GENESIS—NOTE ON 1:1–11:26 Primeval History. The first eleven chapters of Genesis differ from those that follow. Chapters 12–50 focus on one main family line in considerable detail, whereas chs. 1–11 could be described as a survey of the world before Abraham. These opening chapters differ not only in their subject matter from ch. 12 onward, but also because there are no real parallels to the patriarchal stories in other literatures. In contrast to the patriarchal stories, however, other ancient nonbiblical stories do exist recounting stories about both creation and the flood. The existence of such stories, however, does not in any way challenge the authority or the inspiration of Genesis. In fact, the nonbiblical stories stand in sharp contrast to the biblical account, and thus help readers appreciate the unique nature and character of the biblical accounts of creation and the flood. In other ancient literary traditions, creation is a great struggle often involving conflict between the gods. The flood was sent because the gods could not stand the noise made by human beings, yet they could not control it. Through these stories the people of the ancient world learned their traditions about the gods they worshiped and the way of life that people should follow. Babylonian versions of creation and flood stories were designed to show that Babylon was the center of the religious universe and that its civilization was the highest achieved by mankind.
Reading Genesis, readers can see that it is designed to refute these delusions. There is only one God, whose word is almighty. He has only to speak and the world comes into being. The sun and moon are not gods in their own right, but are created by the one God. This God does not need feeding by man, as the Babylonians believed they did by offering sacrifices, but he supplies man with food. It is human sin, not divine annoyance, that prompts the flood. Far from Babylon’s tower (Babel) reaching heaven, it became a reminder that human pride could neither reach nor manipulate God.
These principles, which emerge so clearly in Genesis 1–11, are truths that run through the rest of Scripture. The unity of God is fundamental to biblical theology, as is his almighty power, his care for mankind, and his judgment on sin. It may not always be obvious how these chapters relate to geology and archaeology, but their theological message is very clear. Read in their intended sense, they provide the fundamental presuppositions of the rest of Scripture. These chapters should act as eyeglasses, so that readers focus on the points their author is making and go on to read the rest of the Bible in light of them.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 1:1–2:3 God’s Creation and Ordering of Heaven and Earth. The book of Genesis opens with a majestic description of how God first created the heavens and earth and then how he ordered the earth so that it may become his dwelling place. Structured into seven sections, each marked by the use of set phrases, the entire episode conveys the picture of the all-powerful, transcendent God who sets everything in place with consummate skill in conformity to his grand design. The emphasis is mainly on how God orders or structures everything. The structure of the account is as follows: after giving the setting (1:1–2), the author describes the six workdays (1:3–31) and the seventh day, God’s Sabbath (2:1–3). Each of the six workdays follows the same pattern: it begins with “and God said,” and closes with “and there was evening and there was morning, the nth day.” After declaring that God is the Creator of all things (1:1), the focus of the rest of Genesis 1 (beginning at 1:3) is mainly on God bringing things into existence by his word and ordering the created things (“let the waters … be gathered together,” 1:9), rather than on how the earth was initially created (1:1). Different features indicate this. For example, vegetation is mentioned on day 3, prior to the apparent creation of the sun on day 4. Readers concerned with how to compare this passage with a modern scientific perspective should consult Introduction: Genesis and Science. Viewed in its ancient Near Eastern context, Genesis 1 says that God created everything, but it is also an account of how God has structured creation in its ordered complexity. Readers are introduced in the first three days to Day, Night, the Heavens, Earth, Seas—all these items, and only these, being specifically named by God. In days 4–6 the three distinctive regions are populated: the Heavens with lights and birds; the Seas with fish and swarming creatures; and the Earth with livestock and creeping things. God finally gives authority to human beings, as his vice-regents, to govern all these living creatures. Genesis 1 establishes a hierarchy of authority. Humanity is divinely commissioned to govern other creatures on God’s behalf, the ultimate purpose being that the whole earth should become the temple of God, the place of his presence, and should display his glory.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 1:1 In the beginning. This opening verse can be taken as a summary, introducing the whole passage; or it can be read as the first event, the origin of the heavens and the earth (sometime before the first day), including the creation of matter, space, and time. This second view (the origin of the heavens and the earth) is confirmed by the NT writers’ affirmation that creation was from nothing (Heb. 11:3; Rev. 4:11). God created. Although the Hebrew word for “God,” ’Elohim, is plural in form (possibly to express majesty), the verb “create” is singular, indicating that God is thought of as one being. Genesis is consistently monotheistic in its outlook, in marked contrast to other ancient Near Eastern accounts of creation. There is only one God. The Hebrew verb bara’, “create,” is always used in the OT with God as the subject; while it is not always used to describe creation out of nothing, it does stress God’s sovereignty and power. Heavens and the earth here means “everything.” This means, then, that “In the beginning” refers to the beginning of everything. The text indicates that God created everything in the universe, which thus affirms that he did in fact create it ex nihilo (Latin “out of nothing”). The effect of the opening words of the Bible is to establish that God, in his inscrutable wisdom, sovereign power, and majesty, is the Creator of all things that exist.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 1:2 The initial description of the earth as being without form and void, a phrase repeated within the OT only in Jer. 4:23, implies that it lacked order and content. The reference to darkness … over the face of the deep points to the absence of light. This initial state will be transformed by God’s creative activity: the Spirit of God was hovering. This comment creates a sense of expectation; something is about to happen. There is no reason to postulate that a long time elapsed between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2, during which time the earth became desolate and empty. Critical scholars argue that the word “deep” (Hb. tehom) is a remnant of Mesopotamian mythology from the creation account called Enuma Elish. Marduk, in fashioning the universe, had also to vanquish Tiamat, a goddess of chaos. These scholars believe that the Hebrew God had to conquer the chaos deity Tiamat in the form of the “deep” (notice the similarity of the two words tehom and “Tiamat”). There are many linguistic reasons, however, for doubting a direct identification between the two. In any event, there is no conflict in Genesis or in the rest of the Bible between God and the deep, since the deep readily does God’s bidding (cf. 7:11; 8:2; Ps. 33:7; 104:6).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 1:3–5 And God said. In ch. 1 the absolute power of God is conveyed by the fact that he merely speaks and things are created. Each new section of the chapter is introduced by God’s speaking. This is the first of the 10 words of creation in ch. 1. Let there be light. Light is the first of God’s creative works, which God speaks into existence. the light was good (v. 4). Everything that God brings into being is good. This becomes an important refrain throughout the chapter (see vv. 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). God called the light Day (v. 5). The focus in v. 5 is on how God has ordered time on a weekly cycle; thus, “let there be light” may indicate the dawning of a new day. God is pictured working for six days and resting on the Sabbath, which is a model for human activity. Day 4 develops this idea further: the lights are placed in the heavens for signs and seasons, for the purpose of marking days and years and the seasons of the great festivals such as Passover. This sense of time being structured is further emphasized throughout the chapter as each stage of God’s ordering and filling is separated by evening and morning into specific days. there was evening and there was morning, the first day. The order—evening, then morning—helps the reader to follow the flow of the passage: after the workday (vv. 3–5a) there is an evening, and then a morning, implying that there is a nighttime (the worker’s daily rest) in between. Thus the reader is prepared for the next workday to dawn. Similar phrases divide ch. 1 into six distinctive workdays, while 2:1–3 make a seventh day, God’s Sabbath. On the first three days God creates the environment that the creatures of days 4–6 will inhabit; thus, sea and sky (day 2) are occupied by fish and birds created on day 5 (see chart). By a simple reading of Genesis, these days must be described as days in the life of God, but how his days relate to human days is more difficult to determine (cf. Ps. 90:4; 2 Pet. 3:8). See further Introduction: Genesis and Science.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 1:6–8 waters. Water plays a crucial role in ancient Near Eastern creation literature. In Egypt, for example, the creator-god Ptah uses the preexistent waters (personified as the god Nun) to create the universe. The same is true in Mesopotamian belief: it is out of the gods of watery chaos—Apsu, Tiamat, and Mummu—that creation comes. The biblical creation account sits in stark contrast to such dark mythological polytheism. In the biblical account, water at creation is no deity; it is simply something God created, and it serves as material in the hands of the sole sovereign Creator. As light was separated from darkness, so waters are separated to form an expanse (vv. 6–7), which God calls Heaven (v. 8). As the esv footnote illustrates by offering the alternative term “sky,” it is difficult to find a single English word that accurately conveys the precise sense of the Hebrew term shamayim, “heaven/heavens.” In this context, it refers to what humans see above them, i.e., the region that contains both celestial lights (vv. 14–17) and birds (v. 20).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 1:9–13 Two further regions are organized by God: the dry land forming Earth, and the waters forming Seas (vv. 9–10). These are the last objects to be specifically named by God. God then instructs the earth to bring forth vegetation (vv. 11–12). While the creation of vegetation may seem out of place on day 3, it anticipates what God will later say in vv. 29–30 concerning food for both humanity and other creatures. The creation of distinctive locations in days 1–3, along with vegetation, prepares for the filling of these in days 4–6.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 1:14–19 This section corresponds closely with the ordering of Day and Night on the first day, involving the separation of light and darkness (vv. 3–5). Here the emphasis is on the creation of lights that will govern time, as well as providing light upon the earth (v. 15). By referring to them as the greater light and lesser light (v. 16), the text avoids using terms that were also proper names for pagan deities linked to the sun and the moon. Chapter 1 deliberately undermines pagan ideas regarding nature’s being controlled by different deities. (To the ancient pagans of the Near East, the gods were personified in various elements of nature. Thus, in Egyptian texts, the gods Ra and Thoth are personified in the sun and the moon, respectively.) The term made (Hb. ‘asah, v. 16), as the esv footnote shows, need only mean that God “fashioned” or “worked on” them; it does not of itself imply that they did not exist in any form before this. Rather, the focus here is on the way in which God has ordained the sun and moon to order and define the passing of time according to his purposes. Thus the references to seasons (v. 14) or “appointed times” (esv footnote) and to days and years are probably an allusion to the appointed times and patterns in the Hebrew calendar for worship, festivals, and religious observance (Ex. 13:10; 23:15).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 1:16 and the stars. The immense universe that God created (see note on Isa. 40:25–26) is mentioned here only in a brief phrase, almost as if it were an afterthought. The focus of Genesis 1 is on the earth; the focus of the rest of the Bible is on man (male and female) as the pinnacle of God’s creation and the object of his great salvation.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 1:20–23 Having previously described the creation of the waters and the expanse of the heavens, this section focuses on how they are filled with appropriate creatures of different kinds. As reproductive organisms, they are blessed by God so that they may be fruitful and fill their respective regions.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 1:21 The term for great sea creatures (Hb. tannin) in various contexts can denote large serpents, dragons, or crocodiles, as well as whales or sharks (the probable sense here). Some have suggested that this could also refer to other extinct creatures such as dinosaurs. Canaanite literature portrays a great dragon as the enemy of the main fertility god Baal. Genesis depicts God as creating large sea creatures, but they are not in rebellion against him. He is sovereign and is not in any kind of battle to create the universe.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 1:24–31 This is by far the longest section given over to a particular day, indicating that day 6 is the peak of interest for this passage. The final region to be filled is the dry land, or Earth (as it has been designated in v. 10). Here a significant distinction is drawn between all the living creatures that are created to live on the dry land, and human beings. Whereas vv. 24–25 deal with the “living creatures” that the earth is to bring forth, vv. 26–30 concentrate on the special status assigned to humans.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 1:24–25 livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth. These terms group the land-dwelling animals into three broad categories, probably reflecting the way nomadic shepherds would experience them: the domesticatable stock animals (e.g., sheep, goats, cattle, and perhaps camels and horses); the small crawlers (e.g., rats and mice, lizards, spiders); and the larger game and predatory animals (e.g., gazelles, lions). This list is not intended to be exhaustive, and it is hard to know where to put some animals (e.g., the domestic cat). See further Introduction: Genesis and Science.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 1:26 Let us make man in our image. The text does not specify the identity of the “us” mentioned here. Some have suggested that God may be addressing the members of his court, whom the OT elsewhere calls “sons of God” (e.g., Job 1:6) and the NT calls “angels,” but a significant objection is that man is not made in the image of angels, nor is there any indication that angels participated in the creation of human beings. Many Christians and some Jews have taken “us” to be God speaking to himself, since God alone does the making in Gen. 1:27 (cf. 5:1); this would be the first hint of the Trinity in the Bible (cf. 1:2).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 1:27 There has been debate about the expression image of God. Many scholars point out the idea, commonly used in the ancient Near East, of the king who was the visible representative of the deity; thus the king ruled on behalf of the god. Since v. 26 links the image of God with the exercise of dominion over all the other creatures of the seas, heavens, and earth, one can see that humanity is endowed here with authority to rule the earth as God’s representatives or vice-regents (see note on v. 28). Other scholars, seeing the pattern of male and female, have concluded that humanity expresses God’s image in relationship, particularly in well-functioning human community, both in marriage and in wider society. Traditionally, the image has been seen as the capacities that set man apart from the other animals—ways in which humans resemble God, such as in the characteristics of reason, morality, language, a capacity for relationships governed by love and commitment, and creativity in all forms of art. All these insights can be put together by observing that the resemblances (man is like God in a series of ways) allow mankind to represent God in ruling, and to establish worthy relationships with God, with one another, and with the rest of the creation. This “image” and this dignity apply to both “male and female” human beings. (This view is unique in the context of the ancient Near East. In Mesopotamia, e.g., the gods created humans merely to carry out work for them.) The Hebrew term ’adam, translated as man, is often a generic term that denotes both male and female, while sometimes it refers to man in distinction from woman (2:22, 23, 25; 3:8, 9, 12, 20): it becomes the proper name “Adam” (2:20; 3:17, 21; 4:1; 5:1). At this stage, humanity as a species is set apart from all other creatures and crowned with glory and honor as ruler of the earth (cf. Ps. 8:5–8). The events recorded in Genesis 3, however, will have an important bearing on the creation status of humanity.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 1:28 As God had blessed the sea and sky creatures (v. 22), so too he blesses humanity. Be fruitful and multiply. This motif recurs throughout Genesis in association with divine blessing (see 9:1, 7; 17:20; 28:3; 35:11; 48:4) and serves as the basis of the biblical view that raising faithful children is a part of God’s creation plan for mankind. God’s creation plan is that the whole earth should be populated by those who know him and who serve wisely as his vice-regents or representatives. subdue it, and have dominion. The term “subdue” (Hb. kabash) elsewhere means to bring a people or a land into subjection so that it will yield service to the one subduing it (Num. 32:22, 29). Here the idea is that the man and woman are to make the earth’s resources beneficial for themselves, which implies that they would investigate and develop the earth’s resources to make them useful for human beings generally. This command provides a foundation for wise scientific and technological development; the evil uses to which people have put their dominion come as a result of Genesis 3. over every living thing. As God’s representatives, human beings are to rule over every living thing on the earth. These commands are not, however, a mandate to exploit the earth and its creatures to satisfy human greed, for the fact that Adam and Eve were “in the image of God” (1:27) implies God’s expectation that human beings will use the earth wisely and govern it with the same sense of responsibility and care that God has toward the whole of his creation.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 1:31 Having previously affirmed on six occasions that particular aspects of creation are “good” (vv. 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25), God now states, after the creation of the man and the woman, that everything he has made is very good; the additional behold invites the reader to imagine seeing creation from God’s vantage point. While many things do not appear to be good about the present-day world, this was not so at the beginning. Genesis goes on to explain why things have changed, indicating that no blame should be attributed to God. Everything he created was very good: it answers to God’s purposes and expresses his own overflowing goodness. Despite the invasion of sin (ch. 3), the material creation retains its goodness (cf. 1 Tim. 4:4).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 2:1–3 These verses bring to a conclusion the opening section of Genesis by emphasizing that God has completed the process of ordering creation. The repeated comment that God rested does not imply that he was weary from labor. The effortless ease with which everything is done in ch. 1 suggests otherwise. Rather, the motif of God’s resting hints at the purpose of creation. As reflected in various ancient Near Eastern accounts, divine rest is associated with temple building. God’s purpose for the earth is that it should become his dwelling place; it is not simply made to house his creatures. God’s “activities” on this day (he finished, “rested,” “blessed,” “made it holy”) all fit this delightful pattern. The concept of the earth as a divine sanctuary, which is developed further in 2:4–25, runs throughout the whole Bible, coming to a climax in the future reality that the apostle John sees in his vision of a “new heaven and a new earth” in Rev. 21:1–22:5. God blessed the seventh day and made it holy (Gen. 2:3). These words provide the basis for the obligation that God placed on the Israelites to rest from their normal labor on the Sabbath day (see Ex. 20:8–11). There is no evening-followed-by-morning refrain for this day, prompting many to conclude that the seventh day still continues (which seems to underlie John 5:17; Heb. 4:3–11).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 2:4–4:26 Earth’s First People. Centered initially on the garden of Eden, the episodes that make up this part of Genesis recount how God’s ordered creation is thrown into chaos by the human couple’s disobedience. The subsequent story of Cain and Abel and then Lamech (ch. 4) shows the world spiraling downward into violence, which precipitated the flood (6:11, 13). These events are very significant for understanding not only the whole of Genesis but all of the Bible.
View this chart online at http://kindle.esvsb.org/c38
| Location | Inhabitants |
|---|---|
| 1. Light and dark | 4. Lights of day and night |
| 2. Sea and sky | 5. Fish and birds |
| 3. Fertile earth | 6. Land animals (including mankind) |
| 7. Rest and enjoyment | |
GENESIS—NOTE ON 2:4–25 The Man and Woman in the Sanctuary of Eden. The panoramic view of creation in ch. 1 is immediately followed by a complementary account of the sixth day that zooms in on the creation of the human couple, who are placed in the garden of Eden. In style and content this section differs significantly from the previous one; it does not contradict anything in ch. 1, but as a literary flashback it supplies more detail about what was recorded in 1:27. The picture of a sovereign, transcendent deity is complemented by that of a God who is both immanent and personal. The two portrayals of God balance each other, together providing a truer and richer description of his nature than either does on its own. In a similar way, whereas ch. 1 emphasizes the regal character of human beings, ch. 2 highlights their priestly status.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 2:4 These are the generations of. This is the first of 11 such headings that give structure to the book of Genesis (cf. 5:1, which varies slightly; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1; 36:9; 37:2; see Introduction: Arrangement of the Book). Each heading concentrates on what comes forth from the object or person named. The earliest translators of Genesis into Greek (in the Septuagint) used the word genesis to render the Hebrew word for “generations” (Hb. toledot); from this is derived the title “Genesis.” The rest of the verse is artfully arranged in a mirror (or chiastic) form, the parts of the two poetic lines corresponding to each other in reverse order: heavens (A), earth (B), when they were created (C), in the day that the Lord God made (C′), earth (B′), heavens (A′). This form unifies the two parts of the chiasmus, hereby inviting the reader to harmonize 2:5–25 with 1:1–2:3. LORD God. Throughout 1:1–2:3 the generic word “God” was used to denote the deity as the transcendent Creator. The reader is now introduced to God’s personal name, “Yahweh” (translated as “LORD” because of the ancient Jewish tradition of substituting in Hb. the term that means “Lord” [’Adonay] for “Yahweh” when reading the biblical text). The use of “Yahweh” throughout this passage underlines the personal and relational nature of God. The precedent for translating this as “LORD” and not “Yahweh” in English is found in the Septuagint’s customary translation (Gk. Kyrios, “Lord”). That translation was then quoted many times by the NT authors, who also used the Greek term Kyrios, “Lord,” rather than “Yahweh” for God’s name. (For more on the name “Yahweh,” see notes on Ex. 3:14; 3:15.)
GENESIS—NOTE ON 2:5–7 These verses concentrate on God’s creation of a human male, amplifying 1:26–31 in particular. The main action here is God’s “forming” of the man (2:7); vv. 5–6 describe the conditions as the action took place. The term land (Hb. ’erets) can refer to the whole earth (cf. esv footnote), to dry land (cf. 1:10), or to a specific region (cf. 2:11–13). To show the continuity with ch. 1 (see note on 2:4), and in view of the mention of rain, the esv rendering (“land”) is best. The location of this land is some unnamed place, just as the rainy season was about to begin, and thus when the ground was still dry, and without any bush of the field. These conditions prevailed before the creation of man, suggesting that the lack of growth was related to the absence of a man to irrigate the land (which would be the normal way in dry conditions to bring about growth). then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground (v. 7). The verb “formed” (Hb. yatsar) conveys the picture of a potter’s fashioning clay into a particular shape. The close relationship between the man and the ground is reflected in the Hebrew words used to denote them, ’adam and ’adamah, respectively. breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (v. 7). Here God breathes life—physical, mental, and spiritual—into the one created to bear his image. living creature. The same term in Hebrew is used in 1:20, 24 to denote sea and land creatures. While human beings have much in common with other living beings, God gives humans alone a royal and priestly status and makes them alone “in his own image” (1:27). (See Paul’s quotation of this passage in 1 Cor. 15:45.)
GENESIS—NOTE ON 2:8–9 God provides a suitable environment for the man by planting a garden in Eden, in the east. The name “Eden,” which would have conveyed the sense of “luxury, pleasure,” probably denotes a region much greater than the garden itself. God formed the man in the “land” (see vv. 5–7), and then put him in the garden (cf. v. 15). The earliest translation into Greek (the Septuagint) used the word paradeisos (from which comes the English term “paradise”; cf. note on Luke 23:39–43) to translate the Hebrew term for “garden,” on the understanding that it resembled a royal park. The abundance of the garden is conveyed by the observation that it contained every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food (Gen. 2:9), which is an ironic foreshadowing of 3:6 (see note there). Two trees, however, are picked out for special mention: the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (2:9). Since relatively little is said about these trees, any understanding of them must be derived from the role that they play within the account of Genesis 2–3, especially ch. 3. On “tree of life,” see note on 3:22–24; on “tree of knowledge,” see note on 2:17.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 2:10–14 The general description of the river that flowed out of Eden dividing into four rivers (v. 10) implies that Eden had a central location. In spite of the very specific details provided, however, Eden’s location remains a mystery. While the names Tigris and Euphrates (v. 14) are associated with the two rivers that surround Mesopotamia, the rivers Pishon and Gihon, as well as the regions of Havilah and Cush (vv. 11, 13), have not been satisfactorily identified (see map). The reference to gold and onyx (vv. 11, 12) suggests that the land is rich in resources; these materials are later associated with the making of the tabernacle and temple.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 2:15–16 The overall picture of Eden presented in the preceding verses suggests that the park-like garden is part of a divine sanctuary. The man is put in the garden to work it and keep it. The term “work” (Hb. ‘abad; cf. v. 5; 3:23; 4:2, 12; Prov. 12:11; 28:19) denotes preparing and tending, and “keep” (Hb. shamar) adds to that idea. Since this command comes before Adam sinned, work did not come as a result of sin, nor is it something to be avoided. Productive work is part of God’s good purpose for man in creation. Later, the same two verbs are used together of the work undertaken by the priests and Levites in the tabernacle (“minister” or “serve” [Hb. ‘abad] and “guard” [Hb. shamar]; e.g., Num. 3:7–8; 18:7). The man’s role is to be not only a gardener but also a guardian. As a priest, he is to maintain the sanctity of the garden as part of a temple complex. And the LORD God commanded the man. The fact that the command was given to Adam implies that God gave “the man” a leadership role, including the responsibility to guard and care for (“keep”) all of creation (Gen. 2:15)—a role that is also related to the leadership responsibility of Adam for Eve as his wife (cf. v. 18, “a helper fit for him”). (On the NT understanding of the relationship between husband and wife, see Eph. 5:22–33.)
Genesis describes the location of Eden in relation to the convergence of four rivers. While two of the rivers are unknown (the Pishon and the Gihon), the nearly universal identification of the other two rivers as the Tigris and the Euphrates suggests a possible location for Eden at either their northern or southern extremes.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 2:17 While God generously permitted the man to eat from every tree of the garden, God prohibited him from eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (v. 17). The fruit of this tree has been variously understood as giving (1) sexual awareness, (2) moral discrimination, (3) moral responsibility, and (4) moral experience. Of these possibilities, the last is the most likely: by their obedience or disobedience the human couple will come to know good and evil by experience. Experience gained by “fearing the LORD” (Prov. 1:7) is wisdom, while that gained by disobeying God is slavery. In the day implies fixed certainty rather than absolute immediacy (e.g., 1 Kings 2:42). See note on Gen. 3:4–5. you shall surely die (2:17). What kind of “death” does this threaten: physical, spiritual, or some combination? The Hebrew word can be used for any of these ideas, and the only way to find out is by reading to see what happens as the story unfolds. (See note on 3:4–5.)
Theologians have discussed whether the instructions in 2:16–17, together with the instructions in 1:28–30, should be called God’s “covenant” with Adam. Some have denied it, observing that the Hebrew word for “covenant” (berit) is not used until 6:18; others have added to this the insistence that covenants have to do with redemption. In reply, it can be pointed out that the thing itself can be present, even if the ordinary word identifying it is not: 2 Sam. 7:4–17 says nothing about a covenant, but Ps. 89:3, 28, 34, 39 all use the term to describe God’s promise to David. The same happens with Hos. 6:7, which refers to a covenant with Adam (see note there). Also, Gen. 9:1–17 describes Noah in terms that clearly echo 1:28–30, explicitly using the word “covenant”: Noah is a kind of new Adam, i.e., a covenant representative. Finally, there is no evidence that biblical covenants are limited to the sphere of redemption: the term simply describes the formal binding together of two parties in a relationship, on the basis of mutual personal commitment, with consequences for keeping or breaking the commitment. The man (Adam) receives this covenant on behalf of the rest of mankind: you is singular in 2:16–17, which provides the basis for Paul’s use of Adam as a representative head of the human race, parallel to Christ, in 1 Cor. 15:22; cf. Rom. 5:12–19. The word “you” is plural in Gen. 3:1–5, where the woman’s statement shows that she has appropriated the command for herself. Also, by virtue of Adam’s disobedience, his offspring receive the penalty: they cannot return to the garden any more than he can, and they descend into sin and misery (ch. 4).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 2:18–25 These verses describe how God provides a suitable companion for the man.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 2:18 Not good is a jarring contrast to 1:31; clearly, the situation here has not yet arrived to “very good.” I will make him can also be translated “I will make for him,” which explains Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 11:9. In order to find the man a helper fit for him, God brings to him all the livestock, birds, and beasts of the field. None of these, however, proves to be “fit for” the man. “Helper” (Hb. ‘ezer) is one who supplies strength in the area that is lacking in “the helped.” The term does not imply that the helper is either stronger or weaker than the one helped. “Fit for him” or “matching him” (cf. esv footnote) is not the same as “like him”: a wife is not her husband’s clone but complements him.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 2:20 The man gave names. By naming the animals, the man demonstrates his authority over all the other creatures. Adam. See note on 5:1–2.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 2:23–24 When no suitable companion is found among all the living beings, God fashions a woman from the man’s own flesh. The text highlights the sense of oneness that exists between the man and the woman. Adam joyfully proclaims, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” This terminology is used elsewhere of blood relatives (29:14). This sentence and the story of Eve’s creation both make the point that marriage creates the closest of all human relationships. It is also important to observe that God creates only one Eve for Adam, not several Eves or another Adam. This points to heterosexual monogamy as the divine pattern for marriage that God established at creation. Moreover, the kinship between husband and wife creates obligations that override even duty to one’s parents (therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, 2:24). In ancient Israel, sons did not move away when they married, but lived near their parents and inherited their father’s land. They “left” their parents in the sense of putting their wife’s welfare before that of their parents. The term “hold fast” is used elsewhere for practicing covenant faithfulness (e.g., Deut. 10:20; see how Paul brings these texts together in 1 Cor. 6:16–17); thus, other Bible texts can call marriage a “covenant” (e.g., Prov. 2:17; Mal. 2:14). Paul’s teaching on marriage in Eph. 5:25–32 is founded on this text. The sense of being made for each other is further reflected in a wordplay involving the terms “man” and “woman”; in Hebrew these are, respectively, ’ish and ’ishshah. As a result of this special affiliation, Gen. 2:24 observes that when a man leaves his parents and takes a wife, they shall become one flesh, i.e., one unit (a union of man and woman, consummated in sexual intercourse). Jesus appeals to this verse and 1:27 in setting out his view of marriage (Matt. 19:4–5).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 2:25 naked and … not ashamed. This final description in vv. 18–25 offers a picture of innocent delight and anticipates further developments in the story. The subject of the couple’s nakedness is picked up in 3:7–11, and a play on the similar sounds of the words “naked” (Hb. ‘arummim) and “crafty” (3:1, Hb. ‘arum) links the end of this episode with the start of the next.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 3:1–24 The Couple Rebels against God. The sudden and unexplained arrival of a cunning serpent presents a challenge of immense importance to the human couple. Their choice is to disregard God’s instructions, an act of willful rebellion that has terrible consequences for the whole of creation. As a result, God’s creation is thrown into disorder, with chaotic effects that result from the disruption of all the harmonious relationships that God had previously established.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 3:1 The speaking serpent is suddenly introduced into the story with minimum detail. Nothing is mentioned about its origin, other than that it is one of the beasts of the field. Although the serpent is eventually portrayed as God’s enemy, the initial introduction is full of ambiguity regarding its true nature. While the brief comment that it is the craftiest of the beasts possibly indicates potential danger, the Hebrew term ‘arum does not carry the negative moral connotations of the English words “crafty” and “cunning.” Similarly, the serpent’s initial question may have sounded quite innocent, although it deliberately misquotes God as saying that the couple must not eat of any tree in the garden. Did the serpent merely misunderstand what God had said? In these ways the subtlety of the serpent’s approach to the woman is captured by the narrator. It is noteworthy that the serpent also deliberately avoids using God’s personal name “Yahweh” (“LORD”) when he addresses the woman. Here is another hint that his presence in the garden presents a threat. Although his initial words appear deceptively innocent, his subsequent contradiction of God leaves no doubt about the serpent’s motive and purpose. The text does not indicate when or how the serpent became evil. As the narrative proceeds, it becomes clear that more than a simple snake is at work here; an evil power is using the snake (see note on v. 15). As indicated by God’s declaration that “everything he had made … was very good” (1:31), clearly evil entered the created world at some unknown point after God’s work of creation was completed. Likewise, nothing in the Bible suggests the eternal existence of evil (see notes on Isa. 14:12–15; Ezek. 28:11–19).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 3:2–3 The woman’s response largely echoes the divine instruction given in 2:16–17 regarding the tree of knowledge (for more on the meaning of the covenant, see note on 2:17), although she fails to identify the tree clearly as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and adds the comment neither shall you touch it. These minor variations are possibly meant to convey, even at this stage, that the woman views God’s instructions as open to human modification.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 3:4–5 The serpent not only directly contradicts what God has said but goes on to present the fruit of the tree as something worth obtaining: by eating it, the couple will be like God, knowing good and evil. The irony of the serpent’s remarks should not be overlooked. The couple, unlike the serpent, has been made in the image of God (1:26–27). In this way they are already like God. Moreover, being in the image of God, they are expected to exercise authority over all the beasts of the field, which includes the serpent. By obeying the serpent, however, they betray the trust placed in them by God. This is not merely an act of disobedience; it is an act of treachery. Those who were meant to govern the earth on God’s behalf instead rebel against their divine King and obey one of his creatures. You will not surely die. It is sometimes claimed that the serpent is correct when he says these things to the couple, for they do not “die”; Adam lives to be 930 years old (5:5). Further, their eyes are opened (3:7) and God acknowledges in v. 22 that “the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil.” Yet the serpent speaks half-truths, promising much but delivering little. Their eyes are indeed opened, and they come to know something, but it is only that they are naked. They know good and evil by experience, but their sense of guilt makes them afraid to meet God; they have become slaves to evil. And while they do not cease to exist physically, they are expelled from the garden-sanctuary and God’s presence. Cut off from the source of life and the tree of life, they are in the realm of the dead. What they experience outside of Eden is not life as God intended, but spiritual death.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 3:6 when the woman saw. Like all the other trees in the garden, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was “pleasant to the sight and good for food” (2:9). The irony is that somehow the serpent has made the woman discontent with the permitted trees, focusing her desire on this one. Its deadly appeal to her, apparently, is its ability to make one wise (see note on 2:17)—wise, however, not according to the “fear of the LORD” (Prov. 1:7; 9:10). she also gave some to her husband who was with her. The fact that Adam was “with her” and that he knowingly ate what God had forbidden indicates that Adam’s sin was both an act of conscious rebellion against God and a failure to carry out his divinely ordained responsibility to guard or “keep” (Gen. 2:15) both the garden and the woman that God had created as “a helper fit for him” (2:18, 20). The disastrous consequences of Adam’s sin cannot be overemphasized, resulting in the fall of mankind, the beginning of every kind of sin, suffering, and pain, as well as physical and spiritual death for the human race.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 3:7–13 Eating the fruit transforms the couple, but not for the better. Now ashamed of their nakedness (cf. 2:25), they attempt to clothe themselves. Conscious of the Lord God’s presence, they hide. When confronted by God regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the man blames the woman, who in turn blames the serpent.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 3:9 the LORD God called to the man … , “Where are you?” Both “man” and “you” are singular in Hebrew. God thus confronts Adam first, holding him primarily responsible for what happened, as the one who is the representative (or “head”) of the husband-and-wife relationship, established before the fall (see note on 2:15–16).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 3:14–15 God addresses the serpent first. Verse 1 declared the serpent “more crafty” (Hb. ‘arum); now God declares it more cursed (Hb. ’arur). Indicted for its part in tempting the woman, the serpent will be viewed with contempt from now on. This is conveyed both literally and figuratively by the serpent’s going on its belly and eating dust. Having deceived the woman, the serpent will have ongoing hostility with the woman, which will be perpetuated by their respective offspring.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 3:15 While many modern commentators interpret this part of the curse as merely describing the natural hostility that exists between men and snakes, it has traditionally been understood as pointing forward to the defeat of the serpent by a future descendant of the woman, and this interpretation fits well with the words and the context. This defeat is implied by the serpent’s being bruised in the head, which is more serious than the offspring of Eve being bruised in the heel. For this reason, v. 15 has been labeled the “Protoevangelium,” the first announcement of the gospel. This interpretation requires that the serpent be viewed as more than a mere snake, something which the narrative itself implies, given the serpent’s ability to speak and the vile things he says. While the present chapter does not explicitly identify the serpent with Satan, such an identification is a legitimate inference and is clearly what the apostle John has in view in Rev. 12:9 and 20:2. The motif of the offspring of the woman is picked up in Gen. 4:25 with the birth of Seth; subsequently, the rest of Genesis traces a single line of Seth’s descendants, observing that it will eventually produce a king through whom all the nations of the earth will be blessed (see Introduction: History of Salvation Summary). he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. Some interpreters have suggested that by saying “he” and “his,” the intended meaning is that one particular offspring is in view. Within the larger biblical framework, this hope comes to fulfillment in Jesus Christ, who is clearly presented in the NT as overcoming Satan (Heb. 2:14; 1 John 3:8; cf. Matt. 12:29; Mark 1:24; Luke 10:18; John 12:31; 16:11; 1 Cor. 15:24; Col. 2:15), while at the same time being bruised.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 3:16 By way of punishing the woman for her sin of disobedience, God pronounces that she will suffer pain (Hb. ‘itstsabon) in the bearing of children. This strikes at the very heart of the woman’s distinctiveness, for she is the “mother of all living” (v. 20). Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you. These words from the Lord indicate that there will be an ongoing struggle between the woman and the man for leadership in the marriage relationship. The leadership role of the husband and the complementary relationship between husband and wife that were ordained by God before the fall have now been deeply damaged and distorted by sin. This especially takes the form of inordinate desire (on the part of the wife) and domineering rule (on the part of the husband). The Hebrew term here translated “desire” (teshuqah) is rarely found in the OT. But it appears again in 4:7, in a statement that closely parallels 3:16—that is, where the Lord says to Cain, just before Cain’s murder of his brother, that sin’s “desire is for you” (i.e., to master Cain), and that Cain must “rule over it” (which he immediately fails to do, by murdering his brother, as seen in 4:8). Similarly, the ongoing result of Adam and Eve’s original sin of rebellion against God will have disastrous consequences for their relationship: (1) Eve will have the sinful “desire” to oppose Adam and to assert leadership over him, reversing God’s plan for Adam’s leadership in marriage. But (2) Adam will also abandon his God-given, pre-fall role of leading, guarding, and caring for his wife, replacing this with his own sinful, distorted desire to “rule” over Eve. Thus one of the most tragic results of Adam and Eve’s rebellion against God is an ongoing, damaging conflict between husband and wife in marriage, driven by the sinful behavior of both in rebellion against their respective God-given roles and responsibilities in marriage. (See notes on Eph. 5:21–32 for the NT pattern for marriage founded on the redemptive work of Christ.)
GENESIS—NOTE ON 3:17–19 God’s punishment of the man involves his relationship with the very ground from which he was formed (see note on 2:5–7). Because he has eaten that which was prohibited to him, he will have to struggle to eat in the future. Given the abundance of food that God provided in the garden, this judgment reflects God’s disfavor. Adam will no longer enjoy the garden’s abundance but will have to work the ground from which he was taken (3:23; see note on 2:8–9). The punishment is not work itself (cf. 2:15), but rather the hardship and frustration (i.e., “pain,” itstsabon; cf. 3:16) that will accompany the man’s labor. To say that the ground is cursed (Hb. ’arar, v. 17) and will bring forth thorns and thistles (v. 18) indicates that the abundant productivity that was seen in Eden will no longer be the case. Underlying this judgment is a disruption of the harmonious relationship that originally existed between humans and nature.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 3:19 Further, the man’s body will return to the ground (v. 19), i.e., it will die (which was not true of the original created order; cf. Rom. 5:12). For this reason, the Bible looks forward to a time when nature will be set free from the consequences of human sin; i.e., nature will no longer be the arena of punishment, and it will finally have glorified human beings to manage it and bring out its full potential (Rom. 8:19–22).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 3:20–21 God’s words of judgment on the serpent, woman, and man are immediately followed by two observations that possibly convey a sense of hope. First, the man names his wife Eve (v. 20), which means “life-giver” (see esv footnote). Second, God clothes the couple (v. 21). While this final action recognizes that the human couple is now ashamed of their nakedness in God’s presence, as a gesture it suggests that God still cares for these, his creatures. Because God provides garments to clothe Adam and Eve, thus requiring the death of an animal to cover their nakedness, many see a parallel here related to (1) the system of animal sacrifices to atone for sin later instituted by God through the leadership of Moses in Israel, and (2) the eventual sacrificial death of Christ as an atonement for sin.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 3:22–24 The couple is expelled from the garden. God begins a sentence in v. 22 and breaks off without finishing it—for the man to live forever (in his sinful condition) is an unbearable thought, and God must waste no time in preventing it (“therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden”). The tree of life, then, probably served in some way to confirm a person in his or her moral condition (cf. Prov. 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; Rev. 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). According to Gen. 2:15, the man was put in the garden to work it and keep or guard it. Outside the garden the man will have to work the ground, but the task of keeping or guarding the garden is given to the cherubim (3:24). By allowing themselves to be manipulated by the serpent, the couple failed to fulfill their priestly duty of guarding the garden. Consequently, their priestly status is removed from them as they are put out of the sanctuary. The placing of cherubim to the east of the garden is reflected in the tabernacle and temple, where cherubim were an important component in the structure and furnishings (see The Ark of the Covenant).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 4:1–26 Adam and Eve’s Sons. This chapter shows mankind plunging further into sin, with Cain murdering his brother and his descendant Lamech taking indiscriminate revenge. Although they have been expelled from the garden of Eden, Adam and Eve are enabled by God to have two sons. With them rests the hope of an offspring who will overcome the serpent. When Cain callously murders his righteous brother Abel, however, evil seems to triumph. Any hope that Cain’s descendants will reverse this trend appears remote when Lamech boasts of killing a man simply for striking him. Against this background the brief announcement of Seth’s birth to replace Abel offers fresh hope.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 4:1 Eve’s reference to the Lord’s help when Cain is born conveys a sense of optimism. The serpent may yet be overthrown by the offspring of the woman.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 4:2–5 Although Cain and Abel have contrasting occupations and present different types of offerings to God, the present episode is not designed to elevate herdsmen over farmers, or animal offerings over plant offerings. One way to explain why God had regard for Abel and his offering, but not for Cain, is to posit that Abel’s offering, being of the firstborn of his flock, is a more costly offering, expressing greater devotion. Another way to explain the difference is first to observe that both offerings are recognizable parts of the later Levitical system: for Cain’s offering of the fruit of the ground (v. 3), cf. Deut. 26:2 (an offering expressing consecration), and for Abel’s offering of the firstborn of his flock, cf. Deut. 15:19–23 (a kind of peace offering, a meal in God’s presence). But at no point does the Bible suggest that offerings work automatically, as if the worshiper’s faith and contrition did not matter; and Cain’s fundamentally bad heart can be seen in his resentment toward his brother and in his uncooperative answers to God in the rest of the passage. Several NT texts derive legitimate inferences from this narrative, namely, that Cain demonstrated an evil heart by his evil deeds, while Abel demonstrated a pious heart by his righteous deeds (1 John 3:12); and that Abel offered his sacrifice by faith and was commended as righteous for that reason (Heb. 11:4).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 4:6–7 The Lord’s words challenge Cain to do better. He still has the possibility of turning, evidently with God’s help, to please God. To succeed in doing this, however, he must overcome the domination of sin, presented here as a wild beast seeking to devour Cain (cf. note on 3:16).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 4:8 The brevity of the report of Abel’s murder underlines the coldness of Cain’s action. Jealousy, probably coupled with anger at God, causes him to slay his own brother without pity. The heinousness of this spiteful murder reveals that sin has mastered Cain.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 4:9 am I my brother’s keeper? When the Lord confronts Cain with his crime, his coldhearted nature causes him to deny any knowledge about his brother. Cain shows no sign of remorse.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 4:10–12 Cain’s punishment is linked to his crime. He will no longer be able to cultivate the soil (vv. 11–12) because his brother’s blood cries out to God from the ground (v. 10). Cain’s sentence adds to the alienation between man and the ground that has already been introduced in 3:17–18. Underlying these punishments is a principle that recurs throughout Scripture: human sin has a bearing on the fertility of the earth. Whereas God intended humanity to enjoy the earth’s bounty, sin distances people not only from God himself but also from nature (see note on 3:17–19). Genesis 4:10 is the likely background for the NT’s use of the phrase “the blood of Abel” as the paradigm for an innocent victim crying for justice (Matt. 23:35; Luke 11:51; Heb. 12:24).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 4:13–16 Cain is immediately conscious of the severity of his punishment. He is to be alienated from both the ground and God. While this may seem like a very lenient sentence, it meant that Cain would become a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth (v. 14). Alienated from the rest of human society, Cain fears that others will have such a dread of him that anyone finding him will kill him (v. 14). The reader is not told who those others might be. By way of reassuring Cain, the Lord states that sevenfold vengeance will come on anyone who kills him (v. 15). the LORD put a mark on Cain. In spite of much scholarly speculation, the precise nature of the mark is uncertain. It must have been something visible, but that is all that can be said. Like his parents, who were sent out of the garden, Cain is forced to move away from the presence of the LORD (and Moses seems to be implying that this is true of Cain’s offspring as well, since vv. 17–24 lack any mention of God). Presumably Cain moves farther to the east of Eden (v. 16). Cain settles in a region that is appropriately known as Nod (location unknown), which in Hebrew means “wandering.”
GENESIS—NOTE ON 4:17–24 These verses provide selective information about Cain’s descendants, concluding with a description of Lamech (v. 19), who boasts of having taken revenge “seventy-sevenfold” by killing a man who wounded him. Seven generations on from Cain, Lamech resembles his ancestor, but seems to be worse.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 4:17 Cain knew his wife. No explanation is given as to the origin of Cain’s wife. As is often the case in Genesis, the limited and selective nature of the account leaves the reader with unanswered questions (see Introduction: Reading Genesis in the Twenty-first Century). Presumably, Cain married his sister—a reasonable assumption, since the whole human race descends from Adam and Eve (and the laws later forbidding this practice, such as in Lev. 18:9, would not have been relevant at this stage; cf. Gen. 5:4). he built a city. The precise identity of the city-builder is open to debate. While Cain would appear to be the builder (on the basis that it is named after his son, Enoch), the Hebrew text could also be taken as indicating that Enoch was the builder. Although the opening two chapters make no specific mention of a “city,” the early readers of Genesis would have automatically assumed that the instruction to fill the earth implies that humanity would establish a city or cities around, and then spreading out from, Eden. While this was part of God’s design for the earth, Genesis observes that some people engage in city building without any reference to God (see esp. 11:1–9).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 4:18–22 Five generations after Cain, Lamech is born (v. 18). His immediate descendants are associated with animal breeding, music, and metalwork, all of which are noteworthy cultural and technological developments (vv. 20–22). Whereas Abel is linked to sheep (v. 2), the herds of Jabal also include cattle, donkeys, and possibly camels (v. 20). (Pre-flood genealogies are well attested in the ancient Near East, in particular, in Mesopotamian texts. The Sumerian King List records lists of monarchs who ruled the land before the “Great Deluge.” The founding of cities was one of the primary industries of these pre-flood rulers. Such parallels confirm the historicity of the biblical pre-flood account.)
GENESIS—NOTE ON 4:23–24 The new developments of vv. 20–22 are overshadowed by Lamech’s boast of having killed a man for wounding or striking him (v. 23). Lamech’s response is out of proportion to the injury, showing his inordinate vengefulness. This, like his bigamy (v. 19), reveals his depravity. His behavior reveals that the line of Cain is dominated by those who have no regard for the lives of others or respect for the principle of monogamy that 2:23–24 endorses (see note there). Later laws in the Pentateuch insist on proportional punishment: in the case of murder, a maximum of life for life (Ex. 21:23). sevenfold … seventy-sevenfold. Lamech is boasting that his vengeful passion makes him safer than Cain (Gen. 4:15), who had protection only from God. “Seventy-sevenfold” is a picturesque statement for extravagant excess; cf. Matt. 18:22 (see esv footnote).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 4:25–26 The final verses of this section suddenly jump back to Adam and Eve in order to report the birth of their third son, Seth. Eve’s remark, God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, is clearly an allusion back to the offspring of the woman in 3:15. The potential of Seth’s birth is immediately underlined by the observation, At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD, i.e., to seek him in (public) worship. Details are not given, but the implication may be that this calling on the Lord’s name began in Adam’s own family circle.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 5:1–6:8 Adam’s Descendants. This section of Genesis falls into two distinctive parts. Whereas 5:1–32 is largely a genealogy that traces a single line of descendants from Adam to Noah, naming only one person in each generation, 6:1–8 provides a worldwide picture of increasing human wickedness. The contrast between these two elements is not simply between the particular and the universal but, more importantly, between righteousness and evil.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 5:1–32 The Family Line from Adam to Noah. After a brief introduction, which echoes elements of ch. 1, this passage follows a particular line of descendants from Adam to Noah. The chapter’s layout is dominated by a distinctive literary structure that is repeated for each of those specifically mentioned in each generation. The pattern may be set out as follows: When A had lived X years, he fathered B. A lived Y years after he fathered B and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of A were Z (= X + Y) years, after which he died (see chart). Since the word “fathered” in a genealogy can mean “fathered an ancestor of,” it is possible that this genealogy skips any number of generations; certainly the literary conventions allow for this. That omissions do actually occur appears from comparing, for example, the genealogy of Moses in Ex. 6:16–20 with that of Joshua in 1 Chron. 7:23–27: undoubtedly the genealogy for Moses has been compressed (cf. also Ezra 7:1–5 with 1 Chron. 6:4–14). At three points in Gen. 5:3–31, the pattern is briefly broken to introduce additional information involving Adam–Seth, Enoch, and Lamech–Noah. One of the most striking aspects of the passage is the great age of the first people in Genesis. (Other ancient Near Eastern texts attribute even longer lives to earlier generations; e.g., the Sumerian King List mentions kings who reign—interestingly, before a flood—for periods of 28,800, 36,000, and 43,200 years.) Given that the life span of people today (and at least since the flood) is much shorter than the life span of those listed from Adam to Noah, the question is often raised as to whether the remarkable longevity of these patriarchs as given in 5:1–32 should be taken at face value or whether their longevity has some other explanation. Some have suggested that the figures should be understood as symbolic (e.g., that they may be related to various astronomical periods); or that the numbers are encoded with some unknown honorary significance; or that the figures were calculated by a different numeric method (e.g., that they should be divided by a factor of 5, plus, in some cases, the addition of the number 7 or 14). No writer, however, has offered a convincing alternative explanation, and none of the proposed alternatives can be substantiated with any certainty. The traditional understanding is that the numbers should be taken at face value, often assuming that something changed in the cosmology of the earth or in the physiology of humans (or in both) after the flood, resulting in a rapid decline in longevity, finally stabilizing at a “normal” life span in the range of 70 years or 80 years (see Ps. 90:10). In any case, one clear implication of these genealogies is that these people actually lived (regardless of how long), and that they actually died.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 5:1–2 The heading that introduces 5:1–6:8 differs from all the others (see note on 2:4) by referring to a book. This was probably something like a clay tablet that preserved the contents of 5:1–21 and possibly 11:10–26, although there the pattern is somewhat abbreviated. The book is named after Adam (Hb. ’adam). The same Hebrew word is also translated in 5:1 by man and in 5:2 by Man. This reflects the fact that Hebrew ’adam may function as a proper name, a common noun denoting a male individual, and a generic noun denoting male and female human beings (see notes on 1:26; 1:27; 2:15–16). the likeness of God (5:1). See note on 1:27.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 5:3–5 The linear list of descendants begins with Adam and then proceeds to name his son Seth. As 4:25 records, Seth is Adam’s third-born son. This line is clearly presented as offering an alternative to the line of seven generations linked to Cain in 4:17–18. But whereas Cain’s line leads to a killer in the seventh generation, the comparable generation in Seth’s line produces Enoch, who walked with God and did not die (see note on 5:22–24). fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image. From the normal pattern of the genealogy, the phrase “fathered Seth” would be expected here. The additional material introduces the idea that Seth resembles Adam. While this implies that Seth is made, like Adam, in the divine image, it also suggests that he images his father as well; Seth’s line, however, is certainly portrayed more positively than that of Cain.
View this chart online at http://kindle.esvsb.org/c39
| Adam (5:3–5) | 130/930 |
| Seth (5:6–8) | 105/912 |
| Enosh (5:9–11) | 90/905 |
| Kenan (5:12–14) | 70/910 |
| Mahalalel (5:15–17) | 65/895 |
| Jared (5:18–20) | 162/962 |
| Enoch (5:21–24) | 65/365 |
| Methuselah (5:25–27) | 187/969 |
| Lamech (5:28–31) | 182/777 |
| Noah (5:32; 9:29) | 500/950 |
| Shem (11:10–11) | 100/600 |
| Arpachshad (11:12–13) | 35/438 |
| Shelah (11:14–15) | 30/433 |
| Eber (11:16–17) | 34/464 |
| Peleg (11:18–19) | 30/239 |
| Reu (11:20–21) | 32/239 |
| Serug (11:22–23) | 30/230 |
| Nahor (11:24–25) | 29/148 |
| Terah (11:26–32) | 70/205 |
GENESIS—NOTE ON 5:22–24 The usual pattern of the genealogy (see note on vv. 1–32) is altered with the substitution of the expression Enoch walked with God. This is then developed further in v. 24 when the expected phrase “and he died” is replaced by the comment and he was not, for God took him. In this passage, and in certain other contexts in Genesis (e.g., 3:8; 6:9; 17:1; 24:40; 48:15), the Hebrew verb for “walked” is a distinctive form that conveys the sense of an ongoing intimacy with God. Remarkably, because of this special relationship, Enoch does not die (cf. Elijah, 2 Kings 2:1–12). The narrator’s desire to highlight this fact may explain why the present genealogy, unlike the one in Gen. 11:10–26, regularly mentions that “X died.”
GENESIS—NOTE ON 5:27 According to the dates given, it is possible to conclude that Methuselah died in the year of the flood.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 5:28–31 The genealogical pattern is disrupted by the inclusion of Lamech’s explanation for the name Noah. Lamech’s comment on the name “Noah” (Hb. noakh), which strictly speaking means “rest” (Hb. nuakh), introduces the related concept of “comfort” (Hb. nakham). Lamech expects that Noah will bring both rest and comfort from the painful toil of working the soil (see 3:17–19). Lamech’s 777 years provides an interesting point of contact with his namesake in 4:18–24 and seventy-sevenfold vengeance.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 5:32 Although this verse gives the impression of continuing the genealogical pattern used in vv. 3–31, the naming of three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, brings the list to an end. A similar ending draws to a conclusion the genealogy of Shem in 11:10–26.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 6:1–8:22 A flood story, included in the Epic of Gilgamesh, has been found in the Mesopotamian literature. It has many similarities to the biblical account of the flood. A certain man named Utnapishtim built an ark, loaded it with animals, and survived a torrential rain. The relationship of the two accounts, if any, is uncertain, although the appearance of a flood story in Mesopotamia gives some support and confirmation to the historicity of the biblical event. That is, the existence of such stories elsewhere indicates that the Bible indeed preserves the memory of a momentous event, as does the Mesopotamian account. There are also key differences between the biblical and Mesopotamian stories, particularly in regard to what motivated God or the gods to bring the flood.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 6:1–8 The Wickedness of Humanity. The very specific list of descendants in ch. 5 is immediately followed by this short passage that explains why God sent a flood to punish the whole of humanity. But this passage concludes by recognizing that, in contrast to everyone else, Noah (introduced in 5:28–32) finds favor in God’s eyes.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 6:1–2 man began to multiply. The motif of multiplying is first introduced by God in 1:28, where it is presented in a very positive light and viewed as necessary to fulfill God’s plans for the earth. The present passage, however, reveals that this God-mandated task leads to increasing wickedness on the earth as the population expands. This problem is exacerbated by the coming together of the sons of God and the daughters of man (6:2). The identity of both groups is uncertain, and various solutions have been advocated, although none has gained universal support. Various scholars have proposed that the “sons of God” are (1) fallen angels (cf. Job 1:6; some, however, suggest that this contradicts Mark 12:25, though the reference in Mark is to angels in heaven; see also 2 Pet. 2:4–5; Jude 5–6); or (2) tyrannical human judges or kings (in the ungodly line of Lamech, possibly demon-possessed); or (3) followers of God among the male descendants of Seth (i.e., the godly line of Seth, but who married the ungodly daughters of Cain). Though it would be difficult to determine which of these three views may be correct, it is clear that the kind of relationship described here involved some form of grievous sexual perversion, wherein the “sons of God” saw and with impunity took any women (“daughters of man”) that they wanted. The sequence here in Gen. 6:2 (“saw … attractive [good] … took”) parallels the sequence of the fall in 3:6 (“saw … good … took”). In both cases, something good in God’s creation is used in disobedience and sinful rebellion against God, with tragic consequences. Only Noah stands apart from this sin. (See note on 1 Pet. 3:19.)
GENESIS—NOTE ON 6:3 God announces that because of the immoral nature of people, their days shall be 120 years. There are two possible interpretations of this number of years: either the lives of human beings will no longer exceed 120 years, or the coming of the flood is anticipated in 120 years. While the latter interpretation is simpler, the former interpretation is appealing, and would be true as a generalization even though some of those who live after the flood (e.g., Abraham) enjoy lives in excess of 120 years.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 6:4 Nephilim. The meaning of this term is uncertain. It occurs elsewhere in the OT only in Num. 13:33, where it denotes a group living in Canaan. If both passages refer to the same people, then the Israelite spies (Num. 13:33) are expressing their fears of the Canaanites by likening them to the ancient men of renown. Although in Hebrew Nepilim means “fallen ones,” the earliest Greek translators rendered it gigantes, “giants.” This idea may have been mistakenly deduced from Num. 13:33; one must be cautious about reading it back into the present passage. The Nephilim were mighty men or warriors and, as such, may well have contributed to the violence that filled the earth (see Gen. 6:13).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 6:5 This verse concisely describes the universal intensity and pervasiveness of human wickedness.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 6:6–7 the LORD regretted … it grieved him to his heart. The Hebrew verb rendered “regretted” (Hb. nakham) is sometimes translated “repent,” and sometimes as “feel sorrow, be grieved.” God is grieved over his creation, which he at first saw as very good (1:31) but which is now filled with sin (see notes on 1 Sam. 15:11; 15:29; Jonah 3:10). The destruction of man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens suggests that this will be a reversal of God’s creative work. The resulting flood reflects this, for the dry land is submerged under water, subsequently to reappear, as in Gen. 1:9. from the face of the land. On the extent of the flood, see note on 6:17.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 6:8 Noah is distinguished from the rest of humanity. Apart from Noah, the only other person in the OT who is described as finding favor in the eyes of the LORD is Moses, in Ex. 33:17 (and possibly Abraham; cf. Gen. 18:3). Placed on a par with Moses, Noah is rescued from the looming annihilation.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 6:9–9:29 Noah’s Descendants. Centered on Noah and his descendants, this section of Genesis is dominated by the account of the flood that brings about a renewal of the earth, which has similarities to 1:1–2:3. While the land is cleansed of the defilement caused by human wrongdoing and a new start is made possible by God, the people’s nature has not been transformed, as the final short episode in 9:20–28 reveals. The inclination of the human heart is still toward evil.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 6:9–9:19 Noah and the Flood. This long section recounts how Noah and his immediate family are rescued from the flood. By echoing ch. 1, the whole process is presented as the undoing of creation and then the “re-creation” of the earth as it emerges from the flood. But after the flood not everything returns to a pristine condition. Human nature is not renewed.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 6:9 These are the generations of Noah. A new heading introduces this section of Genesis (see note on 2:4). Noah’s personal righteousness explains why he is warned about the forthcoming deluge. The Hebrew for blameless conveys the sense of being perfect, without evident flaw (although not necessarily sinless). walked with God. See note on 5:22–24. Like Noah, Abraham is later required by God to walk before him and be blameless (see 17:1). The positive attributes listed here are rarely ascribed to human beings in the OT.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 6:11–12 In contrast to Noah, the earth was corrupt in God’s sight. These verses confirm what has already been indicated in vv. 1–7. Here, however, particular emphasis is given to the violence that fills the earth. The mention of “corruption” here may lie behind Paul’s “bondage to corruption” (Rom. 8:21): the creation suffers as mankind corrupts its way, and as God punishes that corruption. Originally delegated to govern the earth on God’s behalf, humans have aggressively and viciously asserted their rule over others, including both people and other living creatures. The ancient Near Eastern epics of Gilgamesh and Atrahasis also tell of a flood sent to punish human beings. In those stories, however, it is merely the disruptive noise of humanity that leads to their destruction. Genesis emphasizes that God destroys the people he has created because of their immoral behavior.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 6:13–17 In a long speech, God gives Noah directions for the construction of an ark (v. 14) that will be sufficiently large to house his family and a wide variety of other living creatures.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 6:15 In modern measurements, the ark would have been around 450 feet (140 m) long, 75 feet (23 m) wide, and 45 feet (14 m) high, yielding a displacement of about 43,000 tons (about 39 million kg). The inside capacity would have been 1.4 million cubic feet (39,644 cubic m), with an approximate total deck area of 95,700 square feet (8,891 square m).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 6:17 Everything that is on the earth shall die. Although God intends the flood to destroy every person and his remarks have a strong universal emphasis, this in itself does not necessarily mean that the flood had to cover the whole earth. Since the geographical perspective of ancient people was more limited than that of contemporary readers, it is possible that the flood, while universal from their viewpoint, did not cover the entire globe. Indeed, Genesis implies that prior to the Tower of Babel incident (see 11:1–9), people had not yet spread throughout the earth. Many interpreters, therefore, argue that a huge regional flood may have been all that was necessary for God to destroy all human beings. The expression “all the earth” (7:3; cf. 8:9, “the whole earth”) does not exclude such a possibility: later, “all the earth” came to Joseph to buy grain (41:57), with “all the earth” clearly referring to the eastern Mediterranean seaboard. In support of the view that the flood covered all the earth, other interpreters point out that the text says that “all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered” (7:19) and that the water was “fifteen cubits” above the tops of the mountains. If “the mountains of Ararat” (8:4) refers to the range that includes present-day Mount Ararat in Turkey (elevation 16,854 feet or 5,137 m), the amount of water necessary to cover it would be at least 16,854 feet above sea level.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 6:18–22 God indicates that he will establish a covenant with Noah (see notes on 9:9–11; 9:12–17). By taking into the ark two of every living thing, including birds, animals, and creeping things, Noah displays the caring oversight that people were expected to have for other living creatures.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 7:1–5 Having made the ark according to God’s direction, Noah is now told to embark. He is instructed to take on board seven pairs of all clean animals and a pair of the animals that are not clean. On the distinction between clean and unclean creatures, see Lev. 11:1–47 and Deut. 14:4–20. Since after the flood some clean animals will be offered as sacrifices (see Gen. 8:20) and some will be eaten as food (see 9:3), to ensure their survival it was necessary to have more than one pair of each kind in the ark.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 7:11–12 A peculiar feature of the flood narrative is the number of detailed chronological notices (cf. 8:4–5, 13–14). By pinpointing the exact date of the flood within Noah’s life, the text underlines that it was a real event. all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened (7:11). Powerful imagery is used here to capture the intensity of the flood. From below and above, water poured out to cover the land. Rain fell continuously for forty days and forty nights (v. 12).
Dates are in the form of month, day, and Noah’s year, as given in the text. Hence, 2/10/600 means the tenth day of the second month in Noah’s 600th year. Months are calculated at 30 days each. Dates in parentheses are extrapolations from dates explicitly given in the text.
View this chart online at http://kindle.esvsb.org/c40
| Reference | Event | Date | Day | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7:4, 10 | Announcement of the flood 7 days in advance | (2/10/600) | Sunday | |
| Waters prevail: 150-day period | 7:11, 13 | Flood begins; Noah and family enter the ark | 2/17/600 | Sunday |
| 7:12 | Flood lasts 40 days and ends | (3/27/600) | Friday | |
| 8:4 | Ark rests on mountains of Ararat after waters prevail and abate for 150 days total | 7/17/600 | Friday | |
| Waters abate: 150-day period | 8:5 | Mountaintops eventually become visible | 10/1/600 | Wednesday |
| 8:7 | Raven sent out (after 40 days of mountaintop visibility) | (11/10/600) | Sunday | |
| 8:8 | Dove sent out | (11/17/600) | Sunday | |
| 8:10 | Dove’s second flight (7 days later); returns with olive leaf | (11/24/600) | Sunday | |
| 8:12 | Dove’s third flight (7 days later); does not return | (12/1/600) | Sunday | |
| 8:3 | Waters fully abated; end of second 150-day period | (12/17/600) | Wednesday | |
| Earth dries: 70-day period | 8:13 | Noah eventually removes the covering of the ark | 1/1/601 | Wednesday |
| 8:14–19 | Earth dried out; Noah leaves ark | 2/27/601 | Wednesday | |
| Total time in ark: 370 days | ||||
GENESIS—NOTE ON 7:16 The safety of those in the ark depended on both human and divine action. the LORD shut him in. The use of the personal name “Yahweh” (“LORD”; see note on 2:4) underscores God’s special relationship with Noah.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 7:17–24 The devastating results of the flood are described, fulfilling the judgment that God had previously pronounced. the waters prevailed on the earth 150 days (v. 24). The figure of 150 days, which includes the 40 days of rain mentioned in v. 12, is repeated in 8:3. In both places it denotes the five-month period that falls between the detailed chronological notices given in 7:11 (marking the very start of the flood on the 17th day of the second month) and 8:4 (when the ark comes to a place of rest on the 17th day of the seventh month). It will be a further seven months before the land is sufficiently dry for those in the ark to disembark safely (see 8:13–14). On the depth of the flood (above the mountains), see note on 6:17.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 8:1 God remembered Noah. This marks the turning point in the flood story. When the Bible says that God “remembers” someone or his covenant with someone, it indicates that he is about to take action for that person’s welfare (cf. 9:15; 19:29; 30:22; Ex. 2:24; 32:13; Ps. 25:6–7; 74:2). All life on the land having been destroyed, God now proceeds to renew everything, echoing what he did in Genesis 1. God made a wind blow over the earth. The Hebrew word for wind, ruakh, is also sometimes translated “Spirit” (e.g., 1:2; 6:3). While the context normally enables the reader to distinguish ruakh meaning “wind” from ruakh meaning “Spirit,” the present verse intentionally echoes 1:2.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 8:2–4 In v. 2 God puts into reverse the process started in 7:11. The waters both rose and abated during the period of 150 days (see note on 7:17–24). Mountains of Ararat indicates a range of mountains of which Mount Ararat (in modern Turkey) is the highest. The text does not name the specific mountain on which the ark came to rest.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 8:5–14 The slow, gradual process by which the waters receded and the land dried out (v. 14) is captured by the detailed account of Noah’s releasing a raven (v. 7) and then a dove (vv. 8–12). As in ch. 1, the dry land emerges from the waters.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 8:15–17 God’s instructions to Noah are reminiscent of ch. 1, especially the statement that Noah and his family are to be fruitful and multiply on the earth (see 1:28).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 8:18–19 In obedience to God, Noah goes out of the ark with his family and all the creatures.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 8:20–22 Noah’s first recorded act on emerging from the ark is to build an altar to the LORD (v. 20). On it he presents whole-burnt offerings, using some of the clean animals and birds. While this is undoubtedly intended to express gratitude for divine deliverance, it is also an act of atonement. This is a normal aspect of burnt offerings (see Lev. 1:3–17, esp. v. 4) and is supported by the mention of the pleasing aroma (Gen. 8:21; cf. Lev. 1:9, 13, 17). The Hebrew term for “pleasing,” nikhoakh, conveys the idea of rest and tranquility. It is related to the name “Noah” (Hb. noakh) and is probably used here in order to remind the reader of Lamech’s remarks in Gen. 5:29. It also has the sense of “soothing.” The burnt offering soothes God’s anger at human sin, so although human nature has not been changed by the flood, God’s attitude has changed. Notice how 8:21 (for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth) echoes very closely 6:5 (“every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually”). In spite of the human propensity to sin, atonement through sacrifice is possible, securing a peaceful relationship between the Lord and humanity. I will never again curse the ground (8:21). The clear force of the Hebrew text is that God will not send another flood; he is not revoking the curse pronounced in 3:17, which continues to be in place (the words for “curse” are different; see esv footnote). This short comment about the effect of sacrifice underlines the importance of sacrifice in the Bible’s plan of salvation.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 9:1–4 While God’s speech here closely parallels 1:28–30, two important changes are introduced. First, the positive instruction to exercise dominion over the living creatures is replaced by the negative comment that they will fear and dread human beings. Second, whereas the emphasis was previously on people’s eating from plants, humans are now given permission to be carnivorous. While God now permits the taking of animal life for food, the animal’s blood remains sacred and is not to be consumed, as an acknowledgment that all life is from God (see Lev. 17:12–14).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 9:5–6 Following his comments about the killing of animals, God addresses the issue of homicide. Violence by “all flesh” (v. 11), i.e., by man and animals, prompted God to send the flood (6:11, 13). If human nature has not improved after the flood (6:5; 8:21), how is violence to be prevented in the future? This legal enactment is the answer: From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. This means that any animal or person that takes a human life will be held accountable by God, working through human representatives (e.g., Ex. 20:13; 21:28). Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed. Here the principle of talion, a life for a life, is applied (see Ex. 21:23). This measured response is preferable to Lamech’s seventy-sevenfold vengeance (Gen. 4:24). Human life is to be valued so highly that it is protected by this system of punishment because God made man in his own image, and so to murder another human being is to murder what is most like God, and is thus implicitly an attack on God himself. Many would see this statement as establishing the moral principle permitting the death penalty in cases of murder—with the understanding that the person charged would have been justly tried and his guilt established beyond any reasonable doubt (cf. the OT requirement of two or three witnesses, Deut. 19:15; repeated in the NT, e.g., Matt. 18:16; Heb. 10:28). A further requirement is that such a death-penalty verdict must always be carried out under the jurisdiction of the established authorities (cf. Deut. 19:15–21; Rom. 13:1–5). The difficulty of establishing guilt beyond any reasonable doubt and the difficulty of ensuring justice in a modern, complex urban society (as compared to an ancient village-based society) underscore the great care and caution that must be taken in applying this principle today.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 9:7 God’s speech ends as it began in v. 1, repeating what was said in 8:17 and echoing 1:28. God wants humanity to flourish and not to be destroyed by violence or another flood. This positive view of population growth (cf. note on 1:28) stands in sharp contrast to the Babylonian flood story, which ends with the gods taking measures to inhibit mankind from filling the earth.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 9:9–11 God outlines the covenant he is now establishing with all living creatures, having mentioned it briefly before the flood in 6:18. This is the first covenant explicitly named in Genesis (see note on 2:17); a similar covenant is later established with Abraham and his descendants in ch. 17. A covenant formally binds two parties together in a relationship, on the basis of mutual personal commitment, with consequences for keeping or breaking the commitment. God makes this kind of covenant with a group of people by covenanting with one who represents them: everyone else then experiences the covenant by virtue of being included “in” the representative (see note on 12:3); here, the animals are included as well as Noah’s descendants, showing Noah to be a kind of new Adam. Emphasizing that the covenant is for all living creatures, God states that there will never again be a flood to destroy the earth (9:11).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 9:12–17 Different covenants have appropriate signs or symbols linked to them. Circumcision is the sign of the covenant with Abraham (ch. 17), and the Sabbath is the sign of the covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai (Ex. 31:12–17). On this occasion God’s designated sign is the rainbow (Gen. 9:13). Its presence, when rain clouds are in the sky, will be a visible reminder of God’s everlasting covenant (v. 16). It is not necessary to think that rainbows first began to exist at this time; in any case, God says that he will now use rainbows as a sign of this covenant. This sign should not be interpreted as symbolizing that God has hung up his warrior’s bow, since there is no hint of that meaning in the text.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 9:18–19 These verses, which bring the flood story to an end, anticipate the next two episodes. The reference to Ham’s son Canaan (v. 18) prepares for the events of vv. 20–29. The mention of people’s being dispersed over the whole earth (v. 19) is developed in ch. 10.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 9:20–29 The Cursing of Canaan. This unusual episode provides an unexpected sequel to the flood story. After the flood and the “new creation” comes another fall, by Noah—a sort of second Adam, in that he (like Adam) is father of the whole human race. It also anticipates similar activity by Lot’s daughters after the destruction of Sodom (19:30–38). Noah’s drunkenness and Ham’s indiscretion result in contrasting announcements regarding the futures of Shem, Japheth, and Ham’s son Canaan.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 9:20 The reference to Noah as a man of the soil and his success in growing vines points to a fresh start after the flood (see note on 5:28–31).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 9:21–23 became drunk. The brevity of the description of Noah’s drunkenness is an indication of disapproval. Ham’s actions, however, are the object of serious criticism because Ham unashamedly looks on the nakedness of his father in the tent and then reports this to his brothers (v. 22). There is no indication, however, that perverse sexual behavior was involved in addition to Ham seeing his father drunk and naked. Though the text does not explicitly state what happened, it is clear that Ham humiliated and dishonored his father and that he apparently sought to make his brothers a party to that humiliation. Instead, Ham’s brothers make every effort to avoid seeing Noah’s naked body, as readers are told twice that they approached him backward (v. 23). The response of Shem and Japheth is in sharp contrast to Ham’s actions, as the brothers honor their father despite his foolish behavior (Ex. 20:12).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 9:24–27 The designation of Ham as the youngest son (v. 24) is peculiar, given that he is always listed after Shem and before Japheth. Possibly, for some unexplained reason, the traditional order of names does not reflect the birth sequence of the boys. Cursed be Canaan. Noah’s reaction to Ham’s action is to curse Canaan, Ham’s son. This outcome has clearly been anticipated in the narration, for twice previously it has been mentioned, in each context unnecessarily, that Ham is the father of Canaan (vv. 18, 22). a servant of servants shall he be. This passage was wrongly appealed to in past centuries to justify the enslavement of African people, resulting in grievous abuse, injustice, and inhumanity to people created in the image of God. Noah’s curse of Canaan, which focuses on his being a servant, anticipates the judgment that will later befall the Canaanites (cf. Deut. 7:1–3 with Gen. 10:15–19). This, coupled with the fact that the curse falls on Canaan alone and not on Ham’s other children (who settled in northern Africa), shows how illegitimate it was to use this text to justify enslaving African people. (For more on the overall biblical position on slavery, see notes on 1 Cor. 7:21; Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22–25; 1 Tim. 1:10.) Shem, however, is given pride of place, as is implied by Noah’s remark that Japheth will dwell in the tents of Shem (Gen. 9:27).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 9:28 The report of Noah’s death continues the pattern used throughout Genesis 5 to describe the total age and death of Adam and his descendants.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 10:1–11:9 The Descendants of Noah’s Sons. The next main section of Genesis outlines developments after the flood, focusing on how humanity becomes divided into different nations.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 10:1–32 The Clans, Languages, Lands, and Nations. This entire passage sets out, largely in the form of lists, how the descendants of Noah’s three sons populate different regions of the earth. Additional details of special interest are occasionally added. This genealogical-geographical passage is describing a process that covered a long time, as family clans migrated to particular regions (see map). The ancestor after whom the clan or tribe is named may not have lived in the region that later bears his name. Each of the three main parts of this section concludes with a reference to clans, languages, and nations (vv. 5, 20, 31).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 10:1 These are the generations of. This distinctive formula marks the start of a new section in Genesis (see note on 2:4).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 10:2–5 Japheth’s descendants are listed first. From these the coastland peoples spread (v. 5). This is the only additional remark that is made concerning them; it associates Japheth’s descendants with the coastal regions and islands of the Mediterranean Sea.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 10:6–20 Ham’s descendants receive considerably more attention than those of Japheth and Shem. Among them figure many of Israel’s enemies, such as the Egyptians, Babylonians, Philistines, and various Canaanite groups. Ham’s immediate sons are Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan (v. 6). Cush and Put are the regions to the south and west of Egypt, respectively. Cush fathered Nimrod (v. 8). This association may seem unusual given that Cush is linked geographically with Africa, and Nimrod with Mesopotamia. Nimrod is of particular interest for several reasons. He is linked to the great cities of Babel (i.e., Babylon; see note on 11:9) and Nineveh in Assyria, whose inhabitants at a later stage would descend in destructive power on the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The military might of the Assyrians and Babylonians may account for the related observations that Nimrod was a mighty man (i.e., warrior) and a mighty hunter (10:8, 9). These descriptions, one of which is linked with irony to the expression before the LORD (10:9), are probably to be viewed negatively. Nimrod’s aggression as a person runs totally counter to what God had intended when at creation he commissioned humanity to be his vice-regents or representatives. Babel … in the land of Shinar (v. 10). These details link Nimrod with the Tower of Babel episode (see 11:2, 9). Nimrod’s kingdom is the antithesis of what God desired. the great city (10:12). This probably denotes a region that included both Nineveh and Calah (see Jonah 3:3). The detailed list of Canaan’s descendants includes cities that play a significant role in later episodes in Genesis. The specific mention of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 10:19) provides a possible link between the actions of Ham in 9:22 and of the men of Sodom in 19:4–8. The designation “Canaanite” is sometimes used to cover all the different groups mentioned in 10:15–19 (e.g., 28:1).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 10:21–32 These verses list the descendants of Shem. These are the people with whom Israelites felt the most affinity, for Abraham was descended from Shem. Insofar as they can be identified, many of these are Arabian tribes or kingdoms. From the outset, Shem’s great-grandson Eber is selected for special attention (v. 21), being mentioned even before Shem’s own sons are named (v. 22). The designation “Hebrew” (Hb. ‘ibri; see 14:13) is derived from “Eber” (Hb. ‘eber). By way of underlining his importance, readers are informed that he called one of his sons Peleg (which may be taken to mean “division”), for in his days the earth was divided (10:25). This is probably an allusion to the Tower of Babel incident (11:1–9). The line of Shem’s descendants from Arpachshad to Peleg is repeated with additional information in 11:11–19.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 11:1–9 The Tower of Babel. This episode is significantly more important than its length suggests. It presents a unified humanity using all its resources to establish a city that is the antithesis of what God intended when he created the world. The tower is a symbol of human autonomy, and the city builders see themselves as determining and establishing their own destiny without any reference to the Lord. (The tower story may also be a polemic against Mesopotamian mythology. Eridu Genesis, a fragmentary text found at Ur, Nippur, and Nineveh, describes the goddess Nintur’s calling for humanity to build cities and to congregate in one place. Her desire, according to this text, is that humans be sedentary and not nomadic. Yahweh demands just the opposite, so that the earth would become populated.)
c. 2200 B.C.
Many of the people groups mentioned in Genesis 10 can be identified with relative certainty. In general, the descendants of Ham settled in North Africa and the eastern Mediterranean coast, the descendants of Shem in Mesopotamia and Arabia, and the descendants of Japheth in Europe and the greater area of Asia Minor.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 11:1 The opening description of the whole earth having one language indicates that the present episode is not placed chronologically after the events narrated in ch. 10, which specifically mention nations and languages. This incident, however, may have occurred during the broad period covered in ch. 10, especially if it is linked to the naming of Peleg in 10:25 (see note on 10:21–32).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 11:2–4 Come, let us build ourselves a city … and let us make a name for ourselves. The Babel enterprise is all about human independence and self-sufficiency apart from God. The builders believe that they have no need of God. Their technology and social unity give them confidence in their own ability, and they have high aspirations, constructing a tower with its top in the heavens (11:4). Contrary to God’s plan that people should fill the earth (e.g., 1:22, 28; 9:1, 7), the city-building project is designed to prevent the population from being dispersed over the face of the whole earth (11:4). By showing God’s continued interest in his creatures, this episode provides the setting for the call of Abram out of this very region, to be the vehicle of blessing to the whole world.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 11:5–8 With irony, the narrator points out that it was necessary for the Lord to come down in order to see the city and the tower (v. 5). Acknowledging the potential danger of a unified, self-confident humanity (v. 6), God intervenes by confusing their language so that they cannot understand one another. This has the desired effect of dispersing the people throughout the world (vv. 8–9).
View this chart online at http://kindle.esvsb.org/c41
| Action | Purpose | Desire |
|---|---|---|
| They built a city .… | … in order not to be dispersed over the face of the whole earth. | Security |
| They built a tower with its top in the heavens … | … in order to make a name for themselves. | Praise |
GENESIS—NOTE ON 11:9 This verse links the name of the city, Babel (Hb. babel), with the verb balal, which means “to confuse, to mix, to mingle.” But babel is also the name used in the OT for the city of Babylon. As a city, Babylon symbolizes humanity’s ambition to dethrone God and make the earth its own (see Revelation 17–18).
Ziggurats are monumental temple-towers found throughout the area of ancient Mesopotamia. They were commonly built of sun-dried mud and straw bricks held in position with bitumen as mortar. Stairways ascended to the top of these structures, where a small temple/shrine sat on the summit. The illustration depicts the Ziggurat of Nanna at Ur, which was constructed during the reign of Ur-Nammu (c. 2113–2095 B.C.). Its area covered 150 x 200 feet (46 x 61 m), and its height was 80 feet (24 m). It is commonly believed that this type of structure was being built in the Tower of Babel episode (Gen. 11:1–9). The text indicates that the builders of Babel had discovered the process of making mud bricks and that they employed “bitumen for mortar” (v. 3). Based on that invention, the builders decided “to build … a tower with its top in the heavens” (v. 4).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 11:10–26 Shem’s Descendants. Resembling the list of Adam’s descendants in 5:3–31, the present linear genealogy traces Noah’s line through Shem down to Terah, the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran. While the pattern is almost identical to that used in ch. 5, the final element, “Thus all the days of A were Z years, and he died,” is missing. Also, unlike ch. 5, no additional information is inserted. Consequently, the list moves swiftly from Shem to Terah. While the periods mentioned are still unusually long, they gradually become somewhat shorter. The length of time during which these men live is much shorter than is recorded for men living before the flood (cf. 5:1–32). This is similar to the pattern found in a clay tablet from the Mesopotamian city of Uruk, called the Sumerian King List (see note on 5:1–32). It was inscribed by a scribe during the reign of King Utukhegal, about 2100 B.C. It tells of kings who reigned for extremely long times. A flood then came, and subsequent kings ruled for vastly shorter times.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 11:26 The regular pattern of the genealogy is broken with the naming of Terah’s three sons. Before this, only the son through whom the linear genealogy is traced is specifically named in each generation. Abram comes first in the list because the ongoing family line is traced through him.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 11:27–50:26 Patriarchal History. The narrative now moves from the general survey of humanity to the specific family from which Israel comes. The narrative style becomes severely matter-of-fact. The narrator devotes much more time to describing the lives of the characters: whereas chs. 1–11 covers many generations in only 11 chapters, the patriarchal history deals with only four generations in 39 chapters. It begins with Abraham and goes on to his son Isaac, and Isaac’s two sons Jacob and Esau; the final section focuses on Jacob’s sons, especially Joseph. Here the specifics of being Israel are made clear: the land, the people, the blessing, and the calling. The Sinai (or Mosaic) covenant, which the first audience for these chapters receives, will provide the setting in which Israel is to put these patriarchal promises into practice. Throughout these chapters the readers will see how God has preserved the members of his chosen family, whose calling it is to walk with him, to be the headwaters of a special people and to be the channel by which blessing comes to the entire world.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 11:27–25:18 Terah’s Descendants. A new heading, identified by the expression “these are the generations of,” introduces the next main section of Genesis (see note on 2:4). These chapters focus on the immediate family of Terah. Special attention is given to Abram because the unique family line of Genesis is continued through him.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 11:27–32 A Brief Introduction to Terah’s Family. Various details pertinent to understanding the subsequent narrative are given: the death of Lot’s father, Haran (v. 28); the relocation of the family from southern to northern Mesopotamia (v. 31); and the inability of Abram’s wife to have children (v. 30).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 11:27 Abram will later have his name changed to “Abraham” (see 17:5).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 11:28 Ur of the Chaldeans is unquestionably the ancient city in southern Babylonia, the remains of which are located at Tell el-Muqayyar in modern Iraq. See illustration. Archaeological investigations by Leonard Woolley from 1922–1934 uncovered evidence of a highly developed urban culture in the time of Abram, a culture that developed around 2000 B.C. The term “Chaldeans” probably dates from the period 1000–500 B.C. and has been added to distinguish this Ur from similarly named cities in northern Mesopotamia (see Introduction: Author, Title, and Date). “Chaldeans” refers to the Kaldu people who settled in southern Babylonia from about 1200 B.C. onward.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 11:29 The name Sarai is later changed to “Sarah” (see 17:15). Sarai’s barrenness is an obvious barrier to the continuation of Abram’s family line. The initial barrenness of the patriarchs’ wives is a recurring motif in Genesis (see 25:21; 29:31).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 11:31–32 According to the Kultepe Texts from the nineteenth century B.C. (texts composed by Assyrian traders who clearly understood such matters), Haran was an important crossroads and commercial center in the ancient Near East.
c. 2091/1925 B.C.
Abram was born in Ur, a powerful city in southern Babylonia. Abram’s father, Terah, eventually led the family toward the land of Canaan but decided to settle in Haran (see Gen. 11:27–31). After Terah’s death, the Lord called Abram to go “to the land that I will show you” (Canaan), which he promises to give to Abram’s descendants. See note on Gen. 11:32.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 11:31 Although Terah’s ambition is to move his family from Ur to Canaan, they do not complete the journey, but settle in northern Mesopotamia at Haran (the location in Turkey is now called Eskiharran, “old Harran”). The spelling of the town name “Haran” in Hebrew is quite distinct from the name of Terah’s third son. (This is the Bible’s first reference to “the land of Canaan.” But the Ebla archives, found in northern Syria in the 1970s, contain clay tablets dating to c. 2300 B.C. They make mention of certain geographical places found in Scripture, such as Sodom and Zeboiim, two cities in the episode of the war of the kings [Gen. 14:1–16]. In addition, the first time the name “Canaan” is used in extrabiblical literature is at Ebla, in tablets that predate the biblical writings by centuries.)
GENESIS—NOTE ON 11:32 By way of completing this short introduction to Terah’s family, the narrative records his death at the age of 205. If Abram was born when Terah was 70 years old (see v. 26), and if Abram was 75 years old when he departed for Canaan (see 12:4), then Terah died 60 years after Abram’s departure (70 + 75 + 60 = 205). In Acts 7:4, however, Stephen says that Abram left Haran after the death of Terah. A simple way to resolve the chronological difficulty is to suppose that Stephen was following an alternative text (represented today in the Samaritan Pentateuch), which says that Terah died at the age of 145.
The ancient city of Ur lies 186 miles (300 km) southeast of modern Baghdad on a bend of the original course of the Euphrates River. Major excavations took place at the site in 1922–1934 under the direction of Sir Leonard Woolley. Ur became an important city in Mesopotamia near the end of the third millennium B.C. The governor of Ur, a man named Ur-Nammu (c. 2113–2095 B.C.), brought the city to great prominence. He took the titles “King of Ur, King of Sumer and Akkad.” Thus was founded the Third Dynasty of Ur (2113–2006 B.C.). This period was one of great peace and prosperity, the high point of the city’s existence. This diagram of the city represents the Third Dynasty of Ur, and it includes a central palace and a temple complex. The latter has as its center the Ziggurat of Ur-Nammu that is dedicated to the moon god Nanna. Ur was the birthplace of the Hebrew patriarch Abraham (Gen. 11:27–32), and the plan represents the city that he would have been familiar with.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 12:1–9 Abram’s Migration to Canaan. After the essential background information in 11:27–32, this section moves swiftly to highlight God’s invitation to Abram to become a source of blessing for the rest of humanity. (The name “Abram” appears in a text from Dilbat, and “Abraham” in the Egyptian Execration Texts [20th–19th centuries B.C.]. Other names from the patriarchal period, such as “Terah,” “Nahor,” and “Benjamin,” are also known from the Mari texts [18th century B.C.].)
GENESIS—NOTE ON 12:1–3 The divine speech that suddenly and unexpectedly introduces this section is exceptionally important, for it sets the agenda not only for Abram’s life but also for his descendants. By focusing on how divine blessing will be mediated through Abram to all the families of the earth, it marks an important turning point within the book of Genesis. The repetition of the verb bless (vv. 2–3) underscores the hope that through Abram people everywhere may experience God’s favor, reversing the predominantly negative experience of chs. 3–11. God’s plans for Abram have both national and international dimensions, which are developed in the episodes that follow.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 12:1 God’s invitation to Abram challenges him to abandon the normal sources of personal identity and security: his family and country. To obey, Abram must trust God implicitly; all human support is largely removed. The promised outcomes are conditional on Abram’s obedience. said. In Acts 7:2–3, Stephen has God calling Abram before he lived in Haran; the esv footnote, “had said,” shows that the grammar allows for this reading.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 12:2 God’s purpose for Abram, that he become a great nation, stands in obvious tension with Sarai’s barrenness and the summons to leave his homeland. Abram is challenged by God to establish a new humanity. make your name great. This was the failed aspiration of the tower builders (11:4).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 12:3 Although Abram is called to be a blessing to others, much rests on how they treat him. Those who are positive toward Abram will experience God’s favor; the one who despises Abram will know God’s displeasure. The text speaks of those who bless (plural) but of him who dishonors (singular), emphasizing that many more will be blessed than cursed. Indeed, such will be the influence of Abram that all the families of the earth shall be blessed in him. This promise is later reaffirmed to Isaac and Jacob (see 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). in you. This may simply indicate “by means of you,” but it is more likely that this expression is designating Abram as the covenantal representative for a people. To be “in” some person, then, is to be a member of that people for whom that person is the representative (cf. 2 Sam. 19:43; 20:1). This seems to be the way Paul takes it in Gal. 3:8–9, where “in you” becomes “along with Abraham”; it would also explain the origin of the NT expression “in Christ.”
GENESIS—NOTE ON 12:4 The brief report of Abram’s response presents his obedience as immediate and unquestioning. Lot went with him. Abram may have been responsible for Lot following the death of Haran (11:27–28). Since by this stage Lot is a wealthy adult with considerable possessions (see 13:5–6), readers may assume that he desires to support Abram’s mission.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 12:5 the people that they had acquired in Haran. Abram had under his authority a substantial number of men, many of whom may have been herdsmen (cf. 13:7). Genesis 14:14 mentions 318 trained men “born in his household,” and 17:12 refers to males whom Abram has bought with money from a foreigner. land of Canaan. Abram migrates with everything he possesses from northern Mesopotamia to Canaan.
View this chart online at http://kindle.esvsb.org/c42
| Event | Age of Abraham | Genesis |
|---|---|---|
| Abram departs from Haran, enters Canaan | 75 | 12:4–5 |
| Abram fathers Ishmael with Hagar | 85–86 | 16:3–4 |
| Abraham fathers Isaac with Sarah | 100 | 21:5 |
| Abraham’s wife Sarah dies | 137 | 23:1 |
| Abraham’s son Isaac marries Rebekah | 140 | 25:20 |
| Abraham dies | 175 | 25:7 |
GENESIS—NOTE ON 12:6 Shechem is the first of a number of locations in Canaan mentioned in association with Abram. (The site of Shechem is the modern Tel Balatah, which has been extensively excavated. A major settlement here begins around 1900 B.C. Its importance in the patriarchal period is confirmed by its mention in the Egyptian Execration Texts and in the Khu-Sebek inscription, which both date to the 19th century B.C.) the oak of Moreh. As a seminomadic herdsman with a large retinue, Abram probably camped away from urban populations; these locations are identified by distinctive natural features (e.g., trees; see 13:18). At that time the Canaanites were in the land. This brief observation reveals that other people already occupied the land. It may also indicate that this notice was added after the expulsion of the Canaanites from this area (see Introduction: Author, Title, and Date).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 12:7 the LORD appeared. This is the first of a number of manifestations of God to the patriarchs. These are often associated with divine promises. On this occasion God promises the land to the descendants of Abram, although he is still childless. In response, Abram builds an altar to the LORD. A number of altars are constructed by the patriarchs at different locations (see 13:18; 22:9; 26:25; 33:20; 35:7). They are a common feature of the patriarchal period because no central sanctuary existed before the exodus from Egypt. Before the construction of the tabernacle, God was not perceived as ordinarily dwelling on the earth. These altars are places where God may be encountered in worship (Ex. 20:24).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 12:8 From Shechem, Abram migrates southward to a location between Bethel and Ai, before going much farther in the direction of Egypt. (Excavations at the site of Beitan, which is probably to be identified as biblical Bethel, have revealed a flourishing Canaanite city during the patriarchal period of the Middle Bronze Age [c. 2000–1500 B.C.]. The city contained four well-fortified gate complexes with a massive fortification wall [about 11.5 feet/3.5 m thick]. A large Canaanite sanctuary has been discovered immediately inside the city wall.)
GENESIS—NOTE ON 12:9 The Negeb is the southern region of Canaan (Hb. negeb means “south”).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 12:10–20 Abram in Egypt. A severe famine in Canaan forces Abram to seek refuge in Egypt. Because of the Nile River, the land of Egypt was better placed to provide food for man and beast during a time of drought. The events described in this section raise many questions that go unanswered, creating a sense of ambiguity as to how the behavior of everyone involved should be judged. As is common in biblical stories, the narrator gives no direct evaluation of the participants’ actions, leaving the reader to figure out the ethical questions. In this passage, the first readers (Israel following Moses) would have seen how God kept his promise to Abram, in spite of all threats, and in spite of the morally dubious actions even of Abram himself.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 12:11–13 Fearful that his life will be endangered because of Sarai’s beauty, Abram devises a ruse, based on a half-truth (see 20:12). Abram’s selfish actions imply that he thinks God is unable to protect him. Yet when the plan backfires, it is the Lord who rescues him (12:17).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 12:15 Pharaoh is the title given to the king of Egypt, not a personal name.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 12:16 Some biblical scholars have maintained that the mention of camels in Genesis is anachronistic, on the assumption that they were not domesticated until about 1100 B.C. Archaeological finds of camel bones, however, suggest that some camels were in use by humans as early as the third millennium B.C. While the evidence is limited, it is hardly surprising, given the use to which camels were put. In Genesis they usually appear in passages that involve long-distance journeys through or close to deserts (see 24:10–64; 31:17, 34; 37:25). The scarcity of camels in the period of the patriarchs made them a luxury of great worth, and thus their listing here (and elsewhere) may serve to emphasize Abram’s wealth.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 12:17 Pharaoh’s taking of Sarai brings divine punishment on him and his house. This event (plagues; cf. Ex. 11:1) prefigures the exodus from Egypt when God punishes another pharaoh for his mistreatment of Abram’s descendants.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 13:1–18 Abram and Lot Separate. Expelled from Egypt, Abram retraces his steps northward, through the Negeb, back to the hill country between Bethel and Ai where he had previously built an altar (12:8). Competition for pasture soon leads to strife between the herdsmen of Abram and Lot. When Abram magnanimously offers Lot first choice of the land, Lot opts for the fertile Jordan Valley. Afterward, the Lord reaffirms that Abram’s descendants will possess all of Canaan.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 13:2–6 These verses emphasize the wealth of both Abram and Lot, describing how the hill country east of Bethel is unable to sustain the livestock of both men.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 13:7 The pressure on pastureland may well have been increased by the fact that the Canaanites and the Perizzites were dwelling in the land. Cf. the similar notice in 12:6.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 13:10 the Jordan Valley was well watered everywhere. Lot’s experience with the effects of famine (12:10, probably from drought) makes his choice of the fertile Jordan Valley understandable. like the garden of the LORD. A reference to the garden of Eden, which was also well watered (see 2:10). This description of the Jordan Valley predates the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, which may have adversely affected the suitability of this area for flocks and herds. The precise location of these cities is unknown; one possibility is the plain southeast of the Dead Sea.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 13:11–13 Lot’s decision to settle among the cities of the valley brings him into the vicinity of Sodom. Lot is later found living in the city (see 14:12; 19:3–11), having abandoned his tent-dwelling lifestyle. After parting company from Abram, Lot now resides close to a city whose population is described as wicked, great sinners against the LORD. Cf. chs. 18–19.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 13:14–17 Expanding on 12:7, this divine speech emphasizes not only the extent of the land that Abram’s descendants will inherit but also how numerous they will be. As the dust of the earth (13:16) is one of three similes used by God to illustrate the large number of offspring that Abram will have (cf. 15:5; 22:17). At this stage, Abram still has no children.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 13:18 Abram relocates to near Hebron (also known as Kiriath-arba; see 23:2), setting up his tent by the oaks of Mamre. Since one of Abram’s allies is “Mamre the Amorite” (14:13), the oaks are probably named after him (see note on 12:6). altar. See note on 12:7. During the Middle Bronze Age (c. 2000–1500 B.C.), when the patriarchs lived, Hebron was, for its day, a major settlement in the Judean hills. It covered between six and seven acres, was heavily fortified, and contained some large public buildings. A cuneiform tablet discovered there from this time period indicates that Hebron was a capital city of a Canaanite kingdom.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 14:1–24 Abram’s Rescue of Lot. After separating from Abram and settling in Sodom, Lot is taken captive by an alliance of four kings who invade the Jordan Valley and defeat a local confederation of five kings. See map. When Abram learns of his nephew’s abduction from Sodom, he marshals a small force and, after pursuing the invaders northward, successfully recovers Lot and a large quantity of plunder. Abram’s subsequent encounter with the kings of Sodom and Salem provides an interesting insight into his future aspirations in light of God’s promises. Although Abram can compete militarily against powerful kings, he rejects the use of power to achieve God’s purpose. Thus he does not use force to take control of the land of Canaan. This section falls into three parts: (1) vv. 1–12, the events leading up to Lot’s abduction; (2) vv. 13–16, Lot’s rescue by Abram; and (3) vv. 17–24, Abram’s meeting with the kings of Sodom and Salem.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 14:1–12 Alternative names are given in this passage for a number of locations. This suggests that an older account has been reworded for inclusion here in Genesis (see Introduction: Author, Title, and Date).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 14:1–3 A brief summary introduces the rival alliances of kings. Such alliances were a common and recurring aspect of politics in the ancient Near East. The kings mentioned here have not yet been identified in sources outside the Bible, but their names correspond with known names or name types appropriate to the regions from which they may have come. Shinar is Babylonia (see 10:10). The location of Ellasar is uncertain, although the king’s name, Arioch, is found in texts from the ancient cities of Mari and Nuzi; this might suggest that Ellasar is in northern Mesopotamia. Elam was an ancient state lying to the east of southern Babylonia. Tidal is possibly a Hittite name. Goiim in Hebrew means “nations.” Zoar probably lay at the southern edge of the Valley of Jericho (see 19:22–23).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 14:3 The Salt Sea is the Dead Sea.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 14:4 After twelve years of subjugation, the kings of the Jordan Valley gain independence for one year.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 14:5–7 Under the leadership of Chedorlaomer, the invading kings display their military strength by defeating a number of different tribal groups. The six locations reveal that the invaders moved southward along the King’s Highway in Transjordan as far as the Gulf of Aqaba before turning northward, eventually arriving at Hazazon-tamar (v. 7), also known as Engedi (see 2 Chron. 20:2). When this episode was edited for inclusion in Genesis, En-mishpat was known as Kadesh.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 14:8–11 The five kings of the Jordan Valley fail to repel the alliance of eastern kings. Consequently, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are plundered.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 14:12 Paralleling the general report of v. 11, this verse records the abduction of Lot and his possessions from Sodom.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 14:13–16 Abram the Hebrew. This is the first occurrence of the term “Hebrew” in the Bible and is probably used here to denote the ethnicity of Abram (see note on 10:21–32). Dan (14:14). The town of Laish in northern Canaan was renamed “Dan” in the period of the judges (Judg. 18:29). The use of the name “Dan” here indicates that this account was edited sometime later (see note on Gen. 14:1–12). (Dan is to be identified with Tel Dan, a site extensively excavated since the 1960s. A large and significant settlement has been uncovered here from the Middle Bronze Age [c. 2000–1500 B.C.]. A monumental mud-brick arched gateway was found from this time; it is the earliest of its kind ever found.)
GENESIS—NOTE ON 14:14 trained men. The Hebrew word for “trained men” is found only here in the OT. The context implies that they may have had some military training.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 14:15 A nighttime assault enables Abram’s forces to overcome their opponents, who flee northward.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 14:17–24 By contrasting Abram’s reactions to the kings of Sodom and Salem, this passage underlines his reliance on God rather than on military might in order to gain possession of Canaan. Although God has promised the land to Abram, the patriarch will not adopt violent strategies in order to obtain it.
c. 2085/1920 B.C.
When five Canaanite cities rebelled against their four Mesopotamian overlords, the four kings led a campaign to reassert their control over the region. The campaign culminated in a battle in the Siddim Valley, and Abram’s nephew Lot, who was living in Sodom, was captured and carried off. When Abram was informed of Lot’s capture, he and his men pursued the four kings to Dan, where they recaptured Lot and chased the fleeing forces as far as Hobah, north of Damascus.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 14:17 The king of Sodom greets Abram on his return. The Valley of Shaveh, also known as the King’s Valley, lay to the east of Jerusalem (see 2 Sam. 18:18).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 14:18 Melchizedek (which means “king of righteousness”; see Heb. 7:2) generously provides a meal for the returning victors. Salem is possibly a shortened version of “Jerusalem” (see Ps. 76:2) and is related to shalom, the Hebrew word for “peace” (see Heb. 7:2). He was priest of God Most High. Although very little is known about Melchizedek, he provides an interesting example of a priest-king linked to Jerusalem. There appears to have been an expectation that later kings of Jerusalem should resemble him (see Ps. 110:4). The book of Hebrews presents Jesus Christ, from the royal line of David, as belonging to the “order of Melchizedek” and therefore superior to the Levitical priests (Heb. 5:5–10; 6:20–7:17). “God Most High” in Hebrew is ’El ‘Elyon. ’El is the common Semitic term for “God.” To this is added the attribute ‘Elyon, meaning “Most High.” Elsewhere in Genesis other attributes are added to ’El (e.g., in Gen. 16:13 “God of seeing” translates ’El Ro’i; in 17:1 “God Almighty” translates ’El Shadday; in 21:33 “Everlasting God” translates ’El ‘Olam). These different names highlight different aspects of God’s nature.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 14:19–20 Melchizedek’s blessing attributes Abram’s victory to the power of God. By giving Melchizedek a tenth of everything (i.e., a tithe), Abram affirms the truthfulness of Melchizedek’s words. Possessor of heaven and earth. Although God has created the whole earth to be his temple, Genesis reveals that God’s ownership of the earth is rejected by those who do not obey him (see Introduction: Key Themes). In light of this, Melchizedek’s acknowledgment of God’s authority over the earth is noteworthy.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 14:21 In marked contrast to Melchizedek’s blessing, the king of Sodom’s remarks are surly and small-minded: he expresses no gratitude. He “dishonors” Abram, and this is ominous in the light of 12:3 (“I will curse”).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 14:22–24 Abram’s rejection of the offer made by the king of Sodom powerfully affirms that he is depending on God and not on human kings or their gifts in order to become a “great nation” and acquire a great name (see 12:2). the LORD, God Most High. By prefixing the divine name “Yahweh” (translated “LORD”; see note on 2:4) to ’El ‘Elyon, “God Most High,” Abram indicates that Yahweh and ’El ‘Elyon are one and the same deity.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 15:1–21 God’s Covenant with Abram. This chapter falls into two closely related sections: vv. 1–6 address Abram’s concern that he is still childless; vv. 7–21 focus on Abram’s desire to have a divine pledge that the land of Canaan will belong to his descendants. Both elements are essential components of nationhood. God’s conditional promise in 12:2 that Abram will become a “great nation” is now guaranteed by a covenant, although the fulfillment will not take place until several centuries after Abram’s death.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 15:1–6 Abram receives a sign from God that he will have many descendants.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 15:1 After these things links this episode to the one immediately preceding. In ch. 14 Abram rejected the offer from the king of Sodom for the victory spoils as a reward. In response, God now states that Abram’s reward shall be very great. By rejecting the use of human wealth to achieve greatness (14:22–24), Abram demonstrates his willingness to wait for God to provide. in a vision. Although it is not certain, the initial vision may have taken place at night. In 15:5 God brings Abram out of his tent to count the stars.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 15:2 the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus. This individual, whose name means “God is help,” is not named elsewhere. The context suggests that he is a trusted member of Abram’s household, possibly a slave, who came from Damascus. Yet the Hebrew text is somewhat obscure, and other interpretations are possible. Abram could have acquired him on the journey from Haran to Canaan.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 15:6 This key verse in Genesis is quoted four times in the NT (Rom. 4:3, 22; Gal. 3:6; James 2:23). Faith in God is something that everyone in the Bible was expected to exercise. It entails trust in or confident reliance on God (see notes on John 1:12–13; Heb. 11:1), based on the truthfulness of his words, and it will lead to obeying his commands. A person’s faith or lack of it is most apparent in crises such as Abram was facing. He believed God would give him a son despite many years of childlessness. counted … as righteousness. “Righteousness” is the fundamental OT virtue characterized by a godly life lived in conformity with the law. It is the righteous who enjoy God’s favor. Here the narrator underlines the significance of faith, in that before Abram has proved himself righteous by his deeds, he is counted (that is, regarded) as righteous because of his faith.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 15:9–17 The ritual described here is possibly a type of oath that involves a self-curse if not fulfilled; God will become like the dead animals if he does not keep his word (see Jer. 34:18–19). Another interpretation, however, is that the ritual is an acted sign in which the sacrificial animals symbolize Abram’s descendants (all of Israel), the “birds of prey” (Gen. 15:11) signify their enemies (unclean nations), and the “fire pot” and “torch” (v. 17) represent God’s presence. The promises of vv. 13–16 look forward to God’s being in the midst of the Israelites after they come out of Egypt.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 15:13–16 Four hundred years is probably to be understood as a round figure (cf. Acts 7:6). This anticipates the length of the Israelites’ oppression by the Egyptians before the exodus from Egypt. and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. This promise, given by the Lord to Abram (soon to be called “Abraham”; Gen. 17:5), was fulfilled 600 to 800 years later at the time of the exodus (Ex. 12:35–36). for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete (Gen. 15:16). The Amorites are one of the main population groups in Canaan and are frequently listed alongside the Canaanites and others (see vv. 19–21). (See notes on Genesis 10, where the Amorites are included among the descendants of Ham.) God’s comment implies that the Amorites will be dispossessed of their land as an act of divine punishment. At that time, their accumulated iniquity will be so great that God will no longer tolerate their presence in the land. On the destruction of the Canaanites, see Introduction to Joshua: The Destruction of the Canaanites.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 15:17 When the sun had gone down. The final part of the ritual occurs after sunset. Since vv. 1–6 assume a nighttime setting, Abram may have spent much of the day preparing the animals. a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch. These are taken to be symbolic of God’s presence, which is often associated with fire (e.g., Ex. 13:21–22).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 15:18–21 These verses provide a brief summary, affirming the significance of what has taken place, by stating, On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram. This covenant, which differs from the covenant described in ch. 17, is introduced using a Hebrew idiom that literally means “to cut a covenant.” (For description of a covenant, see note on 9:9–11.) God unconditionally pledges that Abram’s offspring will possess this land. The reference to both offspring and land links this covenant with the earlier conditional promise that Abram would become a great nation (12:2). from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates. While the location of the northern boundary is clear, the designation “river of Egypt” is somewhat ambiguous. It could refer to the Wadi el Arish (midway between Israel and the Nile; Num. 34:5, however, uses a slightly different expression for this). Alternatively, “river” could refer to the eastern branch of the Nile. (But the distinctive Hebrew term for the Nile is not used here.) While others occupied the land when the divine covenant was given, this promise was probably fulfilled for a time in the reign of Solomon (see 1 Kings 4:21).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 16:1–16 The Birth of Ishmael. Impatient for an heir, Sarai seeks to resolve the problem of her barrenness by having her maidservant, Hagar, bear a child on her behalf, a custom mentioned in other ancient Near Eastern texts. Subsequent tensions between Sarai and Hagar cause the latter to run away. By sending an angel-messenger, the Lord persuades Hagar to return, probably thus leading Abram to think that the child soon to be born, Ishmael, might indeed be the promised son (cf. 17:18). Theologically, this episode emphasizes the hearing and seeing nature of God, and his mercy.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 16:2 Abram listened to the voice of Sarai. The Hebrew idiom implies that Abram obeyed Sarai. Abram is possibly criticized here for conceding too readily to his wife’s request (see v. 6).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 16:3 as a wife. Hagar’s status within Abram’s household is changed from servant to wife, although this does not place her on a par with Sarai (see note on 25:5–6). While the OT records occasions when particular individuals have more than one wife, such instances are almost always fraught with complications and difficulties. The taking of multiple wives is never encouraged in the Bible (see 2:24; Deut. 17:17) and usually arises out of peculiar circumstances. (For more on polygamy, see Marriage and Sexual Morality.)
GENESIS—NOTE ON 16:4 Hagar’s ability to conceive causes her to look down on Sarai.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 16:5–7 Sarai initially directs her anger at Abram, who acquiesces in the situation, permitting Sarai to deal harshly with Hagar. The human solution to Sarai’s barrenness creates new problems.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 16:7 The angel of the LORD. The Hebrew word for “angel” may also be translated “messenger.” There is an element of mystery about this figure. In 19:1 the “two angels” who arrive at Sodom resemble human beings (in 18:2 they are called “men”). When “the angel of the LORD” speaks, his words are perceived as being God’s words. Therefore, the impression is given that the angel is identical with God. On this basis some Christians believe that “the angel of the LORD” is the preincarnate Christ. Others, however, hold that the reference here is to an angel who has been commissioned to speak as God’s representative, and so the angel’s words are God’s words. the spring on the way to Shur. Hagar’s flight takes her in the direction of Egypt, her homeland. The location of the spring/well is clarified in 16:14, when it is named “Beer-lahai-roi.” It “lies between Kadesh and Bered.”
GENESIS—NOTE ON 16:9 submit to her. Hagar is commanded by God to transform her attitude toward her mistress, Sarai; instead of despising her, she is to submit to her authority.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 16:10 By way of encouragement, the angel of the Lord promises Hagar that she will have numerous descendants; cf. 17:20; 25:12–18.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 16:11 Ishmael means “God hears.” Hagar’s harsh treatment by Sarai has not gone unobserved by God.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 16:12 The angel promises Hagar that her son will become a strongly independent person. Unlike his mother, he will not need to be servile toward others, but he will live a life of hostility toward others.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 16:13 Hagar is impressed by the perceptiveness of God as revealed through his angel-messenger. This is seen in the name she gives to the Lord; she calls him God of seeing (Hb. ’El Ro’i). here I have seen him who looks after me. Although this could imply that Hagar actually saw God himself, her remarks may also be interpreted as denoting an inner perception; she perceives that God sees or “looks after” her.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 16:14 Beer-lahai-roi means “well of the Living One who sees me.”
GENESIS—NOTE ON 16:15 By naming Ishmael, Abram publicly acknowledges him as his son and heir.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 16:16 eighty-six years old. Ishmael is born 11 years after Abram settled in the land of Canaan (see chart).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 17:1–27 The Covenant of Circumcision. Thirteen years after the birth of Ishmael, the Lord appears to Abram. In a series of speeches God announces that he will establish an eternal covenant with Abram and his offspring. This covenant will involve Abram as the father of many nations; consequently, his name is changed to “Abraham.” The sign of the covenant is circumcision. In the future this covenant will be established with Isaac but not Ishmael (although the latter, by being circumcised, will enjoy some of the benefits of the covenant). Most of the chapter consists of a divine speech that focuses on the part to be played by God (vv. 4–8), Abraham (vv. 9–14), and Sarah (vv. 15–16). The nature and contents of the covenant distinguish it from the covenant of ch. 15, which is solely about future nationhood.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 17:1–2 God Almighty (Hb. ’El Shadday). Like many other divine names in Genesis, the common Semitic word for “God,” ’El, is followed by a term that highlights a particular attribute of God (see note on 14:18). ’El Shadday emphasizes God’s power, which in this context will enable Sarai to bear Abram a son. Two closely related instructions are given to Abram, challenging him (1) to maintain an ongoing relationship with God and (2) to be faultless or perfect. walk before me. A distinctive verbal form in Hebrew is used here to underline the ongoing nature of this activity (see note on 5:22–24). be blameless. The Hebrew term for “blameless” (tamim) is also used of sacrificial animals, which were to be without blemish. Noah, with whom God also made a covenant, is also described in 6:9 as a blameless man who walked with God. that I may make my covenant. The manner in which God introduces this covenant distinguishes it from the formally unconditional covenant already made in ch. 15. (Of course, there is an implied condition in ch. 15: Abram must continue to believe God’s promises, and he must father offspring.) Here, however, a conditional dimension is explicit, indicating that this covenant will benefit only those who walk before God and are blameless (see note on 17:19).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 17:4–5 the father of a multitude of nations. These words summarize the covenant being established by God. Everything else that God says in the rest of the chapter expands on this core affirmation. To underline their importance, these words are repeated at the end of v. 5. your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. The transformation of Abram’s name to “Abraham” encapsulates the purpose of the covenant. Although the term “father” normally denotes a biological relationship, the Bible contains examples of its being used metaphorically. Joseph describes himself as “father to Pharaoh” (45:8; cf. Judg. 17:10, where Micah invites a young Levite to be his “father”). The concept of Abraham’s being the “father of a multitude of nations” is probably related to the earlier divine promise that “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen. 12:3). As a father figure, Abraham will have a profound influence on others, including those who are not his biological children.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 17:6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful. This promise echoes the divine blessing given at creation (1:28) and later repeated to Noah after the flood (9:1). kings shall come from you. Fruitfulness is associated with human beings’ exercising dominion over the earth on God’s behalf (1:28; 9:1–7). God’s covenant with Abraham anticipates the reestablishment of the creation mandate (i.e., Abraham is “another Adam,” a covenant representative). Through this covenant the negative effects of the fall will ultimately be reversed.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 17:7 for an everlasting covenant. The covenant will be ongoing in nature, extending from one generation to the next.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 17:10–14 These verses introduce circumcision as God’s appointed sign of the covenant.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 17:10 Circumcision is not a Hebrew invention. For example, it was used in Egypt from very early periods as an act of ritual purity (apparently a requirement for men who would work in an Egyptian temple). Some tomb scenes from as early as the Old Kingdom (c. 2575–2134 B.C.) depict the practice.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 17:11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins. Circumcision, which involves cutting off the foreskin of the penis, creates a mark that would not normally be visible to others. The nature of the sign suggests that it was intended to focus attention on the importance of Abraham’s offspring, the royal line through which blessing would come.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 17:12–13 All the male members of Abraham’s household are to be circumcised. The covenant is not about establishing racial purity, since males who are not Abraham’s offspring are included. Nor is it about social status; no distinction is drawn between those born in Abraham’s household and those bought with money.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 17:12 eight days old. To ensure that the covenant extends to the next generation, all newborn male children are to be circumcised at eight days of age.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 17:14 shall be cut off from his people. Every uncircumcised male was excluded from the benefits of belonging to the covenant. Circumcision distinguished those who believed in the importance of the divine promises to Abraham from those who did not. This created a major theological problem for the early church as more and more Gentiles believed in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. While some Jewish believers argued that circumcision was necessary for salvation (see chart), Paul contended that “righteousness” comes through faith and that circumcision of the heart is what matters, not circumcision of the foreskin (see Rom. 2:25–29; 1 Cor. 7:18–19; Gal. 6:15).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 17:15–16 The name Sarai is changed to an alternative form, Sarah; both forms mean “princess.” I will give you a son by her. God Almighty will overcome Sarah’s barrenness and provide a son for Abraham. kings of peoples. See note on 17:6.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 17:17 laughed and said to himself. Abraham’s reaction indicates that he considers God’s promise that Sarah will bear a son as, to say the least, highly improbable. They are too old to have children.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 17:19 Isaac means “he laughs.” The motif of laughter occurs in a number of passages associated with the birth of Isaac. In v. 17 and 18:12–15, Abraham and Sarah, respectively, laugh out of unbelief that a son will be born to them, but there may be an element of incredulous joy in these instances as well. The joy of giving birth to Isaac causes Sarah to laugh (21:6). Cf. Ishmael’s laughter (21:9). I will establish my covenant with him. Echoing what has been said in 17:7, this verse clarifies that the eternal covenant will be “established” with Isaac, but not Ishmael (see vv. 20–21). Here an important distinction is drawn between those with whom the covenant is “established,” and those who may receive particular benefits of the covenant. While Ishmael and the other male members of Abraham’s household are circumcised, the continuation of the covenant is linked to a unique line of Abraham’s descendants that continues through Isaac (see Introduction: History of Salvation Summary; cf. chart). This line eventually leads to Jesus Christ, through whom God’s blessing is mediated in a saving way to others.
View this chart online at http://kindle.esvsb.org/c43
| Offspring | Explanation | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Natural, physical offspring | Physical descendants of Abraham | Ishmael, Isaac, the sons of Keturah (and by extension Esau, Jacob, etc.) |
| Natural, yet special offspring | Physical descendants of Abraham especially tied to God’s elective and saving purposes | Isaac (by extension Jacob and the entire nation of Israel) |
| Promised offspring | The true, unique offspring of Abraham | A distinctive line of offspring, starting earlier with Seth and continuing through Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Israel, and David, culminating in Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:16) |
| Spiritual offspring | Those united with Christ (the promised offspring) | Jews and Gentiles who trust in the Messiah |
GENESIS—NOTE ON 17:20 Although God favors the yet-to-be-born Isaac over Ishmael, the latter is still blessed by God with the promise that he will become a great nation (see 25:12–18).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 17:23–27 Through repeated references to circumcision, these verses underline the fact that Abraham conscientiously fulfilled God’s instructions to him.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 18:1–19:29 The Destruction of Sodom. Genesis 18–19 forms a unified narrative that divides into a number of distinct episodes, coalescing around the rescue of Lot from the divine destruction of Sodom. There are three main sections: (1) 18:1–15, the Lord appears to Abraham at Mamre; (2) 18:16–33, Abraham intercedes on behalf of Lot’s family; and (3) 19:1–29, Lot is rescued from Sodom.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 18:1–15 This passage, unlike some other biblical texts that recount divine appearances, provides a detailed description of how the Lord appears to Abraham. In doing so it highlights the generous nature of Abraham as he shows hospitality to three “men.” This theme of generous hospitality reappears in ch. 19 in connection with Lot.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 18:1 Although 13:18 reports that Abram settled at the oaks of Mamre many years earlier, he is still dwelling in a tent (cf. Heb. 11:9).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 18:2 three men. Abraham’s actions suggest that he viewed the men as exceptionally important. he ran. In the Middle East, an elderly man of some social standing would not normally respond in this way to visitors. bowed himself to the earth. While this may have been a common mode of greeting others (see 19:1), it shows that Abraham regards the visitors as worthy of great respect.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 18:3 O Lord. The term here (Hb. ’Adonay) is a distinctive one for God in the OT (e.g., 20:4). The polite term of respect “my lord” (Hb. ’adoni) has a slight difference of spelling, affecting the last vowel (e.g., 23:6). The esv text renders the Hebrew, while the footnote represents the different spelling. If the spelling in the Hebrew text is correct—and there is no reason to doubt it—then Abraham recognizes that one of his visitors is a divine manifestation. This explains Abraham’s part in the conversation of 18:22–33.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 18:4–5 Although Abraham speaks of a little water (v. 4) and a morsel of bread (v. 5), he proceeds to prepare a substantial meal.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 18:6–8 These verses detail the preparations of the meal, underlining the expense to which Abraham goes in order to cater lavishly to his visitors. he stood by them. Abraham does not eat with the men, but like a servant, he waits on them. The events of vv. 2–8 (and 19:1–3) are probably alluded to in Heb. 13:2.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 18:9–15 These verses center on Sarah and the promise that she will have a son in about 12 months.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 18:11 The way of women had ceased to be with Sarah. Focusing on Sarah’s age, this comment underlines that she has now ceased to have menstrual cycles, indicating that her reproductive years have ended.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 18:12–15 So Sarah laughed to herself. Given her personal circumstances, Sarah laughs in disbelief at the idea of bearing a son to Abraham. Her reaction mirrors her husband’s in 17:17. Although Sarah was hidden from the men, her response does not go unnoticed by the Lord, who asks, Is anything too hard for the LORD? Despite Sarah’s negative situation, she still honors Abraham by using a title of dignity and respect: my lord. First Peter 3:6 notes this as indicating her pattern of submitting to and obeying her husband.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 18:16–33 In this section the prospect of Sodom’s destruction is revealed by the Lord to Abraham. Out of concern for Lot, Abraham intercedes with God regarding his nephew and his family. The ensuing conversation underlines that the destruction of Sodom and the other cities of the plain is fully justified because of the inhabitants’ overwhelming wickedness (see also 13:13). Had there been as few as 10 righteous people in Sodom, the city would have been spared. Abraham’s intercession for the Gentile cities of Sodom and Gomorrah is in line with his calling to be the vehicle of blessing to the whole world. See map.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 18:17–19 God chooses to disclose to Abraham what he is about to do (v. 17), on the grounds that Abraham has a unique role to fulfill regarding his own descendants and all the nations of the earth (v. 18).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 18:21 I will go down to see. These words reveal that the decision to destroy the cities of the plain was undertaken with careful scrutiny of the evidence. This remark should not be interpreted as indicating limited knowledge on the part of God, any more than do the similar and ironic words in 11:5. All that is implied is God’s direct attention to the matter.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 18:23–25 Abraham’s response to God’s revelation is probably prompted by his concern for Lot, although Lot is not mentioned specifically. But the main issue for Abraham is, will God destroy the righteous alongside the wicked? Knowing that God must be true to his nature, Abraham poses the question, Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?
GENESIS—NOTE ON 18:26–33 As Abraham engages with God on the fate of the righteous in Sodom, different scenarios are presented whereby the hypothetical number of righteous in the city is gradually reduced from 50 to 10 (vv. 26–32). God eventually affirms that for the sake of ten I will not destroy it (v. 32). The principle has been established that God will not punish the righteous along with the wicked. As the next chapter reveals, only Lot and two of his children are actually rescued from the destruction of Sodom.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 19:1–29 Following the events recorded in ch. 18, this passage underscores the reason for Sodom’s destruction. The men of Sodom are contrasted with Lot, who seeks to protect the two “visitors” from being sexually molested. Lot’s hospitality toward the two men parallels that of Abraham.
c. 2067/1901 B.C.
At Abraham’s request, the Lord spared Lot and his family from the destruction that came upon Sodom and Gomorrah. Afterwards, Lot’s two daughters feared that their isolation would result in the end of their family line and they plotted to get their father drunk in order that they might conceive children by him. Each daughter bore a son, from whom the Moabites and the Ammonites were descendants.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 19:1–3 The two angels. From the context, these are the two men who accompanied the Lord in ch. 18, but subsequently separated from him (see 18:22). Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. The opening scene parallels the start of ch. 18, although the setting is now urban rather than rural. Subtle differences in the reporting of these parallel events may be significant. Like Abraham, Lot greets the two men by bowing before them and offering them hospitality. Since it is evening, he invites them to spend the night in his house. Lot, like Abraham, also provides a meal for the visitors, and there is no report of his wife assisting. Unleavened bread implies that it was baked in haste. By resembling Abraham, Lot demonstrates that he is righteous, unlike the men of Sodom (a theme developed in 2 Pet. 2:7–8).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 19:4 the men of the city. Every male in Sodom, both young and old, was involved in the assault on the two visitors. They had become a gang seeking an orgy of rape.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 19:5 that we may know them. In Hebrew the verb “to know” (Hb. yada‘) sometimes denotes sexual intercourse (e.g., 4:1, 17, 25; 19:8; cf. Judg. 19:22). The context implies that the men of Sodom intend to have homosexual relations with the two visitors, hence the origin of the term “sodomy.” Lot’s earlier insistence (Gen. 19:3) that the visitors should not spend the night in the square indicates that he feared for their safety. By acting so wickedly against defenseless strangers, the entire community invites divine punishment.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 19:6–9 Lot’s readiness to protect the two men from the mob surrounding his house is commendable. In desperation he offers his two unmarried daughters as substitutes—a shocking, cowardly, and inexcusable act (even if he intended this only as a bluff, or expected the offer to be rejected). The reaction of the crowd only confirms the truly evil nature of their intentions.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 19:9 The crowd’s hostility is now directed at Lot. While he addresses them as “brothers” (v. 7), they see him and resent him as a foreigner who has become the judge.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 19:10–11 Having failed to persuade the mob, Lot himself needs to be rescued. The angels strike blind the men nearest the door of Lot’s house.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 19:12–14 The angels announce to Lot the imminent destruction of the city and instruct him to warn his relatives. His sons-in-law, however, treat Lot’s words as a joke.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 19:16 he lingered. Even Lot is slow to grasp the seriousness of the situation. Of necessity, in a display of divine mercy, the men physically pull Lot and his family out of the city.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 19:17–23 Since the entire valley will be destroyed, Lot is told to escape to the hills. He pleads, however, to be permitted to take refuge in a small city in the valley. His request is granted, a further indicator of God’s mercy in the context of extensive judgment.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 19:24–25 the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven (v. 24). These words emphasize the divine nature of the punishment, the consequence of which is the total destruction of all the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah and all the vegetation (v. 25). The theme of universal destruction echoes the flood story. This judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah, the flood of chs. 6–9, and the later destruction of the Canaanites when the people of Israel entered the Promised Land (Deut. 20:16–18) all vividly demonstrate God’s righteous wrath against sin, his mercy in rescuing the godly from destruction, and the certainty of the final judgment to come (cf. 2 Pet. 2:4–10).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 19:26 Lot’s wife disregards the angel’s instruction not to look back (v. 17) and is transformed into a pillar of salt, engulfed perhaps in the fiery matter raining in molten lumps from the sky.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 19:27–29 The narrative jumps away from Lot to focus briefly on Abraham, reminding the reader of his intercession for Lot and his family (18:20–33).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 19:30–38 Lot’s Relationship with His Daughters. The last unsavory episode in the life of Lot describes how he becomes the father of the Moabites and Ammonites. It has a number of parallels with the last episode of the flood story (9:20–27).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 19:30 Although Lot had asked to escape to Zoar (vv. 20, 22), the destruction of the valley fills him with such fear that he leaves the city and moves away to live in the hills. There he and his daughters inhabit a cave. Archaeological surveys have revealed that caves around the Dead Sea often served as places of refuge.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 19:31–36 Lot’s two daughters fear that the isolated location chosen by their father will prevent them from having husbands. Having lost everything else, Lot may have wished to protect his daughters. They, however, devise a plan whereby they will have intercourse with their father in order to have children. Consequently, Lot is manipulated by his daughters, who make him drunk. Ironically, although they have intercourse with him on consecutive nights, Lot has no knowledge of this taking place.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 19:37–38 This unseemly episode explains the origin of the Moabites and Ammonites.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 20:1–18 Abimelech Takes Sarah into His Harem. Abimelech’s actions place in jeopardy the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham that Sarah will bear him a son. Closely resembling the earlier taking of Sarah by Pharaoh (12:10–20), this account presupposes the reader’s knowledge of that event.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 20:1 No specific reason is given for Abraham’s relocation to Gerar, in the northern Negeb. Abraham and Sarah are unknown to the inhabitants of the region.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 20:2 She is my sister. This comment presupposes that the reader is familiar with 12:11–13, which explains the rationale behind Abraham’s words. Evidently Sarah looked much younger than her real age. Abimelech king of Gerar. Abimelech, which means “my father is king,” appears to have been a common royal name. The same name is mentioned in ch. 26 (see note on 26:1–2) and is given to later biblical figures.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 20:3–6 But God came to Abimelech. God intervenes to ensure that Abimelech does not touch Sarah. In contrast to 12:10–20, this episode emphasizes in a variety of ways the important point that Sarah has not had intercourse with the king; otherwise, Abimelech could be the father of the son born to Sarah in 21:1–3. in a dream by night. Throughout Genesis dreams are often used as a medium of divine revelation (see 28:12; 31:10–11; 37:5–9; 40:5–8; 41:1).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 20:7 Abraham is the first person in the Bible to be designated a prophet. In this context, attention is drawn to his ability to intercede on behalf of others, one of the characteristics of a great prophet (Jer. 15:1); cf. his actions in Gen. 18:22–33.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 20:9 Abimelech rightly challenges Abraham for deceiving him about the status of Sarah his wife. The term great sin sometimes denotes adultery.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 20:11 There is no fear of God at all in this place. Abraham’s response betrays both his lack of faith in God and his misjudgment of the people of Gerar. The whole episode reveals that the king and his servants were God-fearing (see vv. 5, 8, 16).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 20:12–13 Besides, she is indeed my sister. Abraham’s explanation, which is a half-truth, does not excuse his behavior. at every place to which we come. Abraham regularly resorted to this wife-sister ruse (v. 12) for his own self-protection. Genesis 12 and 20 reveal that it did not always work. Only God’s intervention protects Abraham’s relationship with Sarah, a point that should not be lost on the first audience (cf. note on 12:10–20).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 20:14–16 Abimelech’s generosity, on top of his innocence, contrasts sharply with Abraham’s self-serving deception regarding the truth about Sarah. The king’s actions are a very public affirmation that he has not acted inappropriately toward Sarah, and thus he is not the father of any children she may have.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 20:17–18 The healing of Abimelech and the restoration of his wife and female slaves so that they may once again have children underlines God’s power over fertility. By noting that these things are restored, the narrator prepares the way for the birth of Isaac (21:1–3). By observing that Abraham prays, the narrative picks up on the theme of God’s blessing being mediated through Abraham (see 12:3).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 21:1–21 The Birth of Isaac. In fulfillment of God’s promise, Sarah bears Abraham a son, who is named Isaac. In due course Isaac is confirmed as Abraham’s heir, when God instructs Abraham to send Hagar and Ishmael away. While Isaac takes priority over Ishmael, God does not abandon Hagar and her son.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 21:1 as he had promised. See 17:16, 19, 21.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 21:2 at the time of which God had spoken to him. See 18:10, 14.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 21:3 Isaac. The name was announced by God to Abraham in 17:19 (see note for the meaning of the name).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 21:4 Isaac is circumcised by Abraham in fulfillment of God’s instructions in 17:12.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 21:5–7 These verses underline the unexpected nature of Isaac’s birth. Abraham and Sarah are both very old.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 21:8 on the day that Isaac was weaned. Isaac was probably two or three years old.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 21:9 The Hebrew verb translated laughing is ambiguous and may be interpreted as denoting either “mocking” or “playing.” The verbal form used here possibly favors “mocking.” Galatians 4:29 follows this interpretation. Ishmael was probably making fun of Isaac’s role as Abraham’s promised son.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 21:10 Although Ishmael is Abraham’s son, Sarah does not want him to be an heir alongside Isaac. Paul uses Sarah’s words in his “allegory” of the two covenants, Gal. 4:30.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 21:11–13 While Abraham is reluctant to send Ishmael away, God reassures him that this is for the best.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 21:12 through Isaac shall your offspring be named. Even though Ishmael is older than Isaac, God confirms that Isaac will take priority over Ishmael (see 17:19). The importance of this is picked up in Rom. 9:7 and Heb. 11:18.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 21:14 putting it on her shoulder, along with the child. While these words might suggest that Ishmael was placed on Hagar’s shoulder, this is hardly likely, since Ishmael is about 16 years old (see 16:16; 21:5, 8) at this time. The last thing Abraham did was to give Ishmael to Hagar, probably after “putting it” (the bread and water) on Hagar’s shoulder. The Hebrew term for “child” (Hb. yeled) may denote an older teenager; it is used, e.g., of Joseph in 37:30. wilderness of Beersheba. Water was difficult to find in this region. Man-made wells appear to have been the main source of water (see 21:30; 26:18–22). On “Beersheba,” see note on 21:31.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 21:15–16 When the water in the skin is exhausted and no other supply has been found, Hagar weeps in despair.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 21:17–18 God’s intervention saves Hagar and confirms to her that her son will become a great nation (v. 18), echoing the promise given to Abraham in v. 13. God heard the voice of the boy (v. 17). Although this passage avoids using his personal name, “Ishmael” means “God hears” (see 16:11). Although it was Ishmael’s misbehavior that led to the expulsion from Abraham’s household, God reaffirms his promise: “I will make him into a great nation” (21:18).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 21:21 wilderness of Paran. The central region in northern Sinai.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 21:22–34 Abimelech Makes a Treaty with Abraham. Acknowledging Abraham’s power, Abimelech establishes with him a treaty intended to protect both parties.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 21:22–23 Abimelech. See note on 20:2. God is with you in all that you do. Abimelech attributes Abraham’s success to God.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 21:25–30 Before sealing the treaty, Abraham raises the contentious issue of ownership of a well. The covenant or treaty was designed to prevent conflict between the two parties. The gift of seven ewe lambs to Abimelech confirms Abraham’s ownership of the well.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 21:31 In light of Abraham’s gift to Abimelech, the name Beersheba probably means “well of seven”; however, given that the Hebrew words for “seven” (sheba‘) and “oath” (shebu‘ah) are similar, it could also mean “well of the oath.” Perhaps the name was chosen because it embraced both concepts. Given Abraham’s seminomadic lifestyle and the need for him to dig a well, no settlement probably existed at this location in his time. When a permanent settlement was later established in this area, the name of the well was given to it (see 26:33). The town of Beersheba, located in the northern Negeb, became famous as marking the southern boundary of Israel (e.g., Judg. 20:1; 1 Sam. 3:20).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 21:32 land of the Philistines. The use of the term “Philistines” here is generally taken to be anachronistic, since the name is normally associated with non-Canaanites from the Aegean region who inhabited southwest Canaan from about 1180 B.C. onward—nearly a thousand years after Abraham’s time. (In 1 Samuel the Philistines are portrayed as the main opponents of the Israelites.) In light of this, the term may be used here and elsewhere to replace an earlier, obscure term; Genesis contains various examples of such modernizations (see note on Gen. 14:13–16; also Introduction: Author, Title, and Date). Alternatively, archaeological evidence from various sites in Canaan points to the possibility that some people from the Aegean region (esp. Crete and Cyprus) may have already been settled in southwest Canaan. This raises the possibility that Abraham and Isaac (see ch. 26) had dealings with people who came from the same area as the later Philistines.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 21:33 Everlasting God (Hb. ’El ‘Olam). In Hebrew ’El is the common Semitic term for “God,” followed by the attribute “of everlastingness” (Hb. ‘Olam). See note on 14:18.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 22:1–19 The Testing of Abraham. This episode brings to a climax God’s ongoing interaction with Abraham, resulting in an important divine oath. The conditional promises of 12:1–3 are now unconditionally guaranteed as a result of Abraham’s preparedness to sacrifice his son. Put to the test, Abraham displays remarkable trust in God, especially when the death of Isaac would appear to contradict all that God had promised to Abraham. The passage conveys two truths for its original audience: (1) it shows the kind of faith that Abraham had, and commends it for Israel; and (2) it shows that “substitution” is a part of the “atoning sacrifices” that God will direct Israel to offer (see note on 22:13). This further enables the people of Israel to see their very existence, even in the desert, as part of God’s plan, which they must embrace. James 2:21–22 says that by Abraham’s works here, his faith (from Gen. 15:6) was “completed,” i.e., brought to its full and proper expression. This shows that “justified” in James 2:21 probably has the sense “shown to be righteous,” rather than the sense “counted righteous” often found in Paul’s writings (see note on James 2:21).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 22:1 God tested Abraham. The particular form of the verb “tested” makes this phrase a summary of the whole passage and clarifies the meaning of the events. The genuineness of Abraham’s obedience to God is tested. While it is not unknown for God to test individuals, testing must be clearly distinguished from tempting. God does not tempt anyone to do evil (see note on James 1:13); he does, however, test the commitment of people (e.g., Ex. 15:25; 16:4).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 22:2 your only son Isaac, whom you love. With the departure of Ishmael from Abraham’s household, Isaac had become Abraham’s only son. As such, he was held with much affection by his father. land of Moriah. According to 2 Chron. 3:1, Solomon constructed the temple on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem. While Genesis 22 does not specify that the sacrifice of Isaac took place at or near Jerusalem, v. 14 possibly implies such a connection. A burnt offering involved the entire sacrifice being consumed by fire. The outcome of the incident makes it clear that God never intended the directive to be fulfilled. Thus, taken as a whole (in terms of both the command and the outcome), the incident cannot be seen to conflict with God’s moral law. Because this was by far the greatest demand that God could have made of Abraham, it confirmed the depth of the Patriarch’s commitment. Abraham was willing to kill his own son, although as the author of Hebrews observes (Heb. 11:17–19), he prepared to do so believing that God was able to bring Isaac back to life again (see note on Gen. 22:5–8).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 22:3 Abraham rose early in the morning. Abraham promptly responds to the challenge placed before him.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 22:4 On the third day. It requires about two days to travel on foot from Beersheba to Jerusalem, a distance of about 45 miles (72 km) “as the crow flies.” Elsewhere, two days also represents the time set aside to prepare for a special encounter with God on the third day (see Ex. 19:11). Perhaps this sets the pattern for the significant “third day” (cf. Matt. 16:21; 1 Cor. 15:4).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 22:5–8 I and the boy will … come again to you. While Abraham is committed to sacrificing Isaac, he plans to do so in the belief that both of them will return (see Heb. 11:17–19). God will provide … the lamb. It is unclear whether Abraham is speaking ironically here (Isaac is the “lamb”), or whether he is expressing faith that somehow God will preserve his son. As it turns out, God does provide a substitute for Isaac (see note on Gen. 22:13).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 22:11 the angel of the LORD. See note on 16:7. The repetition of the name Abraham, Abraham underscores the urgency of the intervention (cf. 22:1).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 22:12 now I know that you fear God. Abraham’s action confirms his faithful obedience to God. While Abraham’s faith was earlier the means by which God counted him as righteous (15:6), that faith is now “active along with his works,” and the faith is “completed by his works” (James 2:21–23), so that his faith resulted in obedience, which is its expected outcome. On God’s knowledge, see note on Gen. 18:21.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 22:13 behind him was a ram. Although Abraham has passed the test, God provides a ram so that it may be sacrificed as a burnt offering. In Genesis such sacrifices are associated with solemn promises made by God (see 8:20–22). instead of his son. The fact that a ram died in the place of Isaac has led many Christian interpreters to see introduced here the principle of substitutionary atonement, which would later become a reality in the substitutionary sacrificial death of Christ on the cross, as “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 22:14 Echoing Abraham’s earlier comment to Isaac in v. 8, the location is named The LORD will provide. On the basis of this, the belief developed (as it is said to this day) that God would provide the sacrifice necessary to atone for sin. the mount of the LORD. This probably denotes the hill on which the temple was later built in Jerusalem (see Isa. 2:3).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 22:15–18 The divine oath recorded in these verses should not be overlooked, for it brings to a climax a process that started with the conditional promises made by God to Abraham in 12:1–3. By myself I have sworn. The fact that God swears by himself gives to these words a unique authority, assuring Abraham that they will indeed be fulfilled (see Heb. 6:13–18). The oath falls into two parts: whereas the first half focuses on Abraham’s many descendants, the second part concentrates on a single descendant who will overcome his enemies (Gen. 22:17) and mediate blessing to all the nations of the earth (v. 18). Although the second half of the oath is often taken to refer to all of Abraham’s descendants, Genesis as a whole is interested in tracing a single unique line of offspring that will eventually bring forth a special King who will rule over the Gentiles (see Introduction: History of Salvation Summary), and the reference to “his enemies” points in this direction (see note on 3:15). This is why Paul (Gal. 3:16) can insist on one offspring, who is “Christ” (i.e., the Messiah; cf. Gen. 3:15; 24:60 for “offspring” as a particular descendant). And this explains why Isaac is clearly set apart from Ishmael as Abraham’s heir. From the perspective of the whole Bible, this oath to Abraham comes to fulfillment in Jesus Christ (Acts 3:25–26; Gal. 3:16).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 22:16–17 because you … have not withheld your son, your only son. The central focus of God’s words to Abraham is on the way in which Abraham’s actions are a vindication of his faith (see Rom. 4:3, 22–23; Gal. 3:6; James 2:23). Many also see an allusion in Rom. 8:32 to this verse.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 22:20–24 Nahor’s Children. Genealogies often demarcate major sections of material in Genesis. These verses, which function like a minor genealogy, divide the main part of the Abraham story (chs. 12–22) from several episodes that serve as an appendix to the life of Abraham: the death and burial of Sarah (ch. 23); the acquisition of a wife for Isaac (ch. 24); and the death of Abraham (25:1–11). The special reference to Rebekah in 22:23 anticipates the events of ch. 24 when Abraham sends a servant to Paddan-aram to find a bride for Isaac from among his relatives. concubine (22:24). See note on 25:5–6.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 23:1–20 The Death and Burial of Sarah. As the story of Abraham’s life draws to a conclusion, this chapter records how Abraham buys a cave in Hebron to be a burial place for Sarah. By acquiring this plot of land, Abraham not only establishes future rights to it for his family but puts down a marker that his descendants are to be associated with the land of Canaan, as God had already promised (12:7; 13:14–17; 15:18–21).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 23:2 Kiriath-arba, which means “town of four” (see Josh. 14:15), was later known as Hebron (see Judg. 1:10, 20).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 23:3 Hittites. The designation “Hittite” was used in the ancient Near East to refer to at least three different groups of people. Those mentioned in Genesis are probably to be distinguished from the Hittites associated with Anatolia and Syria. Presumably Abraham addressed the leaders of the Hittites who were assembled at the gate of Hebron. The city gate was commonly the location where public decisions were formally made and transactions between individuals were ratified (see Ruth 4:1–11).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 23:4 a sojourner and foreigner among you. Abraham’s description of himself emphasizes his immigrant status. Even after 62 years of seminomadic existence in Canaan, Abraham has no permanent location to call his own. This is all the more noteworthy in light of God’s repeated promises to Abraham that his descendants will possess all the land of Canaan. The author of Hebrews develops the idea that Abraham chose to go on living in tents because he was looking for a city “whose designer and builder is God” (Heb. 11:9–10).
GENESIS—NOTE ON 23:6 In contrast to Abraham’s own assessment of his status, the Hittites recognize his special relationship with God and accord him the title prince of God. Abraham was probably well known to the inhabitants of Hebron, for he had a long association with this location (see 13:18). Out of deep respect for Abraham, they generously offer him the use of one of the choicest of their own tombs for the burial of Sarah.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 23:8–10 Acknowledging their generosity, Abraham politely asks the Hittites to permit Ephron the son of Zohar (v. 8) to sell to him at full value the cave of Machpelah (v. 9) as a burial place. Although Ephron is present when these discussions take place at the city gate (v. 10), Abraham first seeks permission from the Hittite population as a whole. This may have been necessary either because Abraham himself was not a Hittite or because the transfer of property from one individual to another required the involvement of a third party. According to tradition, the cave of Machpelah is located beneath the present Mosque of Abraham in Hebron.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 23:11–16 Although Ephron’s initial response is to offer the field and cave to Abraham for free, this may not have been his true intention, because the second time he offers it, he also casually injects what he would consider a fair price (v. 15). Abraham insists that he will pay the full value of the property. It is important that Abraham buy the property because an actual sale ensures that Abraham has full legal title to the burial plot. When Ephron sets the price at four hundred shekels of silver (v. 15), Abraham willingly accepts and weighs out the amount. Since the weight of a shekel could vary (see the comment according to the weights current among the merchants, v. 16), it is impossible to be certain about the precise value of the field and cave. It is often suggested, on the basis of comparisons with 1 Kings 16:24 and Jer. 32:9, that this was a high price to pay, but one cannot be sure. (This type of purchase contract for the cave of Machpelah was quite similar to legal texts from the period found among the Babylonians and the Anatolian Hittites.)
GENESIS—NOTE ON 23:17–19 Mamre. See note on 13:18.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 23:20 Abraham’s purchase of the field and cave meant that his descendants would own this land in perpetuity. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Rebekah, and Leah would later be laid to rest in this cave.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 24:1–67 A Wife for Isaac. The account of how Rebekah becomes Isaac’s wife forms one of the longest episodes in the book of Genesis. Displaying exceptional narrative skill, the author highlights how God controls events so that, after a long journey from Canaan to northern Mesopotamia, Abraham’s servant is guided to Rebekah. (The journey from Hebron, where Sarah was buried [23:19], to Nahor [in the district of Haran], where Rebekah lived [24:10], was approximately 550 miles or 900 km along ancient routes, a journey that would have taken Abraham’s servant approximately 21 days to travel; a man traveling alone could go an average of 25 miles a day or so, faster than a caravan, whose travel speed would be about 17–23 miles per day.) See map. Then, like Abraham, Rebekah must leave her family and country in an act of faith in order to journey to Canaan and marry Isaac, whom she has never met. Genesis’s first audience would marvel at how God orchestrated the servant’s faithfulness, Rebekah’s positive response, and some unlikely events (e.g., v. 15) to bring about the marriage; they would be better able to see their very existence as the result of God’s guiding hand.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 24:1 The observation that the LORD had blessed Abraham in all things confirms the special relationship between God and Abraham.
GENESIS—NOTE ON 24:2–6 Abraham is deeply concerned that Isaac should not marry a Canaanite; he fears that this will draw him away from worshiping the Lord. From ch. 9 onward, the Canaanites are frequently portrayed as being wicked (see notes on 9:24–27; 10:6–20; 13:11–13). Abraham entrusts the important task of finding a wife for Isaac to his most reliable servant, the oldest of his household, who had charge of all that he had (24:2). To place his servant under oath, Abraham instructs him to put your hand under my thigh (v. 2). On the significance of this action, see note on v. 9. In spite of having left Haran in northern Mesopotamia almost a hundred years earlier, Abraham refers to it as my country (v. 4). He hopes that a wife may be found for Isaac from among his relatives there. Although Abraham insists that Isaac’s wife should come from his kindred in Mesopotamia (v. 4), he emphasizes that Isaac himself should not return there (v. 6). Isaac’s future is to be in Canaan, for God has promised this land to Abraham’s descendants. Later, Abraham’s grandson Jacob will get wives from the same region (29:1–28).