; Deuteronomy31:28) and proclaims (cohortative:Genesis 49:1;Numbers 24:14; Deuteronomy 31:28) what will happen (Genesis 49:1; Numbers 24:14; Deuteronomy 31:29) in 'the end of days' (Genesis 49:1; Numbers 24:14; Deuteronomy 31:29)....
"In sum, the apparent overall strategy of the author in these three segments suggests that one of the central concerns lying behind the final shape of the Pentateuch is an attempt to uncover an inherent relationship between the past and the future. That which happened to God's people in the past portends of future events. To say it another way, the past is seen as a lesson for the future...."The narrative texts of past events are presented as pointers to future events. Past events foreshadow the future. It is not hard to see that such a hermeneutic leads to a form of narrative typology. We should, then, look for signs of such a typology in the composition of the smaller units of narrative in the Pentateuch as well as in the arrangement of the legal material." [Note: Idem, The Pentateuch . . ., pp. 36-37.] A believer's works during this life significantly determine the extent of divine blessing that he or she and their descendants will receive in the future.Verse 29Plans to bury Jacob in Canaan 49:29-50:14Jacob again expressed his faith in God's promises that Canaan would be the Israelites' homeland by requesting burial in the Cave of Machpelah near Hebron (cf. Genesis 47:29-31; Genesis 48:21-22)."This scene concludes Jacob's finest hour. On his deathbed-a scene extending from Genesis 47:28to Genesis 49:32-Jacob has assumed total and dynamic leadership of the family. Even Joseph bows down to him." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 617.] Jacob died peacefully and was "gathered to his people" (i.e., reunited with his ancestors, implying life after death, in the place of departed spirits; cf. Genesis25:8). Jacob was 147 when he died (Genesis 47:28). Joseph evidently had Jacob's body preserved as a mummy (Genesis 50:2). [Note: See Davis, Paradise to ..., pp. 302-3, or H. Vos, p. 169, for how the Egyptians prepared mummies.] Jacob's elaborate funeral was probably due both to the high regard in which the Egyptians held him as Joseph's father and to the Egyptians' love of showy funeral ceremonies (Genesis 49:7-10). [Note: See E. W. Hengstenberg, Egypt and the Books of Moses, pp. 70-71.] It is the grandest state funeral recorded in the Bible, appropriate since Jacob's story spans more than half of Genesis. The Egyptians mourned for Jacob just two days less than they normally mourned the death of a Pharaoh. [Note: Ross, "Genesis," p. 100.]
"This grand funeral procession and this exaltation of Jacob as a king by the Egyptians foreshadows Israel's exodus from the world and gives a foretaste of the time when the nations hail a son of Jacob as King." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 618.] The record of Jacob's burial in the land is important to the purposes of Genesis. God had promised the land to Abraham and had given the patriarchs small portions of it. The faith of these men that God would fulfill His promises and do for their descendants all that He had promised is obvious in their view of Canaan as their homeland. They counted on the future faithfulness of God who had proved Himself faithful to them personally during their lifetimes.Verse 2915. Deaths and a promise yet to be fulfilled 49:29-50:26Joseph received permission from Pharaoh to bury Jacob in Canaan as he had requested. He then assured his brothers of his favor in spite of how they had treated him and testified that God would fulfill His promises.50 Chapter 50 Verses 15-21Peace in the family of Jacob 50:15-21The words of Joseph's brothers were probably not true (Genesis 50:16-17). Jacob may have left such a message even though Moses did not record it in Genesis. Since Moses did not record it, he probably intended the reader to conclude that Jacob had not. The brothers feared because of their uneasy consciences rather than Joseph's behavior (cf. Genesis 50:19).Joseph's response to his fearful brothers reveals his attitudes toward God and them (Genesis 50:18-21; cf. Genesis 27:41). He humbled himself under God's authority. He regarded God as sovereign over him and the One who had providentially guided all the events of his life. He knew that God's purposes for him, his family, and all people were good (cf. chs. 1-2). Consequently he behaved with tender compassion toward his brothers. He proved to be his brothers' keeper (cf. Genesis 4:9). Genesis opened with a couple, Adam and Eve, trying to become like God. It closes with a man, Joseph, denying that he is in God's place. [Note: E. I. Lowenthal, The Joseph Narrative in Genesis, p. 156.] Judas was to Jesus what Joseph's brothers were to Joseph. [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 707.]
"The sequence of deceptions that causes this family so much suffering finally comes to an end when Joseph chooses not to take revenge on his brothers." [Note: Richard Elliott Friedman, "Deception for Deception," Bible Review 2:1 (Spring 1986):30.] "Each sentence of his threefold reply is a pinnacle of Old Testament (and New Testament) faith. To leave all the righting of one's wrongs to God (19; cf. Romans 12:19; 1 Thessalonians 5:15; 1 Peter 4:19); to see His providence in man's malice (20; cf. on Genesis 45:5); and to repay evil not only with forgiveness but also with practical affection (21; cf. Luke 6:27ff.), are attitudes which anticipate the adjective 'Christian' and even 'Christlike.'" [Note: Kidner, p. 224.] "Behind all the events and human plans recounted in the story of Joseph lies the unchanging plan of God. It is the same plan introduced from the very beginning of the book where God looks out at what he has just created for man and sees that 'it is good' (tob, 1:4-31). Through his dealings with the patriarchs and Joseph, God had continued to bring about his good plan. He had remained faithful to his purposes, and it is the point of this narrative to show that his people can continue to trust him and to believe that 'in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose' (Romans 8:28)." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 283.] Verses 22-26The death of Joseph 50:22-26Joseph lived to see God's blessing on his children's children. He died 54 years after Jacob's death when he was 110 years old. [Note: See Hugh C. White, "The Joseph Story: A Narrative that 'Consumes' Its Content," Semeia 31 (1985):49-69.] Some Egyptian texts refer to 110 as the ideal lifespan. [Note: Hamilton, The Book . . . Chapters 18-50, p. 709.] Joseph probably could have experienced burial in a pyramid or had some other grand burial in Egypt. However, he wanted his family to embalm him and place his body in a coffin in Egypt. Later descendants could bury him in the Promised Land near Shechem. They did so in the parcel of land his father had bought and given to him, perhaps under Abraham's oak (Genesis 48:22; cf. Joshua 24:32). This expression of Joseph's faith in God's promises to his forefathers provides a fitting climax for the Book of Genesis and the formative period of Israel's history. Genesis 50:24contains the first reference to the three patriarchs together.
"The outstanding feature of Joseph's life was faithful loyalty to God under all circumstances." [Note: Thomas, p. 379.] "The story of Joseph illustrates patient faith and its reward. It ends the book of Genesis and brings its theme to a literary climax. ... But the story of Joseph shows us that the road to victory, dominion, mastery, and judicial authority, is through service, the humble service of a slave. Through service and suffering, God purges and destroys indwelling sin in the believer (not completely, but sufficiently), builds character in him, and fits him for the mastery of the world." [Note: Jordan, pp. 67-68.] "The Book of Genesis, like the Old Testament in microcosm, ends by pointing beyond its own story . . . . Joseph's dying words epitomized the hope in which the Old Testament, and indeed the New (cf. Revelation 22:20), would fall into expectant silence: God will surely visit you." [Note: Kidner, p. 224.] Believers who trust that the Lord will fulfill His promises to bless in His own inscrutable ways will demonstrate their faith in the way they die.