1:1 The Hebrew word for "God," Elohim, is grammatically plural, but does not indicate a numerical plural (i.e., "gods"). Hebrew uses the plural form to indicate honor or intensity, sometimes called the "plural of majesty." The consistent appearance of a singular adjective (Ps 7:9) or verb (Gn 20:6) used with Elohim shows that the one God is intended. Where the plural adjective or verb occurs, the context determines whether Elohim means the "gods" of the nations (Ex 20:3) or whether the plural agreement is simply due to scribes being more grammatically precise (Gn 19:13; cp. 1:26-27). From the Israelite standpoint the oneness of the true Deity is never in question. In Dt 6:4 "The LORD," that is, Yahweh the God of Israel, is called "our Elohim," and declared to be "One."
1:14-18 The lights were "signs" that mark off time periods. They were not to be heeded as astrological signs, correlating heavenly movements with events on earth. The worship of heavenly bodies is condemned(Dt 4:19).
1:26-27 "Let Us make . . ." (3:22; 11:7; Is 6:8) does not indicate multiple gods. Such a polytheistic view would be inconsistent with the lofty theology of the chapter and with the singular "His own image" (Gn 1:27;cp. 5:1-2). Ancient theories of the universe's origin typically explained creation as the outcome of either a sexual cohabitation of male and female deities or of a battle between the major deity and some other hostile entity. The Bible uniformly affirms that God is asexual with no corresponding female consort. God made the universe by His authoritative speech, not by battling chaos deities. Genesis 1 was written in part to show that the view of the physical world current at that time (i.e., physical entities representing various deities) was wrong. The cosmos is inanimate and entirely under the control of the one God. Plural and singular forms are combined in 1:26-27 (cp. "the Spirit of God," v. 2), reflecting God's unity and yet His fullness. Subsequent scriptural revelation develops this further.
Although humans are created in the "image" and "likeness" of God (the terms are essentially synonyms; cp. 5:3), it does not follow that God has a body. "Image" or "likeness" often refers to a physical representation of something that may be non-material. Man was created to serve as God's representative to govern the earth. Since man is God's image-bearer, murder merits the strongest retribution (9:6). The OT prohibits making any material image of God (Ex 20:1-4; Dt 4:16) because God is spirit (Jn 4:24). In Lk 24:39 Jesus explains that a spirit "does not have flesh and bones" (see Is 31:3). Because God is spirit, He is invisible (Jn 1:18; Rm 1:20; Col 1:15; 1 Tm 1:17).
2:2-3 "Rested" (Hb shabat) does not imply fatigue but means only "ceased" because it is connected to the completion of the work of creation.
2:4-26 Chapter 2 is a second creation account only in the sense that it gives a more detailed accounting, not a contradictory one. While chapter 1 provides a general description, chapter 2 is specific. Twofold accounts were common in ancient theories of creation (e.g., the Babylonian story of Atrahasis). The differences in the order of the creation events are due to the narratives' respective purposes. The first gives a loosely chronological account, gathering creation events into a discernible pattern to show the symmetry of creation's purpose. The second is topical, focusing on the sixth day by expanding on the creation and the relationship of the man and woman. Genesis 2 presupposes chapter 1 and does not duplicate all the creation events.
2:7,21-22 The creation of the first man and woman is not myth. The author of the account intends to portray a historical event. The heading "these are the records/family records" (v. 4) occurs 11 times in Genesis to introduce genealogies and historical narratives (e.g., 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:27). The first man (Hb adam) is treated in genealogies as a historical individual named "Adam" (5:1; Lk 3:38). Since the name Adam means "man(kind)," the author also intends him to represent humanity in general (Gn 3:17-18; cp. Rm 5:12-21). The account of the man and woman's creation views them as special creations, not merely types of humans. The concept of evolution of humans from lower forms is inconsistent with the author's purpose in this narrative.
2:10-14 The lack of archaeological evidence for the garden of Eden would not mean that the place existed only in myth. Despite advances in archaeology, what has been discovered of the ancient Near East is only a small percentage of what might one day be found. The two rivers Tigris and Euphrates exist today in modern Iraq. The identities of the Gihon and Pishon are uncertain but may have been local streams or canals. Floods, climatic changes, and land shifts since ancient times may well have brought about significant changes in topography.
2:19 The verb rendered "formed" can also be "had formed" (NIV), which would alleviate the alleged contradiction with the order of animals created before man (1:24-26). Moreover, chapter 2 may be understood as a topical telling, setting the creation of the animals in contrast to the creation of the woman so as to highlight her dignity as fully human.
3:1 While snakes do not speak, this is more than just a folk story explaining why people tend to find them repulsive. The animal's life is finite and will end in a future destruction ("all the days of your life," v. 14). Snakes/serpents in ancient times were associated with both life and death, wisdom and evil (Nm 21:6,8; Mt 10:16). Thus they served as effective symbols for wisdom that gives life or for evil that leads to death. Though a literal creature, the serpent in the garden embodied the evil being (Satan) that opposed God and the human couple (see Jb 1–2; Zch 3:1-2; Rm 16:20). The serpent was an unclean animal (Lv 11:42) and symbolized the enemies of God (Is 14:29; Rv 12:9; 20:2). The snake talked to the woman as would a deceitful opponent.
3:4 The couple did not immediately die physically (cp. 2:17). By God's grace, their death was postponed till a later time. But their expulsion from the garden (vv. 23-24) shows that the word of God was indeed fulfilled as the immediate consequence of their disobedience. They were cut off from access to the tree of life, which symbolized the source of life (2:9; Rv 2:7; 22:2,14,19). In Israel expulsion from the tabernacle in the camp, such as quarantine (e.g., Lv 13:46), meant that the person was ceremonially dead until he was declared fit again. The human couple's expulsion signaled their spiritual death (see Eph 2:1). That their physical death occurred is confirmed by the refrain "then he died" in Adam's genealogy (Gn 5:5). Physical death for humans was the result of disobedience in the garden (Rm 5:12-21; 6:23).
3:8 That God walked is a common figure of speech (anthropomorphism). From the human standpoint, it is not possible to describe God's interaction with people without attributing to Him some of the properties of a human body, such as back or face (Ex 33:11,23), eyes or ears (1 Kg 8:29; Ps 34:15), arm or hands (Ex 3:20; 6:6; Dt 4:34; 33:3; Is 53:1; Heb 1:10; 10:31). God does not have a physical body (see note on 1:26-27), although He can manifest Himself in the form of a man (Gn 18:16-22;32:30; Ezk 1:26) or even a burning bush (Ex 3:2-4) or a fiery pillar (Ex 13:21-22).
3:9-11 The Bible is full of affirmations of God's unlimited knowledge (see 16:13; Ex 3:7; Jb 12:13; 28:23-24; 36:4; Ps 33:13-15; 139:1-4; Is 46:10; Jr 23:24; Mt 10:29; Ac 15:8; Heb 4:13). Therefore God's questions here are rhetorical; He is not unaware of the couple's location and what had transpired in the garden. The passage describes God as a parent who instructs His children with restoration as His purpose. He did not question the serpent, because He had no plan to redeem the tempter.
3:14 The snake's penalty does not suggest a belief that snakes once walked on legs. The characteristic slithering of the snake was a sufficient symbol of its degradation. Food laws were to prohibit the eating of animals who crawled along the ground, making them abhorrent to Israel (Lv 11:42). The mention of "dust" further symbolized the snake's humiliation for its crime (see Mc 7:17).
3:15 This predicted battle between the serpent and the woman would not be a literal confrontation in the garden. The language is figurative, indicating the life-and-death struggle between the adversary and the human family borne by the woman. Like the word "sheep" in English, the word "seed" in Hebrew is both singular and plural, meaning either descendants without number, taken as a whole, or one particular descendant. The passage incorporates both meanings by referring to the ongoing opposition to the people of God by their enemies and by predicting the rise of a particular seed, Jesus Christ, who will destroy the serpent in the end (Rm 16:20; Rv 12:9-10).
3:16 The woman's penalty was not in bearing children but in the pain attached to giving birth. "Yet he will dominate you" does not warrant the enslavement of women as chattel. Woman is also created in the image of God and has the honored role of giving birth by which the blessing for all humanity is realized (1:26-28). The Lord's pronouncement predicts the future rivalry between the sexes for dominance, a rivalry resulting from the sinful condition of the man and woman. These words are not an exhortation directed to the man to dominate his wife. Hebrew law recognized the vulnerability of women and required special deference to them (Ex 22:22; Dt 25:5-10). The NT explicitly commands husbands to love and honor their wives (Eph 5:25; Col 3:19; 1 Pt 3:7), and Christian husbands and wives observe their spiritual equality (Gl 3:28) while carrying out their respective God-given roles.
3:20 Although skeptics find it absurd that Eve "was the mother of all the living," the meaning of her name makes sense in this passage. Her husband recognized that she was the source of the "seed" (v. 15) that would eventually defeat the serpent and restore life. She was the first woman to bear children (4:1), and Adam showed faith in God's promise that she would bear more in the future.
3:22 God's admission that the man "has become like one of Us" does not indicate that the serpent's suggestion that God was insecure about His position was correct. God was not threatened by the man's wisdom when He expelled him from the garden, but it was necessary to prohibit the couple's access to the tree of life or thepenalty of death for disobedience could not be carried out. Although the human couple would die, it was ultimately merciful to deny them the tree; otherwise they would live forever in a sinful and painful world. Godgraciously provided for their new environment outside the garden (v. 21), and ultimately for their eternal salvation through the promised "seed." For the plural "Us," see note on 1:26-27.
4:4-5 God preferred Abel's offering not because He liked meat more than vegetables or shepherds more than farmers, but because Abel's offering was made in faith (Heb 11:4). He offered the best of his flock ("the firstborn"), and Cain offered only "some" of his produce (Gn 4:3; cp. Ex 23:19; Lv 2:14).
4:12,16-17 That Cain founded a city does not contradict the Lord's declaration that Cain will be a "restless wanderer." "Nod" sounds similar to the word "wanderer" (Hb nad), creating a wordplay between the punishment of wandering and the region where he roamed. The point of the curse is that Cain could no longer live a settled life as a farmer. Therefore he developed the first urban center "east of," that is, no longer affiliated with, his parents and their descendants.
4:15 Although the only other humans mentioned thus far are his parents, Cain's fear of retaliation for the murder of Abel is understandable. Adam fathered many children during his 930 years (5:4-5), producing future generations that could exact revenge. That God marked to safeguard Cain does not contradict the divine provision of capital punishment (9:6). By this sign God declares that the taking of life is His prerogative, in contrast to Cain's presumptuous murder of Abel. With the threatening development of widespread violence, the Lord instituted capital punishment as a societal obligation to restrict murder (6:11-12; 8:21).
4:17 The age-old question, Who was Cain's wife?, has raised the specter that Cain committed incest, which was prohibited (Lv 18:6-18). But the Mosaic laws were not given until much later, and even the implied condemnations of incest in Genesis (Lot in 19:30-38; Reuben in 35:22; 49:3-4) relate to a time later than that of Cain and his siblings.
4:19,23 The Bible nowhere explicitly forbids polygamy, and Lamech is the first of many polygamists in the OT, including favored patriarchs and kings (e.g., 29:21-30; 1 Sm 27:3). We must not assume, however, that the absence of explicit prohibition entails divine approval. First, God's mind and will may also be expressed implicitly through story and description. Here Lamech's arrogant vengefulness is clear, showing him to be a true descendant of the murderer Cain. His practice of polygamy, then, is to be understood as typical of the wicked whose willful pride seeks to be satisfied by the multiplication of wives or other symbols of status and acts of self-indulgence (Gn 26:34; 28:9; 36:2; Dt 17:17). Second, God's mind and will can be gauged from positive statements like Gn 2:21-25, which mandates the divine pattern of monogamous marriage (see Mal 2:14,16; Mt 19:4-6). Plural marriage is not, and never has been, biblical marriage. When polygamy occurred, it had predictably disastrous results for the family (e.g., 2 Sm 13:4-37). We may not fully understand why God did not denounce Abraham, Jacob, David and others when they corrupted true marriage in this way, but we should not take His silence as indicating His lack of interest in the matter.
5:24 That God "took" Enoch obliquely describes his ascension to heaven (cp. Heb 11:5). He alone in this genealogy avoided death, thereby reflecting the hope that death was not inevitable. The statement in Jn 3:13 that "no one has ascended into heaven" except the Son of Man refers in context to the acquisition of spiritual truth, not to physical ascension as with Enoch and Elijah (2 Kg 2:11). If Nicodemus cannot understand the spiritual significance of Jesus' teaching when He uses an earthly analogy (spiritual birth), he cannot understand the things of heaven where there is no analogy (Jn 3:12).
6:2-4 The "sons of God" and the "Nephilim" are not evidence of polytheism or mythical lore about a race of giants. On the contrary, the account repudiates the pagan belief concerning a race of giants by insisting that the children born to "the sons of God" were no more than "men" (v. 4)—not semi-divine beings. These were perhaps the warrior class, infamous for their acts of violent oppression in this decadent period (vv. 5-8). The "sons of God" have been traditionally identified either as fallen angels (see Jb 1:6; 2:1) who had intercourse with women (1 Pt 3:19-20; 2 Pt 2:4), or the favored descendants of Seth (see Dt 14:1; Jn 1:12-13) who intermarried with the wicked Cainite women (cp. the two genealogies in Gn 4–5). In the first interpretation, the Nephilim are usually understood as the descendants of fallen angels. The translation "giants," popularized by the KJV, reflected the Septuagint gigantes, which relied on the allusion to a race of tall people in Nm 13:32-33. Based on the phrase "both in those days and afterwards" (Gn 6:4), others interpret the Nephilim as contemporaries of "the sons of God," not their children. The Nephilim of Moses' day could not have been descendants of the same Nephilim, since these were destroyed in the flood. The Hebrew spies exaggerated ("we seemed like grasshoppers," Nm 13:33) in their allusion to the "Nephilim" because of their ancient reputation for violence.
6:6-7 Although "regret" is the customary translation of the Hebrew verb in verse 6, its basic meaning is to "be pained." This is the sense here, as suggested by the parallel "be grieved." As it hurts a loving parent to see the disobedience of his children, so it pained God to see how wicked men had become. Human regret arises from one's inability to foresee or alter the effects of one's actions. But because of God's perfect knowledge and unlimited power He is not subject to these human limitations. The correspondence between human emotions and the heart of God provides insight into the mystery of God's nature. Although the Bible describes God as responding with human emotions, thecorrespondence is not exact. People often act out of sinful, irrational, or uncontrolled emotion, but God's emotion is always consistent with His righteous character and eternal purposes (cp. 2 Th 2:13). A close reading of the passage shows that God's disappointment was not with human creation but with human sin. God is not indifferent to sin's effects, but His grief is not a feeling of helplessness. Coupled with His pained heart is the just recompense of His anger (cp. Ps 78:40-41; Is 63:10).
6:9–8:22 The story of Noah and the ark testifies to the Bible's reliable memory of this catastrophic event. Other ancient cultures had similar stories, including the Sumerian account of Atrahasis and the Babylonian epic of Gilgamesh. The Bible's resemblance to these accounts can be attributed to a shared memory, rather than to borrowing. Although some remarkable parallels exist (such as the kind and purpose of the released birds, 8:7-12), the differences in detail and purpose are substantive. For example, in the Gilgamesh story the ark is a perfect cube of about 197 feet; such a vessel would capsize and sink in turbulent water. Noah's ark possessed a seaworthy shape of a long rectangular barge (450 ft. by 75 ft.). More importantly, the pagan accounts are typically polytheistic. The purpose of the flood is to rid the earth of the pesky and noisy humans whose explosive population disturbs the sleep of the gods, and the survivor receives immortality from the gods. By contrast, the biblical account presents a high moral motivation for the flood, through which God judges sin and also purifies the earth. Moreover, Noah is decidedly mortal, and God preserves the human family out of His grace. The lessons of the flood account are Noah's obedience to God's word and the perpetuation of God's blessing for humanity and the world.
6:14-22 The ability of the ark to house the many animal species known today has elicited doubt, but this is the result of a misreading of the text. The word "kinds" refers to general categories; the animals on board were representative of genera, or groups of species. Moreover, the three levels of the ark provided approximately 1.4 million cubic feet. The gathering of the animals was divinely guided (v. 22), so it is reasonable to propose that the Lord superintended the care and feeding of the animals.
6:17; 7:19-23 Although the geological record contains ample evidence of widespread, devastating local flooding, most geologists claim to see no evidence of a universal flood. Nevertheless, many ancient cultures preserved the memory of a worldwide flood. Some Christian geologists contend that only a worldwide flood can best explain the earth's sedimentary layers. The description "all the high mountains . . . were covered" indicates the same (7:19-20), and the planet's lack of sufficient water for such a flood can be explained if the water's weight pushed mountains higher than they were before. The Biblical account abounds with expressions that indicate a universal flood (e.g., "all flesh under heaven"). Some who hold to the idea of a regional flood explain this as exaggeration or hyperbole or claim that it represents only the situation as viewed from the ark. But the flood's purpose was to judge all human life with divine destruction (e.g., 6:7,12-13; cp. Lk 17:26-30; 2 Pt 2:5; 3:6), and animal life would not have to have been rescued from a local flood unless all life were located in that region. From the Bible's standpoint, Noah's flood was the greatest flood in world history (9:15).
6.19–7:3 Those unfamiliar with ancient Near Eastern narrative literary style have supposed that repetitions in the flood account result from the clumsy collage of two contradictory traditions. Repetition in Hebrewnarrative is a common device that gives emphasis, coherence, and structural symmetry. For example, the command to take on board "two" of every creature (6:19-20) is a general instruction to gather the animals in reproductive pairs. Then follow the specific instructions to collect "seven" such pairs of clean animals, which will be used for offerings (8:20), and only one pair of unclean animals (7:2-3; cp. 7:13-16). In this case, the repetition reveals that there was more than one purpose for collecting the animals. The "clean" and "unclean" distinctions would later be standardized (Lv 11; Dt 14), but recognition of these differences occurred before Moses. The Sabbath was also observed before Moses' command normalized it (Ex 16:23-29; 20:8-11).
7:4,11-12,17,24 The chronology of the flood may seem confusing but it is consistent. Noah waited on the ark seven days before the 40 days of rain began. The waters "surged" for 150 days (five months) of destruction(v. 24). This includes 40 days of rain followed by 110 days, during which the waters began to recede until the ark settled somewhere on the mountains of Ararat. In 40 more days land became visible (8:5-6). For about three weeks Noah sent out birds until the dove failed to return (8:12). But Noah had to wait another three months before he saw that the "ground was drying" (8:13), and another month before he and his shipmates could disembark, 377 days after climbing aboard.
7:12 Although some contend that Noah's flood was the first time it ever rained, therefore a new experience for Noah's generation, the Bible does not say this. The first mention of something is not necessarily the first time it occurred. Sunrise and sunset occurred before they are specifically mentioned in the text (15:12,17; 19:23).
7:13-17 The entry of Noah, his family, and the animals into the ark is repeated here (in the case of the animals twice, vv. 13,15). The repetition is part of the literary buildup to the concluding remark, "Then the LORD shut him in" (v. 16).
7:20 Where did all that water go? The story is internally consistent with its claims of God's special intervention at points in the flood events. The Lord "caused a wind to pass over the earth" (8:1). It was a divinely-induced wind that divided the sea and dried the riverbed to allow the exodus (Ex 14:21). God accomplished the drying of the earth by a unique means in the times of Noah and Moses. Some prefer the explanation that the flood was not global but local (see 6:17 note).
8:1 The expression that "God remembered" does not imply that He had forgotten. It is a figure of speech meaning that God acted on the basis of His promise to save Noah (cp. 19:29; Ps 105:42).
8:13-14 Was the date of the earth's drying the first month or the second month? The drying of the "ground" (adamah, v. 13) on the first of the month was the beginning, and the drying of the whole "earth" (erets, v. 14) was not complete until the twenty-seventh day of the second month.
8:21-22 The Lord mercifully promised not to destroy the earth again in the same manner (by flood), yet He will destroy the earth again by fire (2 Pt 3:10-13). The promise of uninterrupted seasons refers to the general pattern of seed and harvest that would provide agricultural stability for the people of earth. It does not entail the absence of famines and other natural disasters due to climatic conditions that might arise.
9:2 After the flood the animal world received a new decree imposing on them an inherent fear of humans. As with the creation decree that animals are subject to mankind, the new command is not a license for the inhumane treatment of animals. The new environment following the flood's judgment was a hostile one characterized by violence and death. Humans maintained their authority over the lower animals, but the relationship would involve struggle in a sinful, fallen world (Rm 8:19-23). All life is valuable to God (Lv 17:14), and the new decree contributed to the preservation of both human and animal life. Israel's laws provided animals for food but prohibited wanton killing (Lv 17:8-16;Dt 12:23; 15:21-23) and required special protections (Ex 20:10; 23:11; Dt 22:10; 25:4). Despite the fall, God did not revoke man's stewardship of the earth.
9:4 The purpose of prohibiting the eating of unbled meat (cp. Lv 17:10-14; Ac 15:29) was to affirm the value of life, for the blood represents the life force (Lv 17:14; 19:26) and the prerogatives of life and death belong to God alone. But the commands to Noah's family in verses 1-7, such as diet, procreation, and capital punishment, were never intended to be absolute, as was shown by subsequent laws (e.g., proscribed foods, Lv. 11). Not every divine command or prohibition in the Bible applies to everyone. Jeremiah, for example, was told not to marry (Jr 16:2), and Isaiah was told to go naked and barefoot for three years (Is 20:2-4). The prohibition required by the Jerusalem Council was a temporary measure (Ac 15:28-29), designed to appease the ritual practices of the Jews for the sake of the unity of the church. Paul's higher principle permitted the consumption of previously unlawful foods (Rm 14:20; Col 2:16-17). Unbled meat is not prohibited for Christians today, even though some groups (e.g., the Watchtower Society, see the article "Are the Teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses Compatible with the Bible?" in Lk 23) have mistakenly inferred that the Bible prohibits the transfusion of whole blood and certain products.
9:12-17 The passage does not claim that God newly created the rainbow, indicating that it had not existed before; rather, the Lord attached new meaning to the bow's appearance as "the sign of the covenant."
9:25 Although Ham was the one guilty of dishonoring his father, the curse is against his son Canaan. The Bible prohibits inflicting judgment against an innocent son in the place of his guilty father (Dt 24:16; Ezk 18:20), but it also recognizes that the influence of sinful parents typically leads children to follow their pattern of behavior (Ex 20:5). This was especially the case in ancient Israel's patriarchal society where multiple generations often lived in the household of the patriarch.
The creation account makes it clear that all people are of equal worth (Gn 1:26-27). Slavery contradicts this principle. Those OT and NT passages that provide for and regulate slavery assume it as a regrettable aspect of sinful human society. Early indications that slavery eventually would become obsolete were laws that prohibited the mistreatment of slaves (see notes on Ex 21:2,7; 21:20-21,26). The gospel and the brotherhood of the saints (Gl 3:28; Phm) undermine the practice of slavery. These considerations suggest that Noah's curse of Canaan was either figurative, or a misunderstanding of the Lord's intent. The narrative does not portray Noah as an entirely exemplary character (v. 21).
10:5,20,31 The description of the nations in chapter 10 chronologically follows the tower of Babylon incident in 11:1-9. However, the narrative reverses the order for rhetorical effect, concluding the pre-Abrahamic history with an illustration of the incorrigibility of human sin. As long as the people of the tower had a common language (11:1,6-9) they could maintain their prideful autonomy despite God's command to spread over the earth (9:1). (That the nations continued to develop diverse languages was a natural result of their dispersion, 11:8-9.) To underscore his point, the author then returns in 11:10-26 to the genealogy of Shem, ancestor of the patriarchs through whom salvation will come to the nations (12:3).
10:22; 11:10 According to 11:10, Arpachshad was Shem's firstborn. In 10:22 Shem's children are listed geographically rather than in birth order (see notes on 11:10; 11:26,32).
11:7 On the plural pronouns for God, see note on1:26-27.
11:10 Shem was 100 years old "two years after the deluge" and thus 98 at the flood. But Noah was 500 when he "fathered Shem, Ham, and Japheth" (5:32) and 600 when the flood began (7:6,11), suggesting that Shem may have been 100 at the flood. But this neglects some facts that the reader is expected to observe: (1) Shem, Ham, and Japheth were not triplets (cp. 9:24), so they were not all born when Noah was 500, making 5:32 an approximation. The NIV translation "After Noah was 500 years old" is syntactically possible, but no word for "after" is in the text. (2) Since Ham was the youngest, Noah's sons are apparently listed in order of importance rather than birth order. Japheth may have been the oldest, born when Noah was 500, allowing Shem to be born two years later. (3) We are not told whether "two years" counts from the beginning or the end of the flood period, which lasted one year and ten days (7:11; 8:14).
11:26,32 How old was Abraham when he left Haran? If Abram was the eldest son, he was born when Terah was 70. Genesis 12:4 says Abram was 75 when he departed, which would mean that he left 60 years before the death of his father. However, Stephen's sermon indicates that he left after the death of Terah (Ac 7:4), making Abram 135 years old. Was Abraham 75 or 135 when he left? There are three plausible responses. (1) Haran was the eldest son born when Terah was 70 (Gn 11:26) and Abraham was the youngest son born 60 years later when Terah was 130. Thus, 70 (birth of Haran) + 60 (birth of Abraham) + 75 (Abraham's departure) = 205. Abraham was 75 when his father died at 205. A difficulty for this proposal is the surprise of Abraham at fathering a son at 100 (17:17) when his own father did so at 130. (2) The Samaritan Pentateuch has Terah's death at "145 years"; some scholars conclude that Stephen and the Jewish author Philo (On the Migration of Abraham, 177) reflected an alternative tradition. (3) The author announced the death of Terah proleptically for thematic reasons, to close out the career of Terah since he plays no further part in the story. Stephen's sermon gave a general accounting of the history of Israel (e.g., sometimes telescoping events) rather than a strict chronology which did not impact his central message.
12:1 Did God call Abram from Ur or from Haran to leave Mesopotamia for Canaan? According to 11:31, it was Abram's father Terah who decided to take his family from Ur in Mesopotamia to Canaan, though we are not told why. The context of verses 1-3 suggests that Abram was in Haran when God summoned him to Canaan. According to Stephen in Ac 7:2 God appeared to Abram in Mesopotamia "before he settled in Haran" and called him to leave for a new land. If God had spoken to Abram while Abram was in Ur, this could have been part of Terah's motive for moving his family. God could then have repeated His summons to Abram to proceed to Canaan after his father had died in Haran (Gn 11:32).
12:2 Abram would not become "a great nation," as God had promised, during his lifetime. However, his descendants apparently numbered over two million by the time of the exodus (some 600,000 men, plus their wives and many children; Ex 12:37). Abram has become significant in history as the physical father of Israel and the one regarded as spiritual "father" by Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Abram became "a blessing" by his example of proper worship and proclamation of the Lord's name (12:8), as well as by his justifying faith (15:6; Rm 4:3). His name may be reflected in a tenth-century b.c. Egyptian list of places in the Negev that includes "The Enclosure of Abram."
12:3 The blessing and curse here have played out repeatedly in history. The nations or groups (plural: "those") who have blessed Abram or his descendants have been blessed by God. The individuals (singular: "him") who have cursed Abram or Israel have been "cursed," coming eventually to a bad end. This, however, is not a blank check for the actions of unbelieving Israel, as if the nation could do no wrong or deserves no criticism or has no accountability for its actions. It is a general ongoing promise. Acts 3:25 and Gl 3:8 indicate that all the families of the earth are blessed in the availability of salvation through Jesus Christ, and Gl 6:16 refers to the church as "the Israel of God" through which, by implication, that blessing is extended.
12:5 In referring to "the people [Abram] had acquired in Haran" the Bible is not sanctioning slavery. "Acquired" may refer to household servants, which wealthy families of the era had, rather than to slaves. Furthermore, even characters whom the Bible views favorably do not always act in accordance with what God approves. In evaluating their actions, we must recall that God did not reveal His will in its entirety at the beginning, but rather gradually throughout the course of biblical history. Biblical narrative often conveys the divine and human authors' evaluation of a character's actions implicitly rather than explicitly, not by denouncing the actions but by recording their outcome. The disgrace resulting from Abram's lie in verses 12-13 is an example of this.
12:6 Some have supposed the note "At that time the Canaanites were in the land" (see note on 13:7) means that in the author's day they were no longer there. If so, Moses could not be the author. But "that time" is clearly not being contrasted to the author's time but to Abram's time. The point is that when God made His promise to Abram the land was already occupied.
12:10-15 A tomb painting of Khnumhotep III at Beni Hasan from 870 b.c. depicts a trading donkey caravan of "Asiatics" visiting Egypt. Their beards, multicolored robes, weapons, and goods would have been typical of visitors from Canaan during the time of the patriarchs. During the first half of the second millennium b.c. Egyptian kings had a northern palace in the eastern Delta region near Avaris. Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen points out that "the pharaohs were commonly partial to attractive foreign ladies, as finds and texts for the Middle and New Kingdoms attest."
13:7 "At that time" does not mean the Canaanites and Perizzites were not there when the book was written but that in Abram's time the land promised to him was already occupied (see note on 12:6). So Abram and Lot were competing not only with each other but also with others for water and food.
14:1-2 Skeptical scholars in earlier generations doubted the historical existence of some, or all, of the kings in these verses. Although these kings of ancient city-states cannot be identified (Amraphel is no longer supposed to be the later famous king Hammurabi), their names are recognized as authentic ancient names from the regions they are here said to rule.
14:3,8,10 The "Valley of Siddim" was apparently the name of the land now covered by the Dead Sea, one of the world's richest areas in mineral content (perhaps reflected by the presence of "many asphalt pits," v. 10). How the valley filled in to become a great body of water is not known, though it appears the flow of the Jordan River out of the south end of the valley into the Arabah was blocked, damming the river. That could have been caused by upheaval related to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
14:14-16,24 Many have scoffed at the assertion that Abram and the 318 male servants and slaves of his household and his allies (v. 24) could have routed the sizeable armies of these four kings (v. 9). However, the power of the Lord has overcome much greater military odds (cp. 2 Kg 19:35-36), including a similar victory at night by Gideon and his purposely pared-down force of 300 (Jdg 7:9-22).
15:2-3 Extrabiblical texts from the ancient Near East (e.g., discoveries at Nuzi and Larsa) confirm the practice of servants becoming heirs in some cases.
15:4-6 The Lord expected Abram to believe the extraordinary assertion that, even at his advanced age, he would have his own physical child and that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars in the sky. Abram believed what the Lord told him, becoming the great model of justifying faith.
15:7 This verse does not necessarily conflict with the apparent sense of Terah rather than Abram leading his family from Ur to Haran, as suggested by 11:31. In a patriarchal culture, Abram was part of the extended household of his father.
15:8-9 Although the wording of verse 8 could be taken to reflect unbelief on Abram's part (cp. Ex 7:17; Nm 16:28; Lk 1:18), verse 6 clarifies that is not the sense intended. The Lord's response, in which He sets up a ceremony to reaffirm the covenant He is granting (Gn 15:9-10,17-18), shows that Abram was simply seeking a sign of the divine promise upon which to hang his continued confidence (cp. Is 7:10-14). Abram's complaint shows he takes God seriously.
15:13-14 Some scholars hold that Moses, or a later editor of Genesis, is here simply projecting a knowledge of later history into the narrative in the guise of advance prophecy. The logic is that it could not possibly have been known in Abram's time (2000 b.c.) that Israel would be in Egypt for "400 years" and that they would be "enslaved and oppressed" for most of that period. Such a perspective, however, is rooted in an anti-supernatural bias and flies in the face of the bulk of predictive biblical prophecy that has been fulfilled in amazing detail.
15:13,16 Verse 13 predicts the length of Israel's Egyptian captivity as "400 years." Verse 16 says it will end in "the fourth generation." That would make the average life span of a generation 100 years, which seems far-fetched by the standards of almost all of recorded history. However, since Jacob lived to be 147 years old, part of it in Egypt (47:28); Joseph lived to be 110, most of it in Egypt (50:22,26); and Moses lived to be 120, the first 40 of which were in Egypt (Dt 34:7), the idea of a hundred-year generation is plausible. In addition, the recorded life spans before the flood were much longer. It may well be that, for various reasons, human life spans were decreasing over time, just as they have gradually increased in modern times due to improvements in medicine, diet, and sanitation.
15:18 The boundaries of the promised land in the Abrahamic covenant in verse 18 can be misunderstood. It is highly unlikely that the "brook of Egypt" is the Nile River. Rather, it is almost surely the Wadi el'Arish, a riverbed that is dry much of the year (except the rainy season), located midway between southwestern Israel and the Nile. The reference to the "Euphrates River" is not to the entire length of that great river, just its northwestern arm in Syria where it is closest to Israel. Whether or not Israel has ever controlled the full extent of these boundaries is a matter of debate.
15:19-21 Over a century ago there was no historical or archaeological evidence for the existence of several of the peoples listed among these 10 nations ("Kenites . . .Jebusites"). As a result, certain scholars doubted the veracity of this verse. A century ago, however, important archaeological findings have greatly strengthened the likelihood that all 10 did, in fact, exist when Abram and Moses lived.
16:1-4 Hagar's conceiving a child by Abram seems like adultery or polygamy to modern readers, and does not reflect a later Christian standard. But it would have been common in that culture for a female servant to become a secondary wife for the purpose of bearing children (e.g., Rachel's and Leah's servants, Bilhah and Zilpah, who bore four of Jacob's sons who became heads of four of the 12 tribes of Israel). This custom was noted in the Code of Hammurabi and the Nuzi tablets.
16:6-9 This narrative may appear to sanction slavery and to devalue the human life of Hagar and her unborn son. However, the actions played out here are a reflection of the culture and Sarai's selfish jealous rage against her servant girl.
16:6-14 The trusting obedience of Hagar to the words of the Angel of the Lord strongly implies that she shared the faith of Abram (15:6). Hagar is the "mother" of the Arab peoples.
16:7,9-11,13 The angel of the Lord may have been an angel sent as a spokesman for the Lord (Hb mal'ach means "messenger"). However, verse 13 suggests that Hagar understood she was speaking directly to the Lord. Thus, in the history of interpretation, many have understood the Angel of the Lord to be a Christophany (i.e., a pre-incarnate appearance of the Second Person of the Trinity, later born as Jesus Christ).
16:11 Although not referring to the same people, biblical names beginning with i/j [Hb y] are extremely common in archaeological texts from the ancient Near East of the early second millennium b.c., the time of the patriarchs. They diminish in frequency sharply after that time. Such names include Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. According to W. C. Kaiser, Jr., "If the stories had been invented in much later times, such as those of the Babylonian Exile, the use of such names would have been most unlikely since they had little or no currency in that era."
16:12 The prophecy regarding Ishmael and his descendants may seem harsh and stereotypical. However, the description of a mobile warlike people has been true to the history of many of Ishmael's descendants among the Arab peoples. It is also striking that, while none of the 10 nations listed in 15:19-21 has survived to the present day, the Arab peoples are now among the largest ethnic groups in the world.
17:1,18 It had been 13 years since Ishmael was born and, apparently, there had been no further revelation from the Lord during that period. That would mean Abram and Sarai were under the impression that Sarai's scheme to have a child that was legally hers through her servant, Hagar, had God's blessing. Verse 18 indicates that Abram viewed Ishmael as his blood heir and was emotionally attached to him as his son and the means through which God's promise would be fulfilled.
17:1-2 The Abrahamic covenant is in the form of an unconditional contract with Abram and his divinely chosen descendant; ultimately it is guaranteed by the faithfulness of God alone (v. 2). Nevertheless it has a secondary conditional aspect. To enjoy the benefits of this covenant, Abram must still obey God's commands. This requirement is seen here in the words: "Live in My presence and be devout" (v. 1).
17:5,10-14,15,21 Throughout the Bible God's plan is clarified in successive parts, sometimes over an extended period. This gradual unfolding of His purpose in history is called "progressive revelation." In this case the revelation of the Abrahamic covenant began 24 years earlier (12:1-4). It has been restated and clarified (13:14-17; 15:17-21) and, at this point, becomes even more specific. The renaming of Abraham and Sarah, the giving of a sign for the covenant, and the statement that Sarah would physically bear the son of the promise, as well as the date of birth for the child, represent a further expansion of the revelation.
17:9-14,23-27 Many peoples of Old Testament times practiced circumcision, so it is of religious significance not only in the Judeo-Christian tradition. However, as Jr 9:25-26 and Rm 2:28-29 make clear, what set apart the circumcision related to the Abrahamic covenant was its expectation that the people would be "circumcised in heart" (i.e., trusting the Lord and obedient to the commitment represented by the outward sign of circumcision).
17:17 In ordinary human experience 90-year-old women do not have babies and 100-year-old men do not father them. The birth of Sarah's child prefigures other remarkable births that reveal God's intervention in the human scene, including the birth of John the Baptist and the virgin birth of Christ. As Mary is told, "nothing will be impossible with God" (Lk 1:37).
17:18,20-21 Abraham's prayer concerning Ishmael inv. 18 did not go unanswered. Just as there were 12 tribes of Israel, there were 12 tribes of Ishmael (v. 20; 25:16). The difference between the two was God's sovereign choice of Isaac's descendants as His covenant people (17:21).
18:1–19:2 At first glance, the identity of the persons with whom Abraham (chap. 18) and Lot (chap.19) interacted may seem confusing. There are references to "the LORD" (18:1,10), "three men" (18:2,9) and "two angels" (19:1). The best explanation is that both the Lord and angels took human form (i.e., appeared to be human beings). Of the three, the Lord conversed with Abraham (18:1,10-33), while the two angels (19:1) continued on to Sodom, where Lot responded to them (19:1-2) in a manner similar to the way in which Abraham had met the three men in 18:1-4), implying that their appearance remained human.
18:9-14 An ironic play on words occurs in chapters 17–18. Abraham laughed when he heard that Sarah and he would have a child at their advanced ages (17:17). Sarah laughed when she found out the timing of the baby's birth. They laughed at the human impossibility of this happening (v. 12). Ironically, God named the miraculously conceived child Isaac," which means "laughter." The only sin involved in these episodes, however, was that Sarah, out of fear of the Lord, lied about her laughter (v. 15).
18:20-21 It is possible to misunderstand these verses in two ways: (1) that God is distant from His creation; and (2) that God is not all-knowing. God already knows the wretched spiritual state of Sodom (Ps 139:1-12), which has "come up" to Him in His transcendence (i.e., existence over and beyond the created universe). However, because God is also fully immanent (i.e., personally involved with His creation), this passage speaks of His "coming down" to "see" the sinfulness of Sodom for Himself. There is an echo here of the story of the tower of Babylon; when the people thought to raise up a tower into the sky, God "came down" (Gn 11:5) to see what they had done.
18:23-32 The negotiation between the Lord and Abraham does not imply that man is able to manipulate God in order to change His mind. Rather, it demonstrates God's desire to be merciful, contrasted with mankind's wickedness and addiction to evil behavioral patterns. God is willing to forego stated judgment, as evidenced by His relenting after the repentance of the people of Nineveh in response to Jonah's preaching (Jnh 3:10). However, unlike Nineveh, not even the minimal number of 10 righteous people could be found in Sodom (Gn 18:32; 19:12-13). A broader issue here is the meaning of being "righteous." Even though the grossly wicked behavior of the people of Sodom is in view in the immediate context, the preceding account of Abraham's life emphasizes that the basis of his righteousness was faith in God's promises (15:6).
19:4-8 The term "sodomy" is derived from this passage. It is widely held that the severity of God's judgment of Sodom had to do with the prevalence of homosexuality there. This view is disputed by some, notably some religious homosexuals. Lot's offer of his virgin daughters (vv. 7-8) probably indicates a pervasive environment of sexual sin. Nevertheless, God had already said that Sodom's sin was "extremely serious" (18:20) and homosexuality is the sin spotlighted in the text (v. 5). Paul also makes clear that a tragic part of the downward spiral of mankind's sinful rebellion against God, which incurs His wrath, is homosexual behavior (Rm 1:26-27).
19:11 God sometimes protects His people through blinding those who threaten them, as here (cp. 2 Kg 6:18). He also reveals Himself to people by imparting physical (Jn 9:5,25) or spiritual (2 Kg 6:16-17) sight.
19:12-29 The theological theme of this section is similar to that in the latter part of chapter 18: God's mercy and compassion are revealed despite justly deserved judgment. In this case, the angels interact with Lot and compassionately adjust their original instructions in accord with Lot's physical limitations (vv. 17-22). Still, the proclaimed judgment arrived as soon as Lot's family was safe (vv. 23-24). Even then, Lot's wife was lost because she disobeyed the express command not to look back at the destruction (v. 26).
19:24-25,27-29 The truth of this entire chapter has been questioned due to a supposed lack of related archaeological evidence. A plausible explanation for that absence is that the locations of Sodom, Gomorrah, and the other cities of the plain are now under the Dead Sea. Possibly, as the result of geological upheaval (earthquakes are not uncommon in that area), the south end of the Jordan River rift was blocked. This created a body of water so thick in mineral content that it has not been feasible to carry out significant exploration of the deep bottom of the south end of the Dead Sea.
19:30-38 This explanation of the origins of the Moabites and Ammonites should not be taken as approval of the incestuous advantage Lot's daughters took of their father. The narrative merely describes what happened. Even in the family tree of the Messiah in Matthew 1:2-16, three of the four women mentioned (i.e., Tamar,Rahab, and "Uriah's wife") had questionable moral backgrounds. Providentially, the Lord used them in spite of the stigma attached to their names.
20:1-16 Three aspects of this episode have been thought troublesome: (1) that Abraham would fall into the same error he committed in Egypt in 12:10-20; (2) that Sarah would be taken into Abimelech's harem at her advanced age (17:17); and (3) that Abraham would rely on the shaky half-truth of Sarah being his half-sister (20:11-13). The first and third of these problems are related. Abraham had told Pharaoh that Sarah was his sister (12:13) and, though forced to leave Egypt when the deception was discovered (12:18-20), he left a much wealthier man than he had come (12:16; 13:2). Thus, it may have appeared to Abraham that God blessed his deception. As to Sarah's age, it is significant that beauty is not mentioned as the reason for taking her into the king's harem, as it was before (12:14-15). The likely reason for taking her was her wealth, since, as Abraham's presumed "sister," she would have had some control over the family's vast holdings. It is worth noting, in addition, that in upper Mesopotamia where Abraham came from it had been common for a wealthy man to legally adopt his wife as his sister, thus enhancing her social status.
20:17-18 People in modern Western culture tend to think of pregnancy in terms of technological issues like birth control or fertility drugs. The Bible reminds us that, ultimately, it is God who opens and closes wombs. The theme of women being unable to conceive, then later being able to bear children, is a recurring motif in chapters 12–50. It sets the stage for other remarkable births in the unfolding of God's historical purpose (see note on 17:17).
21:1-2 Sarah apparently became pregnant while the events of chapter 20 were taking place. Thus, while the wombs of all the women of Gerar were closed (20:17-18), Sarah's had been opened miraculously at a very advanced age.
21:9-21 It may appear, at first glance, that God cannot make up His mind on how Abraham and Sarah should treat Hagar and Ishmael. In 16:9-10, after Sarah's attempt to expel the pregnant Hagar, the Lord ordered her to return to Sarah. In 21:11-12, He orders Abraham to listen to Sarah and send Hagar and Ishmael away. By this time, however, Ishmael is not the unborn baby of a defenseless pregnant woman, as in chapter 16. He is a teenager and the older son—the normally recognized heir—of Abraham. In addition, God's pledge that Ishmael would be the father of a nation (v. 13) implies that He would protect him, which proved to be the case (vv. 17-20).
21:22-33 The most obvious reason for the odd placement of this passage is as an update for the events of chapter 20. However, it cannot be mere coincidence that both 21:9-21 and 21:22-33 have to do with the need to provide water in the vicinity of what became known as Beer-sheba. Thus, these are side-by-side examples of God's providing for the weak and the wealthy.
22:2 If it seems barbaric to command Abraham to offer his beloved son, Isaac, God did not ask any more than He would do in sacrificing His beloved Son for the sins of the world (Jn 3:16).
22:2,5 Since God ordered Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice (v. 2), some have charged that Abraham lied in telling his servants, "The boy and I will . . . come back to you" (v. 5). However, Heb 11:17,19 clarifies that Abraham's response to God's test of his faith was to believe that, if necessary, the Lord would raise Isaac from the dead.
22:12 God certainly "knew" beforehand what Abraham would do in this predicament (Ps 139:1-6). The language here simply indicates that it was a test or demonstration of Abraham's complete loyalty to God.
22:15,17 To note that God blesses Abraham because of his obedience does not alter the fact that God's covenant with Abraham is unconditional—based on God's promise rather than Abraham's fulfillment of some obligation. But a covenant is, first of all, a relationship between persons—in this case, human and divine. Within that framework, obedience always brings about divine blessing and disobedience always results in the enactment of a curse, or judgment.
22:20-24 The purpose of this passage is to update the status of Abraham's family, which had stayed in Haran when he went on to Canaan (11:27-31). It also prepares for the marriage of Isaac to Rebekah, the granddaughter of Nahor, Abram's brother (11:27; 22:20-23).
23:1-20 It may appear that this chapter is overly sentimental in relating Abraham's negotiation of the burial plot price for his beloved wife, Sarah. But its significance goes deeper. This is the only land that Abraham ever owned in Canaan, the one piece of property that served as an earnest of Israel's eventual possession of the land. Although Ephron the Hittite made as if to "give" Abraham the field (v. 11), the price he eventually extracted from him ("400 shekels of silver," v. 15) was an inordinately high price for that time. This field is also where the patriarchs Abraham (25:9-10), Isaac (35:27-29), and Jacob (49:29-32; 50:12-13) were buried.
24:2-4 Abraham was not an ethnic elitist in seeking a wife for Isaac from outside Canaan. Rather, the sinfulness of the peoples of Canaan (15:16), especially their idolatry, was repugnant to the Lord and thus to Abraham, the man of faith (15:6).
24:5-8 Abraham did not want Isaac to leave the promised land since he was to inherit it. There was always the possibility that, if he went back to Haran, he might not return.
24:10-67 This is the longest continuous passage in Genesis, and its quality of narration is striking. Generally, it is one of the classic biblical case studies on seeking to follow God's will. Specifically, it reflects how important it was for the heir of promise to have the right wife and for that marriage to come about according to God's direction.
25:1-6 After Sarah's death, Abraham remarried and, miraculously, continued to have children. The passage is notable for two reasons. First, the descendants of some of these children (e.g., the Midianites) became significant in later generations. Second, Abraham sent the children "to the land of the East," away from Isaac and the promised land. This was an effort to head off potential family conflicts, which might complicate the progress of God's promise through Isaac's descendants.
25:12-18 Although Isaac was the son of promise, the size of Ishmael's family and wider holdings developed more quickly and extensively.
25:19-26 Besides the ongoing theme in Genesis of God's opening the womb of barren women, we see here the recurring theme of the younger son displacing the older. This practice was completely contrary to the prevailing custom of the oldest son being the primary heir.
25:27-34 Though it seems outrageous for Jacob to ask for Esau's birthright as payment for some of Jacob's stew, the "irreverent" Esau had only himself to blame. With only a short-range view to the satisfaction of his immediate needs, he "sold his birthright in exchange for one meal" (Heb 12:16).
26:1-11 Because of the strong similarities between this incident and 12:10-20 and 20:1-18, some modern interpreters have expressed the opinion that it is a copy of those episodes and never actually happened. They also note that the king is, as in chapter 20, named "Abimelech." There are, however, key differences between the passages, and it is not uncommon for kings to have the same name (e.g., Darius I and II of the Medo-Persian Empire). In addition, it is possible that "Abimelech" (a compound of the words for "father" and "king") is a Philistine royal title, like Pharaoh in Egypt, which means "great house." Perhaps Isaac, while growing up, had heard the stories of what his father, Abraham, had done in those earlier incidents and decided to mimic his behavior. Given that Rebekah was not Isaac's sister in any sense, this would be a classic example of the repetition of "the sins of the fathers" by a later generation.
26:12-22,26-33 The conflicts over the wells occurred despite earlier agreements between Abraham and Abimelech (21:22-31). This happened because of jealousy over God's blessing on Isaac. A resentful response by others against those blessed by the Lord is a common theme in Genesis.
26:34-35 Though Esau married at age 40, as did Isaac his father (25:20), his parents were hardly pleased with his choices. His wives were Hittites who worshiped many gods, none of which was the one true God of Abraham and Isaac. Isaac is partly responsible for these religiously mixed marriages, since he had not made it clear to Esau what his standards were (28:1,6-9). There are two possible explanations for why Judith, the first named wife of Esau (26:34) is not mentioned in the "family records" of Esau in chapter 36. Either she did not live long enough to have children, or the marriage ended quickly in divorce.
27:1-29 Though the Lord had told Rebekeh that her older son, Esau, would serve her younger son, Jacob (25:23), that in no way excuses the elaborate deception on the part of Rebekah and Jacob to defraud Esau of his blessing as the older son. Instead of trusting the Lord to accomplish what He had promised, Rebekah took the matter into her own hands, much as Sarah had by giving Hagar to Abraham in chapter 16.
27:30-45 Esau was justified in his anger about how his blessing was stolen, but he had no right to become enraged and hold a murderous grudge (Eph 4:26-27). No one involved in this incident was an innocent bystander, given Rebekah's and Jacob's scheming and Isaac's extravagant blessing—which he thought he was giving to Esau—apparently ignoring the Lord's word to Rebekah (Gn 25:23).
27:46–28:1 Sadly, it appears to have taken Isaac's experience with Esau's wives to open his eyes in regard to the prospects for Jacob's marriage. Isaac did not emulate his own father's care in seeking a wife for his son(chap. 24).
28:6-9 Esau's attempt to regain his father's favor was misguided. In his spiritual insensitivity, he thought the problem had to do with having a wife from the right bloodline. It was, instead, a matter of faith in, and worship of, the one true God.
28:10-22 Because Jacob's vision at Bethel was his closest encounter with God up to this point in his life, he was convinced this place was unique. For him it was "the house of God," (the literal meaning of Bethel), and "the gate of heaven" (v. 17). At his stage in God's progressive revelation, he could not see that no earthly spot could play this role (Ac 7:48-50). Like his brother Esau, Jacob had not been a man of faith. But, even though the conditions he states toward the Lord (Gn 28:20-22) fall short of true faith, they represent a step in the right direction.
29:1-12 This passage echoes chapter 24. While that chapter is much longer and more detailed, the marked similarity is intended to inspire similar confidence in the Lord's provision of the right wife for Jacob.
29:13-30 Ironically Laban deceived Jacob in regard to the marriage of his daughters just as Jacob had deceived his father, Isaac, in the matter of the birthright blessing. It is uncertain whether it was an ironclad cultural custom for an older daughter to be married first, or only a custom of Laban's family. It is interesting, though, that Jacob, who had displaced his older brother, now sought to marry the younger daughter. Again we meet the Genesis theme of younger displacing older.
29:31–30:24 This period of the births of the progenitors of the tribes of Israel is characterized by tragic resentment and rivalry. Though Sarah and Hagar had experienced mutual disdain (chaps. 16; 21), the ongoing hostility between Jacob's wives profoundly marked the family life.
30:25-43 This passage is crucial as an explanation of how Jacob became wealthy in his own right. He had lived as a part of Laban's wider family wherein his own expanding family had been cared for sufficiently. But he was in no financial position to leave with his wives and children and go back to his own father and the land of promise. While this passage may appear to describe a type of magic, God instructed Jacob in this through a dream (31:10-12). The following narrative makes it clear that, throughout the six years described here, Laban repeatedly changed Jacob's wages in seeking to gain material advantage over him (31:6-7,38-42).
31:1-3 Providentially, the Lord's command for Jacob and his family to return to his father and the promised land coincided with the rapidly growing desire for retribution by Laban and his sons.
31:4-16 Jacob was concerned that Rachel and Leah would oppose leaving Laban's extended family and going to Canaan. In attempting to persuade them, he reminded them of Laban's cheating (vv. 5-7). He also came to fully realize God's protection and guidance during this time (vv. 7-13). While Rachel and Leah do not echo Jacob's growing faith, they display no loyalty to their father because of the way he has treated them (vv. 14-16).
31:19-20 The Bible does not condone, but merely observes, Rachel's "sin of commission" (i.e., stealing her father's household idols) and Jacob's "sin of omission" (i.e., not telling Laban he was leaving, though he was still employed by him as his herdsman). The narrative reveals that both sins caused larger problems, giving Laban reason to pursue and endanger Jacob's family and herds.
31:30,32-35 This passage demonstrates that, much as Jacob had learned deception from his father (26:7-10) and mother (27:5-17), Rachel took after her father as a master deceiver. Children watch their parents' behavior and learn from them, for good or evil. The narrative does not condone Rachel's deception, but portrays the realities of family life.
32:1-23 There is striking interplay in this passage between the sovereign protection of God and the responsibility of man. The two are not contradictory, but complementary. On the way, Jacob met angels (vv. 1-2) whose protection had not been apparent to him before. In addition, his prayer reflects growing faith in the Lord's promises during a time of danger (vv. 9-12). However, Jacob also does his best to appeal humbly and diplomatically (vv. 6-8,13-23) to his brother, Esau, from whom he has long been estranged.
32:24-31 The mysterious "man" (v. 24) whom Jacob wrestled with until dawn was God Himself (vv. 28,30). The Lord had taken human form previously to interact with Abraham (18:2,10,16). Remarkably, the all-powerful Lord did not see fit to overpower Jacob, but allowed him to cling tenaciously to Him all night. The concept of a Christian "wrestling with God" during particularly difficult or fearful times originates in this passage. Though Jacob physically limped away (32:25,31) from this unexpected struggle, his new divinely given name, "Israel," indicated that "he struggled with God" and prevailed, growing spiritually in the process.
32:32 The nation of Israel, so named as Jacob's descendants, abstained from eating "the thigh muscle that is at the hip socket" before Moses wrote Genesis. Observant Jews maintain this practice today.
33:1-4 Bowing seven times has been documented as a reflection of sincere regret and submission as early as the fourteenth century b.c. in Egypt. Unexpected forgiveness and reconciliation, especially when it occurs amidst volatile family squabbles or feuds, is touching and joyful.
33:8-11 Since the Hebrew word for "present" in verse 11 is the same as that used in 27:35 for Esau's expected "blessing" as the older son, it is likely Jacob is sincerely attempting to repay the "blessing" he had deceptively stolen from Esau.
33:12-17 Sadly, there is no indication that Jacob, in fact, intended to go and meet Esau in Seir (v. 14). If so, in spite of his spiritual growth and sincere regret regarding his earlier behavior, he remained deceptive.
34:1-31 Significantly, God is not mentioned in this tragic chapter. Unlike the book of Esther in which God is also not named but in which God's people do act nobly (Est 4:16), there is nothing but treachery and angry vengeance here.
34:3,18-24 Though his act was heinous, Shechem, for whom the city may have been named, desired to marry Dinah, even being willing to undergo circumcision.
34:13-31 Jacob's sons, in their deceit at Shechem, employed the divine covenant sign of circumcision (17:10-14) as a means of ambushing the men of the city. Their looting the city and taking of its wives and children, for which they evidenced no shame or repentance (34:30-31), would cause the descendants of Simeon and Levi to be dispersed among Israel with no definite allotment of territory, through their father's deathbed pronouncement (49:5-7).
35:1-7 Jacob's faith in the Lord had grown greatly, but his wives and children still worshiped the gods of Laban's household. Still, the Lord protected the family when it responded in obedience, putting away everything related to idolatry and building an altar at Bethel as the Lord had directed.
35:9-10 This explanation of why God changed Jacob's name to Israel does not contradict the original statement in 32:27-28, but reaffirms it. The two names are used interchangeably from this point forward in the book of Genesis.
35:16-20 Rachel is the only major figure in the Abrahamic line of promise not to be buried in the cave at Machpelah, which Abraham purchased as a burial site for Sarah (23:17-20). The naming of Benjamin, meaning "Son of the Right Hand," indicates her new son now assumed Rachel's special place of love and honor in Jacob's life.
35:22-26 Reuben, Jacob's oldest son, attempted to assert his right over his father's estate by sleeping with Jacob's concubine Bilhah, the mother of two of his brothers. By doing so, however, he forfeited his blessing as the oldest son (49:3-4).
35:27-29 Isaac lived longer than either Abraham or Jacob. That both Esau and Jacob buried Isaac implies that their reconciliation (33:1-15) continued through the rest of their father's lifetime, extending approximately 50 years after Jacob returned to the promised land.
36:1-5,9-19,43 Esau's ties by marriage to various Canaanite peoples almost assured that his descendants would engage in false worship (Neh 13:23-26). In spite of this, as Isaac's son, Esau was greatly blessed. His descendants intermarried and developed into a large, full-fledged kingdom, Edom, before Israel had a king.
36:6-8 Because of the size and continuing growth ofEsau's and Jacob's households and herds, it was necessary for them to separate, as had Abram and Lot (13:5-12). As heir of the promise to Abraham, Jacob lived in the land of Canaan, while Esau moved his family to Seir, southeast of the Dead Sea in what is now Jordan.
37:1-2 Though Isaac's death is mentioned earlier (35:27-29), the order of events here keeps the focus on Joseph. The story of Joseph explains to Moses' original readers how Israel came to Egypt.
37:2-4 It is likely that, because of the special relationship with Joseph, Jacob asked him for a report on his brothers' work habits (v. 2). The brothers resented Jacob's favoritism, of which the special garment was ample evidence.
37:5-11 The reference to "your mother" would refer to Leah, Jacob's remaining primary wife, since Rachel had died in childbirth years before (35:16-20). The observation that Jacob "kept the matter in mind" looks back on the prophecy of Jacob, the younger son, ruling over his older brother, Esau (25:23), as well as Jacob's significant dreams revealing God's will (28:12-15; 31:10-13). Jacob will live to see these prophecies fulfilled when Joseph becomes the second ruler in Egypt (46:29-30).
37:12-14 Remarkably, Jacob allowed his sons to pasture their flocks in the vicinity of Shechem, the site of their earlier treachery (chap. 34). Apparently the "terror from God" (35:5) continued to protect them in the towns surrounding Shechem.
37:15-17 The brothers had moved the family's herds from Shechem to Dothan. Though located in northern Palestine, Dothan was situated on the primary trade route between the Fertile Crescent and Egypt. Those providential circumstances led to Joseph's being carried to Egypt (vv. 28,36).
37:21-22,30-31 Two things probably motivated Reuben to try to save Joseph's life. First, as the oldest son (35:23), he was most responsible to his father for the safety of his young sibling. Second, after having sexual relations with his father's concubine, Bilhah (35:22), Reuben was undoubtedly attempting to get back in Jacob's good graces.
37:24-28 This passage reveals the low value Joseph's brothers placed on his life, as well as their cruelty. Joseph was thrown into a pit without food or water while his brothers ate a meal. In addition, when Joseph was sold into slavery his brothers accepted "20 pieces of silver" (v. 28), far less than the typical 30 pieces of silver (Ex 21:32).
37:25,28 The Midianites (25:2,4) and Ishmaelites (25:12-18) were closely related as descendants of Abraham (though not Sarah). At this time the two peoples must have enjoyed a close working relationship, since their names are used interchangeably.
37:35 When Jacob says that he will go down to "Sheol," he does not mean he will go to hell (or heaven), but that he will be reunited with his son beyond death. In the Hebrew Bible, Sheol is the general term for the afterlife, the abode of departed spirits beyond the grave.
38:1-30 This passage, which spotlights Judah, has been viewed by some as an awkward intrusion into the long narrative about Joseph (chaps. 37; 39–50). However, it reflects the continuing spiritual hardheartedness of Joseph's brothers, seen in their massacre of the men of Shechem (chap. 34) and in selling Joseph into slavery after nearly killing him (chap. 37). Judah's ethical failures stand in stark contrast to the solid moral character of Joseph (chap. 39).
38:8-11 Two questions might arise in connection with this passage: (1) Why did Judah have his son, Onan, sleep with Tamar, his widowed daughter-in-law, and then withhold his remaining son, Shelah, from her? (2) Why was Onan killed for "evil" behavior after having sexual relations with Tamar? In regard to (1), an established institution of the culture was the "levirate marriage," in which a widow was to be taken as wife by the closest male in her husband's family. Any children from that marriage would be legally considered those of the deceased husband. This practice was made part of the Mosaic law (Dt 25:5-10) and is central in the book of Ruth. Thus, what Judah did in giving Tamar to Onan was morally appropriate, while stalling in regard to Shelah was not. As to (2), the "evil" which caused Onan to be killed was not, as some have said, that he had sex outside marriage or that he practiced a crude form of birth control (vv. 9-10). Rather, it was his selfishness in refusing to allow his sister-in-law to become pregnant by him. He knew that, while he would have to support the child, he would not receive any of his deceased brother's estate, since it would legally belong to the child.
38:11-26 Judah's conclusion that Tamar was "more in the right" (v. 26) is not inferring that her impersonation of a prostitute was morally acceptable. Judah is acknowledging his greater fault in seeking a prostitute and his neglect of Tamar's needs as a helpless widow, to which he should have attended. The fact that Tamar chose to play the prostitute to ensnare Judah speaks volumes about his moral reputation. By wearing the customary veil of the religious prostitute, she avoided being recognized by Judah.
38:18,23,25 A "signet ring" impressed a person's distinctive seal into clay or wax, functioning much like a signature on a legal document today. Tamar was shrewd to insist on keeping Judah's signet ring as a guarantee of payment for her services. Her possession of the ring was undeniable proof of his involvement in her pregnancy.
38:27-30 This passage stands out in the narrative of Genesis for two reasons. First, it is one of several examples of the struggle between older and younger siblings in the ongoing line of Abraham. Second, the sordid incident in which Judah impregnated his daughter-in-law, Tamar, would not thwart God's plan to bless the world through Abraham. Indeed, it would lead to a demonstration of His grace when their illegitimate son would find a place in the Messiah's genealogy (Mt 1:3; Lk 3:33).
39:1-6 Joseph's success in whatever he did indicated divine blessing to Potiphar, just as Isaac's and Jacob's earlier success revealed God's favor (26:12-14; 30:43–31:1).
39:6-10 Joseph's refusal to sleep with Potiphar's wife stands in stark contrast with the behavior of his brother, Judah, who sought out a prostitute (38:15-16).
39:11-19 This passage parallels what happened to Joseph and Judah in regard to an item left behind in each case. Judah's signet ring convicted him and prevented a cover-up of his behavior (38:25). Joseph's garment, left behind when Potiphar's wife made her aggressive sexual advances, allowed her to fabricate a convincing lie about his behavior.
40:1-4 The king's "cupbearer" (or butler) and "baker" were highly trusted "officers" in ancient royal courts. They made sure the king was not poisoned in his food or drink, and because they were highly trusted, both often served as his advisers. The honor of their positions is reflected by the fact that, though they had "offended" Pharaoh, their imprisonment was a kind of house arrest in which Joseph served as their "personal attendant."
40:5-8 Because of his own previous dreams (37:5-10), and his ability to interpret them straightforwardly, Joseph was confident the Lord would allow him to interpret the dreams of the cupbearer and the baker. Joseph's question—"Don't interpretations belong to God?"—was a bold declaration of faith, especially since he had not yet heard the dreams.
40:9-13,16-22 Though the two dreams were significantly different, they occurred the same night and were parallel in the use of the number three, which meant "three days" (v. 18) in each case. Joseph's interpretations repeat the phrase "Pharaoh will lift up your head" (vv. 13,19). The cupbearer's head was lifted up in restoration to his position, while the baker's head was lifted up in being hanged (vv. 20-22). These dreams, containing a number that designates a period of time and pointing to starkly contrasting outcomes, preview Pharaoh's dreams (41:1-7).
41:1-8 Pharaoh's dreams were dominated by the number seven and were full of the common agricultural imagery of Egypt. It was surprising that none of the "magicians" (who relied on occult knowledge), or so-called "wise men," a group of advisors found in many ancient royal courts (e.g., Dn 2:2,10), ventured an interpretation. Perhaps the down-to-earth imagery in the dreams suggested it would be obvious if their interpretation proved false, and that Pharaoh's distress concerning the dreams (Gn 41:8) might lead to their being treated somewhat like the baker.
41:9-13 It is striking that the cupbearer, in bringing up Joseph's name and skill in interpreting dreams to Pharaoh, admits his own faults (lit., "sins," v. 9). Since ancient rulers had the power of life and death over all their subjects, he was taking a risk in reminding the king of this. Perhaps the cupbearer is including his previous failure to mention Joseph to Pharaoh among his acknowledged shortcomings.
41:17-32 Given the annual overflow of the Nile River that left deposits of rich soil, a long drought with resultant famine seemed an unlikely possibility to the Egyptians. When the "thin, ugly cows" in Pharaoh's dream had devoured the "well-fed, healthy-looking cows," their appearance was as repulsive as before. This was a detail he had not told the magicians and wise men (vv. 1-8), but which he disclosed to Joseph.
41:33-36 These words could be a continuation of Joseph's God-given interpretation or they could be the advice of the divinely gifted manager that Joseph had proven to be, both in Potiphar's house (39:1-6) and in the prison (39:22-23). In either case, Joseph certainly was not interviewing for a job as overseer of the famine preparation effort.
41:37 The acceptance of Joseph's proposal by Pharaoh and his honored servants was an insult to the recognized wise men of Egypt.
41:38-39 Although Pharaoh does apparently attribute Joseph's knowledge and ability to the true God of Israel, he would not have known at this point about the Spirit of God (i.e., the Holy Spirit). Instead, his words should be translated "a spirit of the gods," since the Egyptians believed in many gods.
41:40-44,46-49 Potiphar had almost immediately trusted Joseph with everything related to his household (39:3-6), and the warden of the prison had done the same in his sphere of responsibility (39:21-23). Amazingly, Pharaoh immediately made Joseph the vizier (i.e., second ruler) over all the land of Egypt. In the description of Joseph's newfound splendor and power, the most significant item is his possession of Pharaoh's signet ring. Given Pharaoh's confidence in Joseph's intelligence and wisdom (41:39), the king's signet was virtually a blank check for anything Joseph decided to do anywhere in Egypt.
41:45,50-52 In contrast to Daniel's being given a Babylonian name to draw him into the culture of Babylon (Dn 1:6-7), Joseph's Egyptian name recognized his faith in the God of Israel. Zaphenath-paneah means "the God speaks and lives." Within Joseph's family his brother, Judah, had chosen to marry a Canaanite and had largely lowered his moral and spiritual standards to the surrounding culture (Gn 38). Joseph's arranged Egyptian marriage (41:45), by contrast, produced two children whose names honored the one true God(vv. 50-52).
41:53–42:3 The famine of seven years' duration becomes the occasion for Joseph's reintroduction to his family. It is striking that Jacob chooses to purchase grain but not relocate from the promised land due to the famine, even though both Abram (12:10-20) and Isaac (26:1-2) had done so in similar circumstances.
42:4-6 When Joseph's 10 brothers (Benjamin remained with Jacob; v. 4) bowed down before him (v. 6), it was the literal fulfillment of Joseph's first dream (37:5-8).
42:7-22 Joseph was indeed testing his brothers (v. 15), but not in regard to their being spies (vv. 9,14). Instead, the fear and anguish they must have felt because of Joseph's accusations were similar to his pleas not to be sold into slavery (v. 21). Also, having his brothers imprisoned, even briefly (vv. 16-17), gave them a taste of what he had been through as an inmate in 39:20. Had the brothers been spiritually sensitive, they would have followed up on the strong clue in Joseph's testimony that he feared God (v. 18). At least, though they assumed Joseph was dead (v. 13), they perceived that their predicament was from the Lord and was a delayed punishment for their horrible treatment of Joseph (v. 21; cp. 37:23-28).
42:20 Joseph's insistence on seeing Benjamin was not a whim. Benjamin was his only brother born to Rachel, his mother (30:22-24; 35:16-18).
42:21-24 Joseph was deeply touched by his brothers' awareness of guilt in their mistreatment of him, and especially of learning of Reuben's attempt to save him from being sold into slavery. That is the apparent reason why Joseph chose to hold Simeon, his second oldest brother (35:23), as his hostage. As next in line to the oldest brother, he bore the most responsibility for Joseph's ill-treatment.
42:25-38 Joseph was not being cruel in his behavior. By holding Simeon, he guaranteed that his family would return to Egypt so that he could have further interaction with them. By having the money they had paid for the grain put back in each bag, he made sure they had the financial means to pay when they needed to return for more grain. However, Joseph's presumed death years before and the odd circumstances surrounding the money made Jacob that much more reluctant to allow his beloved youngest son, Benjamin, to go to Egypt.
43:1-14 This passage reflects a change of character on Judah's part and a fallback to an earlier strategy on the part of Jacob. Judah had apparently been humbled by what had happened in regard to Tamar (38:26) and now was willing to accept responsibility before his father for Benjamin's safety. Much as he had done with Esau (chaps. 32–33), Jacob chose to send gifts in appealing for mercy.
43:15-34 To be invited to eat with the powerful Egyptian official was not what Jacob's sons had expected to happen. Stranger yet was the pleasant atmosphere, in contrast to the previous encounter when Joseph had upbraided them as spies (42:9,14). The only practice they had expected was that Joseph, presumed to be an Egyptian, ate separately from his brothers. Egyptians found Hebrews to be "abhorrent" (43:32), probably because they considered their bodily hair and beards repulsive.
43:34 The text here does not condone drunkenness but describes a typical banquet behavior. Joseph's brothers were relieved to be treated so grandly, and drowned their confusion about the odd coincidences they were observing.
44:1–45:3 This extended episode hangs together seamlessly. Joseph set up his final test to establish two things. He wanted to determine whether his brothers would attempt to lie their way out of the situation. And he wanted to see if they would desert their youngest brother, Benjamin, in favor of their own self-interest—what they had done, essentially, in selling Joseph into slavery many years before. They passed both tests. They told the truth and, in the process, gave Joseph a great deal of information about relationships in the family of Jacob. Also, Judah did, in fact, offer himself in place of Benjamin to protect him, just as he had promised his father (43:8-10). His brothers' unexpectedly righteous and sensitive response to Joseph's testing led him to reveal his identity.
44:5,15 Divination, widely practiced in Egypt and most other ancient cultures, was the attempt to extract hidden knowledge from supernatural powers other than the Lord. It was later condemned in the Mosaic law (Lv 19:26; Dt 18:10,14). Mention of it in these verses does not constitute approval of the practice; Joseph refers to it by way of threat but does not actually attempt it. Hidden knowledge had come to him from the Lord, in the interpretation of dreams (Gn 40–41).
45:4-8 This passage does not minimize the responsibility of Joseph's brothers in selling him into slavery. Joseph's statement, though, is beautifully balanced. While he holds his brothers responsible for their actions he nevertheless offers forgiveness and urges them to forgive themselves (vv. 4-5), since God used the circumstances to accomplish His wider purposes (vv. 5,7-8). His words anticipate his assurances in 50:19-20
45:6,11 The immediate reason for the move of Jacob's family to Egypt was the continuing famine, which had five more years to run, but there was a long-term consideration as well. God had revealed to Abram that his descendants would spend 400 years in an unstated country before returning to the promised land (15:13). Now it was clear that Egypt was that prophesied country of sojourn. Jacob's family did not remain in Egypt simply because they had become comfortable there.
45:8-28 Because of Pharaoh's gratitude and confidence in Joseph, he was able to settle his family in the land of Goshen (v. 10), the part of Egypt most suitable for shepherds. Goshen would also be relatively close to Joseph's abode near Pharaoh. Israel would continue to have favored status in Egypt until "a new king, who had not known Joseph, came to power in Egypt" (Ex 1:8) and enslaved them. Interestingly, Jacob had sent a very generous gift (Gn 43:11-12) through his sons to smooth the way for additional grain purchase without endangering his beloved Benjamin. Still, he seemed to expect the worst. It was an unexpected blessing not only to receive more gifts in return, but to learn that his long-mourned son, Joseph, was still alive.
45:28–46:4 Jacob was overjoyed at seeing his beloved son, Joseph, but still had serious misgivings about going to Egypt, and especially about staying there for any prolonged period. At Beer-sheba the Lord revealed two things to Jacob. First, it was God's will that Jacob's family and their descendants live in Egypt (46:3) no matter what had happened in previous generations (12:10-20; 26:2). Second, it would be Joseph, his long-lost son, who would bury Jacob's body, returning it to the promised land (46:4). Beer-sheba was the place Jacob had left when he started for Haran many years earlier (28:10).
46:8-27 This list is organized according to Jacob's sons by his wives: Leah's sons (and one daughter, Dinah; vv. 8-15); the sons of Zilpah, Leah's handmaid (vv. 16-18); the sons of Rachel (vv. 19-22); and the sons of Bilhah, Rachel's handmaid (vv. 23-25). The number 70, considered a number of completeness by the Hebrews, was maintained by not counting the wives of Jacob's sons. It is striking that, since Isaac and Rebekah only had Esau and Jacob, Jacob's family had grown to 70 persons within two more generations. This foreshadowed how large Israel would become by the time they would leave Egypt (Ex 12:37) 400 years later (Gn 15:13-14).
46:28–47:6 Joseph used his knowledge of the Egyptians' sense of ethnic superiority in favor of his family. Knowing that Egyptians considered shepherds "abhorrent" (46:34), Joseph emphasized this so that Pharaoh would send his people to Goshen, keeping them separate from the other peoples of Egypt. While they were in Canaan, the temptation to intermarry had threatened both the bloodline and the faith of God's people. Living in Goshen would make it easier to preserve their distinctiveness.
47:6-7,11 Goshen was "the best part of the land" of Egypt for shepherding flocks. Located in the wider Nile River delta, it was well-watered during the remaining years of the famine.
47:7,10 Jacob's blessing upon Pharaoh as his host in the land of Egypt was an extension of part of the Abrahamic promise in 12:3: "I will bless those who bless you."
47:8-9,28 Jacob's words should not be taken to mean that his lifespan of 130 years to that point was shorter than average. In Ps 90:10, Moses observed: "Our lives last seventy years or, if we are strong, eighty years." Jacob was comparing his lifetime, which would end at 147 years, with those of his father, Isaac (180 years; Gn 35:28), and his grandfather, Abraham (175 years; 25:7).
47:12,27 While the famine effectively erased the wealth and holdings of the people of Egypt and Canaan (vv. 13-26), Joseph took good care of his family, allowing them to be virtually insulated from the famine's devastating impact.
47:13-26 When Joseph was made second-in-command to Pharaoh in the land of Egypt, his mission was to serve in Pharaoh's best interest (41:40-44). In discharging his task, Joseph acquired most of the property of Egypt in the name of Pharaoh, which effectively made almost all the people Pharaoh's personal servants. But the people were so grateful to Joseph for their survival that they were quite willing to be "Pharaoh's slaves" (v. 25).
47:29-31 To put your hand under another's thigh and make a promise was, in ancient cultures, a most solemn way of committing yourself to carry out that promise. Over time, Jacob had begun to take more seriously the Lord's promises at Bethel to give the land of Canaan to Abraham's descendants and to bring Jacob back to that land permanently (28:13,15; 48:4). When he had first received those promises from God, he had been content to remain away from Canaan for 20 years (31:41). As he neared the end of his life, Jacob came to view things much differently.
48:1-2 Fearing that Jacob's death might be near, and that he and his sons might not get to see their father and grandfather alive again, Joseph went to Goshen to see Jacob as soon as he heard of his weakening condition.
48:3-7,22 God's promise quoted here was made to Jacob as he was leaving the promised land (28:13-15). Consequently, all of Jacob's sons except Benjamin were born outside Canaan. When Joseph was sold into slavery in Egypt, this set in motion the circumstances in which his own two sons came to be born in Egypt (41:50-52). Jacob is here effectively saying he is "adopting" Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, into the places of honor formerly held by Reuben and Simeon. He held them responsible for two tragic acts. Reuben, the firstborn, had slept with Bilhah (35:22). Simeon, the second-born, had led the slaughter at Shechem (34:25,30). This is how Ephraim and Manasseh rose to prominence as the fathers of two of the tribes of Israel. Joseph was allotted a double portion through his sons as a result of his role in saving the family.
48:8-10 Verses 8-9 should not be understood to mean Jacob had never seen Ephraim and Manasseh or that his mind was confused in old age. Rather, because Jacob's eyesight had deteriorated, he could not see who accompanied Joseph. It is unthinkable that Jacob would have lived in Egypt for almost 17 years without ever meeting Joseph's sons (47:28).
48:11-20 This scene looks back ironically at Jacob's deception in receiving the blessing intended for his older brother Esau from his blind father, Isaac (27:1-29). In this case, even though Jacob could no longer see well physically, he had perfect insight into what he was doing in blessing Joseph's younger son, Ephraim, over the older, Manasseh.
48:22 Not enough information is presented to know what Jacob is referring to in the phrase translated "the one mountain slope that I took from the hand of the Amorites with my sword and bow." "One mountain slope" is rendered Shechem, which probably 'relates to the destruction and capture of that city by Jacob's sons (chap. 34). The connection seems likely because the wording in 48:22 refers to a land transfer, and Joseph is later buried in Shechem (Jos 24:32).
49:1,28 Blessing his sons before his death (v. 28), Jacob claims to be predicting what will happen to his sons' descendants, the 12 tribes of Israel (v. 28), in the distant future (lit. "the last days"). Since these things did come to pass in later history, those who deny that such prophecy could be legitimate do so only on the basis of an anti-supernatural bias.
49:3-7 Jacob's three oldest sons—Reuben, Simeon, and Levi (35:23)—all forfeited their status by rash acts. Reuben violated Bilhah, his father's concubine (35:22; 49:4). Simeon and Levi led the deadly slaughter at Shechem (vv. 5-7; 34:25).
49:8-12 Apparently because of his willingness to accept responsibility for his earlier sin and for Benjamin's safety, Judah, Jacob's fourth-born son (35:23), is graced to become the progenitor of the Messiah (49:10). This forms the basis (v. 9) for Christ's being called "the Lion from the tribe of Judah" (Rv 5:5).
49:16-17 Verse 16 seems to look ahead to Samson, the "judge" from the tribe of Dan (Jdg 13:2,24-25). Verse 17 probably refers to the gross idolatry of the tribe of Dan in Jdg 18.
49:22-26 The tribe named for Joseph's son Ephraim (48:13-20) would become the dominant tribe of the northern kingdom of Israel; the northern kingdom was sometimes referred to as "Ephraim."
49:27 The wording of this verse apparently refers to the warfare between the tribe of Benjamin and the rest of the tribes of Israel in Jdg 20.
49:29-33 What Jacob had made Joseph solemnly promise in regard to his burial (47:29-31), he now commanded to all his sons in more detail. During his trek to Egypt, God had promised that Jacob would return to the promised land after Joseph had witnessed his death (46:4). In his last words before dying (49:29-33), Jacob focused on making sure he would be buried alongside Abraham, Isaac, and his wife Leah, who had preceded him in death (v. 31).
50:1-3 Embalming was common only among royal families during this time. Joseph had his father embalmed because he could not be buried immediately. The journey back to Canaan would be a long one. The 70-day period of mourning may represent a month beyond the 40 days it took for embalming. Joseph was also embalmed at his death, so his remains could be taken to Canaan for burial when his people returned to the promised land (vv. 24-26; Jos 24:32).
50:4-14 Pharaoh not only allowed Joseph to take a leave of absence to go to Canaan and bury Jacob in the family plot in the cave of Machpelah, he also sent an impressive entourage to accompany him in honor of both Joseph and his deceased father. When they reached the threshing floor of Atad they mourned for a week, perhaps because they had just reentered the promised land.
50:15-21 Just as Jacob had feared Esau's retaliation after a long period of time (chaps. 32–33), Joseph's brothers feared he might take revenge on them after Jacob's death for selling him into slavery (37:28). So they sent a message to Joseph, citing Jacob's plea before his death for Joseph to forgive. That his brothers bowed down to Joseph was a fulfillment of his early dream (37:5-8). While he does not at all discount their guilt, Joseph had long since forgiven them, recognizing God's providential hand of protection behind what had taken place.
50:22-26 Dying at 110 years, more than 90 years of which he had lived in Egypt (37:2,36), Joseph did not live as long as his immediate forefathers: Jacob, 147 years (47:28); Isaac, 180 years (35:28); Abraham, 175 years (25:7). He did, however, live long enough to see his great-grandchildren. When he neared death, like Jacob (49:29-32) he insisted on being buried in Canaan. He was embalmed, partly because of his high position in Egypt but also so that his remains could be transported at the right time.