INTRODUCTION
1. Background
Little is known about the origin and authorship of the book of Genesis. It is part of the Pentateuch, which Jewish tradition and the NT have ascribed to Moses (cf. Jn 1:17; 5:46; 7:19, 23). Generally, the question of the authorship of Genesis is taken up within the context of theories regarding the literary history of the Pentateuch as a whole.
We must distinguish at least two kinds of background material in the book of Genesis: (1) the historical background in which the book was written, and (2) the historical background of the context of the events recorded in the book. The first concerns a specific time and place for the composition of the book. The second covers a wide-ranging array of settings (e.g., the Garden of Eden, the Flood, the city of Babylon, Canaan, and Egypt).
Genesis records two types of events: those that happened on a global or even cosmic scale (e.g., Creation, the Flood) and those that happened in a relatively isolated, localized way (e.g., Noah’s drunkenness, Abraham’s vision). By far most events in Genesis happened in a limited sphere of time and location and can best be described as “family matters.”
2. Unity
The book of Genesis is characterized by both an easily discernible unity and a noticeable lack of uniformity. Much like the writers of the NT Gospels and the later historical books of the OT, the writer of Genesis appears to have composed his work from “archival” records of God’s great deeds in the past. We know from references within the early historical books that such records were maintained at an early stage in Israel’s history (Ex 17:14; Nu 21:14; Jos 10:13); so perhaps similar records were kept at far earlier stages within the individual households of the patriarchs and their tribal ancestors. The narratives within Genesis appear to be largely made up of small, self-contained stories worked together into larger units by means of various geographical and genealogical tables. Thus one should not expect to find absolute uniformity of style, vocabulary, etc., among all the individual narratives, any more than an absolute uniformity can be expected in the later historical books. Indeed, we would more likely expect the writer, working under the direction of God, to have preserved his records just as he had received them, sacrificing uniformity for the sake of historical faithfulness.
3. Authorship
The question naturally arises as to who wrote or composed the final account of the book of Genesis. Who put all the narratives together? The composer of Genesis, which is part of the Pentateuch, seems most likely to be the same as that of the Pentateuch as a whole. Nowhere in the work does the author refer to himself or identify himself. Early and reliable tradition has ascribed the authorship to Moses; and it is a fact that throughout the pentateuchal narratives it is Moses who is most closely associated with the writing of the material contained in the Pentateuch (Ex 17:14; 20:1; cf. also Jos 8:31–32). It appears certain that Jesus and the writers of the NT believed that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch (e.g., Jn 5:46).
4. Purpose
Since the purpose of the book of Genesis is intricately bound up with the purpose of the Pentateuch, we shall address briefly the question of the overall purpose of the Pentateuch. The task of discovering the purpose of a work that is so large and diverse is best achieved by means of compositional analysis, which basically describes the method and techniques used by an author.
The final shaping of the canonical Pentateuch involved the sorting and placement of material consisting of at least four distinct literary types: narrative, poetry, law, and genealogy. The genealogical texts play an important role in the early sections of the Pentateuch, especially in the book of Genesis, but do not lead to fruitful conclusions about the shape or structure of the Pentateuch as a whole. A similar verdict can be drawn from a consideration of the large legal collections within the Pentateuch. The importance of such collections is beyond dispute, but they do not appear to be the means by which the whole of the Pentateuch has been shaped.
A close study of the author’s use of narrative and poetic texts, however, sheds considerable light on the final shape of the work. The technique of using a poetic speech and a short epilogue to conclude a narrative is well known in biblical literature and occurs frequently within recognizable segments of the Pentateuch itself. The Creation account in Ge 1 and 2 concludes with the short poetic discourse of Adam (2:23) followed by an epilogue (v.24). The account of the Fall in ch. 3 concludes with a poetic discourse (vv.14–19) and an epilogue (vv.20–24). The account of Cain in ch. 4 concludes with a poetic discourse (vv.23–24) and an epilogue (vv.25–26).
That this same pattern can be found throughout Genesis suggests that it was an important part of the compositional technique of the author. Most notable is the occurrence of this pattern in the Joseph story (chs. 37–48), which concludes with the poetic discourse of Jacob’s blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh (48:15–16, 20). More importantly, however, the poetic speech-short epilogue pattern recurs at a much higher level within the entire Pentateuch, suggesting that the technique was extended as part of the structure embracing the whole of the five-volume work.
Another literary seam in the Pentateuch can be expressed by the term narrative typology. One cannot read the Pentateuch without recognizing definite similarities among narratives (e.g., Ge 12:10–20; 20:1–18; and 26:1–11). It is even possible that the sojourn of Abraham in Egypt and later in Gerar (both because of a famine), and Isaac’s sojourn in Gerar (also because of a famine), foreshadow Ge 41–Ex 12, Israel’s sojourn in Egypt that came about as a result of the famine recorded in the Joseph story. What the author wants to show is that the events of the past are pointers to those in the future.
5. Literary Form
Except for scattered poetic sections in Genesis, its overall literary form is historical narrative, which is the re-presentation of past events for the purpose of instruction. Two dimensions are always at work in shaping such narratives: the course of the historical event itself and the viewpoint of the author who recounts the events. Thus we must not only look at the course of the event in its historical setting, but we must also look for the purpose and intention of the author in recounting the event.
No historical narrative is a complete account of all that occurred in a given event or series of events. The author must select those events that most effectively relate not only what happened but also the meaning and significance of what happened.
A close study of Ge 1:1–2:4a shows that the author made a careful and purposeful selection in the composition of the Creation account. Rather than give details about the creation of the angels, stars, and galaxies, the author has chosen to concentrate on the creation and preparation of the land. In fact, he has only three specific subjects in his account of Creation: God, man and woman, and the land. Although the creation of the sun and moon is given considerable attention, neither of these bodies is mentioned in its own right but only as it relates to the affairs of humans on earth (1:14–15). What, then, does Ge 1:1–2:4a tell us about the land? It tells us that God is its owner. He created and prepared the land, and he can give it to whomever he chooses (Jer 27:5).
Another interrelationship between structure and selection that Ge 1:1–2:4a shows is in the view of God. He is the Creator of the universe. Because Israel came to know God in a close and personal way, a certain theological pressure existed that tended to localize and nationalize God as the God of Israel alone (Mic 3:11). Over against this lesser view of God stands the message of Ge 1 with its clear introduction to the God who created the universe and who has blessed all humanity. From the point of view of the author of the Pentateuch, the Creator of the universe has a plan of blessing for all people. This is the theological foundation of all subsequent missionary statements in the Bible.
Finally, Ge 1:1–2:4a serves as a backdrop for the central theme of the Pentateuch. The most prominent event and the most far-reaching theme in the Pentateuch is the covenant between God and Israel established at Mount Sinai. That covenant relates directly back to God’s initial desire to bless the human race. About that theme we can say three things: (1) The covenant at Sinai was God’s plan to restore his blessing to the human race through the descendants of Abraham (Ge 12:1–3; Ex 2:24). (2) However, the covenant at Sinai failed to restore that blessing because Israel failed to trust God and obey his will. (3) But the author goes on to demonstrate that God’s promise to restore the blessing will ultimately succeed because God himself promised to give Israel, at some future date, a heart that would trust and obey him (Dt 30:1–10). In other words, the entire outlook of the Pentateuch is “eschatological,” for it looks to the future as the time when God’s faithful promise (blessing) would be fulfilled.
To summarize, therefore, Ge 1:l–2:4a: the author of the Pentateuch intends his Creation account to relate to his readers that God, the Creator of the universe, has prepared the land as a home for his special creature, the human race, and that he has a plan of blessing for all of his creatures.
EXPOSITION
I. Introduction to the Patriarchs and the Sinai Covenant (1:1–11:26)
Chapters 1–11 introduce both the book of Genesis and the Pentateuch. They set the stage for the narratives of the patriarchs (Ge 12–50) as well as provide the appropriate background for understanding the central topic of the Pentateuch: the Sinai covenant (Ex 1–Dt 34).
A. The Land and the Blessing (1:1–2:24)
1. The God of creation (1:1)
1 The Creator is identified as “God” (Heb. Elohim; GK 466), the God of the Fathers and of the covenant at Sinai. The proper context for understanding 1:1 is the whole of the book of Genesis and the Pentateuch. By identifying God as the Creator, a crucial distinction is introduced between the God of the Fathers and the gods of the nations (i.e., idols). This verse also explains the origin of all that exists in the universe, affirming that God alone is eternal and that all else owes its origin and existence to him. The term “beginning” marks a starting point of a specific duration (cf. Dt 11:12), namely, the beginning of the story of God and his people.
2. Preparation of the land (1:2–2:3)
a. First day (1:2–5)
2a Verse 2 describes the condition of the land just before God prepared it for the human race. The immediate context suggests that the land was “formless [GK 9332] and empty [GK 983]” because “darkness” was over the land, and it was covered with water. It was in its “not-yet” state, i.e., not yet inhabitable for humankind (cf. Isa 45:18). Thus the remainder of the account portrays God’s preparing the land for man and woman. When Israel disobeyed God, the land became again “uninhabitable” (GK 9332), and the people were sent into exile: “I looked at the earth, and it was formless [GK 9332] and empty [GK 983] and at the heavens and their light was gone. . . . the fruitful land was a desert” (Jer 4:23–26). In other words, the land after the Exile was depicted in the same state as it was before God’s gracious preparation of the land in Creation. The land lies empty, dark, and barren, awaiting God’s call to light and life.
2b The second part of v.2 describes the work of God, or the Spirit of God, in the initial stages of Creation, hovering over the “not-yet” world like an eagle “hovering” (cf. Dt 32:11) over its young with great concern. There is an interesting parallel between the Creation account (Ge 1) and the account of the construction of the tabernacle in Exodus. In both the work of God (Ge 2:2; Ex 31:5) is to be accomplished by the “Spirit of God.” As God did his “work” of creation by means of the “Spirit of God,” so Israel was to do their “work” by means of the “Spirit of God.”
3–5 Verse 3 has often been taken to mean that God created light before he had created the sun, since not until v.16 does the narrative speak of God making the sun. But the sun, moon, and stars are all to be included in the usual meaning of the phrase “heavens and the earth,” and thus according to the present account these celestial bodies were all created in v.1. Verse 3 describes the appearance of the sun through the darkness (cf. 44:3; Ex 10:23; Ne 8:3). The division between “the day” and “the night” leaves little room for an interpretation of the “light” in v.3 as other than that of the sun.
The frequent repetition of “And God saw” (vv.4, 10, 12, et. al.) describes the “seeing” activity of God. This is obviously an element that the author wishes to emphasize about God. The first name given to God within the book is that of Hagar’s: “El Roi” (the “God who sees,” 16:13; cf. 22:1–19, where the verb “to see” is rightfully translated in its secondary sense of “to provide”). Other significant places where the author records God seeing are 6:5; 11:5; 18:21; these verses, however, record a tragic reversal of Ge 1, where God sees what is good.
The “good” (GK 3202) is that which is beneficial for the human race. On the second day (vv.6–8) the narrative does not say that “God saw that it was good,” for on that day nothing was created or made that was directly “good” or beneficial for humankind. The heavens were made and the waters divided, but the land where people were to dwell remained hidden under the “deep.” Only on the third day, when the sea was parted and the dry land appeared, does the word “good” (GK 3202) again appear (v.10). Throughout ch. 1 God is depicted as the one who both knows what is “good” for the human race and is intent on providing the good for them. Thus the author prepares the reader for the tragedy of ch. 3, where the rebellious attempt by man and woman to gain the knowledge of “good and evil” for themselves is seen not only as sin but also as folly.
b. Second day (1:6–8)
6–8 The sense of the account of the second day is largely determined by one’s understanding of the term “expanse” (GK 8385). Does it reflect a cosmological perspective or an immediate, everyday experience (e.g., the “clouds” that hold the rain)? The text assigns it the meaning “to separate water from water” and calls it the “sky” (GK 9028), a term that refers not only to the place of the sun, moon, and stars (v.14) but also to where the birds fly (v.20). Is there a single word or idea that would accommodate such uses of the term “expanse”? The word “sky” appears to cover this sense well. The “waters above” the sky is likely a reference to the clouds (cf. 7:11–12; 2Ki 7:2; Pss 104:3; 147:8; 148:4).
c. Third day (1:9–13)
9–13 There are two distinct acts of God on the third day: the preparation of the dry land and the seas, and the furnishing of the dry land with vegetation. Unlike the work of the second day, both acts are called “good,” doubtless because they are for the benefit of humankind. Both acts relate to the preparation of the land (see comment on vv.3–5), a central concern of the author (cf. 12:7; 13:15; 15:18; 26:4). Water is an obstacle standing in the way of inhabiting the dry land; it must be removed before humans can enjoy God’s gift of the land (cf. the Flood, chs. 6–9, and the parting of the “Red Sea,” Ex 14–15).
In his second act on the third day, God furnished the land with bushes and fruit trees. If in fact the author intended a connection to be drawn between God’s furnishing the land with fruit trees in ch. 1 and his furnishing the “garden” with trees “good for food” in ch. 2, the focus of the Creation account, then, is on the part of God’s creation that ultimately becomes the location of the Garden of Eden. The selectivity of the Creation account can be seen in the fact that it focuses only on the “seed-bearing plants” and “fruit trees,” plants that are designed for human food. No other forms of vegetation are mentioned.
d. Fourth day (1:14–19)
14 The narration of events on the fourth day raises several questions. If the text states that the sun, moon, and stars were created on the fourth day, how could “the heavens and the earth,” which would have included the sun, moon, and stars, have been created “in the beginning” (v.1)? Could there have been a “day and night” during the first three days of Creation if the sun had not yet been created? Were there plants and vegetation on the land (created on the third day) before the creation of the sun? A common viewpoint is that though “the heavens and the earth” were created “in the beginning,” they were not completed until the fourth day or were even possibly obscured by the waters until the fourth day.
There is another way to look at this text that provides a coherent reading of 1:1 and 1:14–18. First, if “the heavens and the earth” means “universe” or “cosmos,” as is most probable, then (as already suggested) the whole of the universe—including the sun, moon, and stars—was created “in the beginning” and not on the fourth day.
The second step concerns the syntax of v.14. Verse 6 suggests that when God said, “Let there be an expanse,” he was in fact creating an expanse where there was none previously (“creation out of nothing”). So clearly the author intended to say that God created the expanse on the second day. In v.14, however, God does not say, “Let there be lights . . . to separate,” as if there were no lights before this command and afterward the lights were created. Rather the Hebrew text reads, “And God said, ‘Let the lights in the expanse of the sky separate’ ” In other words, God’s command assumes that the lights were in existence and that in response to his command they were given a purpose, namely, “to separate the day from the night” and “to mark seasons and days and years.”
15–19 A third observation comes from the structure of vv.15–16. At the end of v.15, the author recounts, “and it was so.” This expression marks the end of the author’s “report” and the beginning of his “comment.” Thus v.16 is not an account of the creation of the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day but a remark that draws out the significance of what has previously been recounted: “So God [and not anyone else] made the lights and put them into the sky” (pers. tr.). Behind this narrative is a concern on the part of the author to emphasize that God alone created the lights of the heavens, and thus no one else (and certainly no other god) is to be given the glory and honor due only to him.
e. Fifth day (1:20–23)
20–23 The creation of living creatures is divided into two days. On the fifth day God created the sea and sky creatures. On the sixth day (vv.24–28) he created the land creatures—including man and woman. The word for “created” (GK 1343) is used six times in the Creation account (1:1, 21, 27; 2:3). Elsewhere the word “to make” (GK 6913) is used to describe God’s actions. Why is “created” (GK 1343) used with reference to the “great creatures of the sea” (v.21)? One suggestion is that here we have the beginning of a new stage in Creation, namely, of “living beings” (cf. vv.1, 2, 26). The orderliness of the account is evident, as the author shows the creation of all living creatures in three distinct groups: on the fifth day, sea creatures and sky creatures, and on the sixth day, land creatures.
For the first time the notion of “blessing” (GK 1385) appears. The blessing of the creatures of the sea and sky is identical with the blessing of the human race, with the exception of the notion of “dominion,” given only to man and woman. As soon as “living beings” are created, the notion of “blessing” is appropriate because the blessing relates to the giving of life.
f. Sixth day (1:24–31)
24–25 The account of the creation of the land creatures on the sixth day distinguishes two types: the “living creatures” that dwell on the land and humanity. In turn, the former are divided into three groups: “livestock,” “creatures that move along the ground,” and “wild animals” (v.24). Humanity is distinguished as “male” and “female” (v.27).
Once again the author begins with the divine command—“And God said”—and then follows with a comment—“God made.” Verse 25 adds the important clarification that although vegetation was produced from the land, the living creatures were made by the Lord God himself (cf. ch. 2).
26–27 The beginning of the creation of the human race is marked by the usual “And God said.” However, God’s command that follows is not an impersonal (third person) “Let there be . . .” but rather the more personal (first person) “Let us make.” Second, whereas throughout the previous account the making of each creature is described as “according to its kind,” in the account of the creation of humankind it is specified that the man and the woman were made “in our [God’s] image,” not merely “according to his own kind.” Their image is not simply that of the human being; they share a likeness to the Creator. Third, the creation of humankind is specifically noted as a creation of “male and female.” Previously gender was not considered to be an important feature of the creation of the other forms of life, but for humanity it takes on importance. Thus the fact that God created “man” as “male and female” is stressed. Fourth, only human beings have been given dominion in God’s creation. This dominion is expressly stated to be over all other living creatures: sky, sea, and land. Thus the text portrays humanity as a special creature different from the rest of the creatures but like God, made in the image and likeness of God.
Many attempts have been made to explain the plural forms: “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness”: e.g., (1) the plural is a reference to the Trinity; (2) the plural is a reference to God and his heavenly court of angels; (3) the plural is an attempt to avoid the idea of an immediate resemblance of humans to God; (4) the plural is an expression of deliberation on God’s part as he sets out to create the human race. The singulars in v.27 (“in his own image” and “in the image of God”; cf. 5:1) rule out explanation 2, since in the immediate context the creation of man and woman is said to be “in his image,” with no mention of them in the image of the angels. Explanations 3 and 4 are both possible, but neither explanation is specifically supported by the context. Verse 27 states twice that “man” was created in God’s image and a third time that man was created “male and female.” The same pattern is found in Ge 5:1–2a. The singular “man” is created as a plurality, “male and female.” In a similar way the one God (“And God said”) created humankind through an expression of his plurality (“Let us make man in our image”). Following this clue the divine plurality expressed in v.26 is seen as an anticipation of the human plurality of the man and woman, thus casting the human relationship between man and woman as a reflection of God’s own personal relationship with himself.
28–31 The importance of the “blessing” (GK 1385) cannot be overlooked since it remains a central theme throughout the book of Genesis and the Pentateuch. The living creatures have already been blessed on the fifth day (v.22); thus the blessing here extends to the whole of God’s living creatures, including human beings. The blessing itself is primarily posterity. Thus already the fulfillment of the blessing is tied to man’s “seed” and the notion of “life”—two themes that will later dominate the narratives of Genesis.
g. Seventh day (2:1–3)
1–3 The seventh day is set apart from the first six because God “sanctified” it. On this day God does not “speak,” nor does he “work” as he had on the previous days. On this day he “blessed” (Gk 3385) and “sanctified” (NIV, “made it holy”; GK 7727), but he did not “work.” The reader is left with a somber and repetitive reminder of only one fact: God did not work on the seventh day. While little else is recounted, it is repeated three times, emphasizing God’s “rest.” If the purpose of pointing to the “likeness” between humans and their Creator was to call on the reader to be more like God (e.g., Lev 11:45), then the seventh day stresses the very thing that they elsewhere are called on to do: “rest” on the seventh day (cf. Ex 20:8–11; cf. Ps 95:11; Heb 3:11).
3. The gift of the land (2:4–24)
a. Creation of man (2:4–7)
4–6 This account begins with a description of the condition of the land before the creation of the first man (cf. 1:2). The focus is on those parts of the land that will be directly affected by the Fall (3:8–24). The narrative points to the fact that before man was created (in v.7), the effects of his rebellion and the Fall had “not yet” been felt on the land. In the subsequent narratives, each part of the description of the land in vv.4–6 is specifically identified as a result of the fall of humankind. The “shrub of the field” and “plant of the field” do not refer to the “vegetation” of ch. 1 but anticipate the “thorns and thistles” and “plants of the field” that come (in 3:18) as a result of the curse. Similarly, when the narrative states that the Lord God had not yet “sent rain on the earth,” we can sense the allusion to the Flood narratives (7:4).
The reference to “no man to work the ground” points to the time when the man and the woman are cast from the garden “to work the ground” (3:23). Thus, as an introduction to the account of man’s creation, we are told that a land had been prepared for him. In the description of that land, however, we catch a glimmer of the time when humans would become aliens and strangers in a foreign land.
7 At first glance the description of the creation of the first man here is quite different from that of ch. 1. No two descriptions could be more distinct. Though made in God’s image, man did not begin as a “heavenly creature”; he was made of the “dust of the ground.” This anticipates his destiny in the Fall, when he would again return to the “dust” (3:19). In Creation man arose out of the dust; in the Fall he returned to the dust.
b. Preparation of the garden (2:8–14)
8 An inordinate amount of attention is given to the description of the “garden.” We are told that the Lord God planted the garden and “put” man there. Later this is repeated with significant differences. Then, too, the garden was planted “in the east, in Eden.” The word “Eden” (GK 6359) appears to be a specific place; it means “delight” and evokes a picture of idyllic delight and rest. “In the east” is striking because elsewhere in Genesis “eastward” is associated with judgment and separation from God (e.g., 3:24; 11:2; 13:11). For example, when the man and woman were expelled from the garden, the cherubim were placed “on the east side” (3:24) of the garden, giving the impression that the garden itself was not in the east. Such an apparent difficulty in the coherence of the passage may account for the fact that in v.8 the garden is not actually called the “garden of Eden” but rather the “garden in Eden,” a designation found only here. Thus the garden was planted in Eden, which apparently was a location larger than the garden itself; and, if “in the east” is taken with reference to Eden itself, the garden was on its eastern side.
9–10 In the garden were beautiful, lush trees, including the elusive “tree of life” and “tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” as well as a river with four “headwaters.” Care is given to locate the rivers and to describe the lands through which they flowed. The lands were rich in gold and precious jewels, and their location was closely aligned with the land later promised to Abraham and his descendants. Later on associations were made between the Garden of Eden and the land promised to the fathers (cf. Isa 51:3; Eze 36:35; Joel 2:3).
11–14 The location of the Garden of/in Eden has long been a topic of debate. Two rivers mentioned can be identified with certainty, the Euphrates and the Tigris. It is difficult to identify the other two. Since the “land of Cush” is identified in the Bible as Ethiopia, the “Gihon” is most likely the river that passes through Ethiopia, perhaps the “river of Egypt.” “Havilah” cannot be identified.
Most attention in the narrative is given to the “Pishon,” but there is little certainty about its identification and location. On the other hand, the narrative merely states that the River Euphrates is the fourth river. The mention of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers can be linked to the identification of the Garden of Eden and the Promised Land. It can hardly be a coincidence that these rivers, along with the “River of Egypt,” again play a role in marking boundaries of the land promised to Abraham (15:18).
c. Man’s place in the garden (2:15–24)
15–24 The author had already noted that God “put” (GK 8492) man into the garden (v.8b). Now he gives the purpose for this. Two important points are in danger of being obscured by the English translations. The first is the change from the Hebrew word for “put” to a term that the author elsewhere has reserved for God’s “rest” or “safety” (GK 5663), a safety that he gives to people in the land (e.g., Ge 19:16; Dt 3:20; 12:10; 25:19), and the “dedication” of something in the presence of the Lord (Ex 16:33–34; Lev 16:23; Nu 17:4; Dt 26:4, 10). Both senses appear to lie behind the word here. Man was “put” into the garden where he could “rest” and be “safe,” and he was “put” into the garden “in God’s presence” where he could have fellowship with God (3:8).
A second point is the specific purpose for which God put man in the garden. Most translations have “to work it and take care of it.” Although that translation is as early as the LXX (2d cent, B.C.), there are serious objections to it. For one, the suffixed pronoun in the Hebrew text rendered “it” in English is feminine, whereas the noun “garden” is masculine. Only by changing the pronoun to a masculine singular, as the LXX has done, can it have the sense of the EVs, namely “to work” and “to keep.” Moreover, later in this same narrative (3:23) “to work the ground” is said to be a result of the Fall, and the narrative suggests that the author had intended such a punishment to be seen as an ironic reversal of the man’s original purpose. If such was the case, then “working” and “keeping” the garden would not provide a contrast to “working the ground.”
In light of these objections, a more suitable translation would be “to worship and to obey.” Man is put in the garden to worship God and to obey him. His life in the garden was to be characterized by worship and obedience; he was a priest, not merely a worker and keeper of the garden. Such a reading not only answers the objections raised against the traditional English translation, it also suits the larger ideas of the narrative. Throughout ch. 2 the author has consistently and consciously developed the idea of man’s “likeness” to God along the same lines as the major themes of the Pentateuch as a whole, namely, the theme of worship and Sabbath rest.
A further confirmation is the fact that in v.16 we read for the first time that “God commanded” (GK 7422) the man whom he had created. Enjoyment of God’s good land is contingent on “keeping” God’s commandments (cf. Dt 30:16). The inference is that God alone knows what is good for the man and what is not good for him. To enjoy the “good” man must trust God and obey him. If he disobeys, he will have to decide for himself what is good and what is not good. To people today such a prospect may seem desirable, but it is the worst fate that could have befallen the human race; for only God knows what is good for them.
Having put this in general terms in vv.16–17, the author turns in the remainder of the chapter to set forth a specific example of God’s knowledge of the “good”—the creation of the woman. When he sees man alone, God says, “It is not good for the man to be alone.” At the close of ch. 2, the author puts the final touch on his account of what it means for man to be “in God’s image and likeness.” In the first chapter the author intimated that the creation of the human race in the “image of God” somehow entailed being male and female (v.27). In the narrative of the creation of the woman in ch. 2, the author returns to develop this theme by showing that man’s creation “in God’s image” also entails a “partnership” (NIV, “a suitable helper [GK 6469]”) with his wife. The “likeness” that the man and the woman share with God in ch. 1 finds an analogy in the “likeness” between the man and his wife in ch. 2.
For the first time since the account of the creation of the man and the woman in ch. 1, there is divine deliberation. The plural “Let us make” is replaced by the singular “I will make,” perhaps because only the woman is being created. In ch. 1 the divine plurality found its analogy in the creation of “male and female,” whereas here the divine singular appears to be a curious reflection of man’s being alone. The divine intention for the woman is that she be a “partner.” The point is that there is no helper to correspond to man. A special act of creation of the woman is necessary. Man needs a helper to care for the garden and to provide support in a general sense. But in light of the importance of the blessing in 1:28, most likely the “help” envisioned is in the bearing of children. Furthermore, the woman’s judgment relates specifically to her role in bearing children (3:16).
Just as at other crucial points when a new relationship is initiated (e.g., 15:12; 28:11), the recipient of God’s provision sleeps while God acts. The purpose of the sleep is not merely anesthetic but portrays a sense of passivity and acceptance of the divine provision (cf. Ps 127:2). A homiletic midrash says that “just as the rib is found at the side of the man and is attached to him, even so the good wife, the rib of her husband, stands at his side to be his helper-counterpart, and her soul is bound up with his.” The man’s jubilant response—“bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”—goes beyond the narrative account in vv.21–22, where only “rib” is mentioned. “One of the ribs” anticipates “bone of my bones.” Moreover, the mention of the closing of the “flesh” anticipates “flesh of my flesh,” and “the rib and the flesh” show the woman to be in substance the same as the man.
Clearly the naming of the animals is part of the story of the creation of the woman, for in the conclusion of v.20 the author remarks, “But for Adam, no suitable helper was found.” The author saw in man’s naming the animals his search for a suitable partner. That no suitable partner was found shows that man was not like the other creatures. In contrast, his words “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh” show that he recognized his own likeness in the woman.
B. The Land and the Exile (2:25–3:24)
1. Disobedience (2:25–3:7)
A more-studied attempt to treat the problem of evil and temptation to sin cannot be found in all the Scriptures.
a. The transition (2:25)
25 Verse 25 clearly links the account of the land and the blessing (1:1–2:24) with that of the Fall (2:25–3:24). The reference to the “two of them” (NIV, “both”) looks back to the previous narrative, while their description as “naked, and . . . no shame” anticipates the central problem that follows.
Two different but related words are used to describe the “nakedness” of the man and his wife. The choice of arom (“naked”; GK 6873) at the beginning of the narrative is likely motivated by the alliteration between arom and arum (“crafty,” 3:1; GK 6874). This provides an immediate connecting link with the previous narrative and a presage to the events and outcome of the subsequent story. It also gives an immediate clue to the potential relationship between the serpent’s “cunning” and the innocence implied in the “nakedness” of the couple.
Second, there is a difference in meaning between arom (“naked”; GK 6873) in 2:25 and erom (“naked”; GK 6567) in 3:7. The latter is used in Dt 28:48 to depict Israel’s exiles who have been punished for their failure to trust and obey God’s word (cf. Eze 16:39; 23:29). In distinguishing the first state of human nakedness from the second, the author introduces a subtle yet perceptible clue to the story’s meaning. The effect of the Fall was not simply that the man and the woman came to know they were “naked” but that they were “naked” in the sense of being “under God’s judgment.”
b. The tempter (3:1)
1 The author discloses an important clue about the snake: he was more “crafty” (GK 6874) than any of the creatures. This word is not primarily a negative term but suggests wisdom and adroitness. This description suggests a relationship between the Fall and humankind’s quest for wisdom. Man’s disobedience is not so much an act of great wickedness or a great transgression as much as it is an act of great folly. He had all the “good” he would have needed, but he wanted more—he wanted to be like God.
The forbidden tree is the tree of the knowledge of “good and evil.” When the woman and the man took of the tree and ate, it was because she “saw that the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom” (v.6). Thus even the serpent is represented as a paragon of wisdom, an archetypical wise man. However, the serpent and his wisdom lead ultimately to the curse (v.14). It should not be overlooked that the serpent is said to be one of the “wild animals” that God had made (cf. 1:25; 2:19). It was not a supernatural being.
c. The temptation (3:2–7)
2–7 The story of the temptation is told with subtle simplicity. The snake speaks only twice, but that is enough to offset the balance of trust and obedience between the man and the woman and their Creator. The centerpiece of the story is the question of the knowledge of the “good and evil.” The snake implied that God was keeping this knowledge from the man and the woman, while the sense of the narratives in the first two chapters has been that God was keeping this knowledge for the man and the woman (e.g., 1:4, 10, 12, et al.). In other words, the snake’s statements are a direct challenge to the central theme that God will provide the “good” for the human race if they will only trust and obey him.
The woman’s thoughts in the last moments before the Fall were that she “saw that the . . . tree was good.” Up until now the expression has only been used of God. Thus the temptation is not presented as a general rebellion from God’s authority but rather a quest for wisdom and “the good” (GK 3202) apart from God’s provision. How quickly the transgression comes once the decision has been made! The thrust of the story, with all its simplicity, lies in its tragic and ironic depiction of the search for wisdom. Ironically, that which the snake promised did, in fact, come about: the man and the woman became “like God” as soon as they ate of the fruit. The irony, however, lies in the fact that they were already “like God” because they had been created in his image (1:26).
The possibility that they would know only the “evil” and not the “good” is not raised in the narrative prior to their eating the fruit. Yet when they ate of the fruit and their eyes were opened, it was not the “good” that they saw and enjoyed. Their new knowledge was that of their own nakedness. Their knowledge of “good and evil” that was to make them “like God” resulted in the knowledge that they were no longer even like each other: they were ashamed of their nakedness, and they sewed leaves together to hide their differences from each other. They sought wisdom, but found only vanity and toil.
2. Judgment (3:8–20)
a. The scene (3:8)
8 The judgment scene opens with the “sound” (GK 7754) of the Lord’s coming, a common form of expression for the Lord’s call to obedience (cf. Dt 5:25; 8:20; 13:18; et al.). Appropriately the scene of the curse opens with a subtle but painful reminder of the single requirement for obtaining God’s blessing.
The coming of the Lord at the mountain of Sinai is foreshadowed here. There too the people “heard the sound of the LORD our God.” In both instances fear prevailed. In the present instance, Adam and his wife fled at the first sound of the Lord in the garden. They fled to the trees. Trees play a central role in depicting humanity’s changing relationship with God. In chs. 1–2 fruit trees symbolize God’s bountiful provision. In ch. 3 they become the ground for inciting the man and the woman to rebellion and the place where they seek to hide from God. Finally, when the man and the woman are cast out of the garden, their way is barred from “the way to the tree of life” (v.24; cf. Dt 21:22–23; Gal 3:13).
b. The trial (3:9–13)
9–13 Before meting out the judgment, God’s only words to the rebellious pair come as questions (cf. 4:9–10; 18:21). Skillfully, by the repetition of “naked,” the author allows the man to be convicted with his own words. Then, to show that alienation between the man and the woman as a result of their sin went far beyond the shame that each felt in the presence of the other, the man cast blame on the woman and, obliquely, on God. The man’s words are an ironic reminder of God’s original intention in 2:18. As a measure of the extent of man’s fall, he now sees God’s good gift as the source of his trouble.
c. The verdict (3:14–20)
Although much can be said about the curse of the snake, the woman, and the man, very little is written. We get the impression that this is not their story but the story of humankind. With great skill the author presents these three participants as the “heads” of their race. The snake, on the one hand, and the man and the woman, on the other, are as two great nations embarking on a great struggle, a struggle that will find its conclusion only by an act of some distant “seed” or “offspring.”
14–15 Whereas once the snake was “crafty” (arum, v.1; GK 6874), now he was “cursed” (arur; GK 826). His “curse” distinguished him “above all the livestock and all the wild animals”—he must “crawl on [his] belly and . . . eat dust all the days of [his] life.” This curse does not necessarily suggest that previously the snake had walked as the other land animals. The point is rather that for the rest of his life, when the snake crawls on his belly, he will “eat dust,” an expression of “total defeat” (cf. Isa 65:25; Mic 7:17).
As representatives, the fates of the snake and the woman embody the fates of their seed. At first in v.15 the “enmity” (GK 368) is said to be between the. snake and the woman and between the “seed” (NIV, “offspring”; GK 2446) of the snake and the “seed” of the woman. The second half of v.15, however, says that the “seed” of the woman (“he”) will crush the head of the snake (“your head”). The woman’s “seed” is certainly intended to be understood as a group (or individual) that lies the same temporal distance from the woman as the “seed” of the snake does from the snake itself. Yet in this verse it is the “seed” of the woman who crushes the head of the snake himself. That is, though the “enmity” may lie between the two “seeds,” the goal of the final crushing blow is not the “seed” of the snake but rather the snake itself; his head will be crushed. In other words, it appears that the author seems intent on treating the snake and his “seed” together, as one. When that “seed” is crushed, the head of the snake is crushed. More is at stake in this brief passage than the reader is at first aware of. No attempt is made to answer the question of the snake’s role in the temptation over against that of a higher being—Satan. Later biblical writers, however, certainly saw Satan behind the deed of the snake (cf. Ro 16:20; Rev 12:9).
Verse 15 contains a puzzling yet important ambiguity: Who is the “seed” of the woman? The purpose of this verse has not been to answer that question but rather to raise it. The remainder of the book is the author’s answer.
16 The judgment against the woman relates first to her sons and then to her husband. She will bear sons (children) in increased pain or toil. Her “desire” will be for her husband, and he will “rule over” her. The sense of this judgment within the larger context of the book lies in the role of the woman that is portrayed in chs. 1 and 2. The woman and her husband were to have enjoyed the blessing of children (1:28) and the harmonious partnership of marriage (2:18, 21–25). The judgment relates precisely to these two points. What the woman once was to do as a blessing—be a marriage partner and have children—had become tainted by the curse. In those moments of life’s greatest blessing—marriage and children—the woman would sense most clearly the painful consequences of her rebellion from God.
We should not overlook the relationship between the promise of v.15 and the words to the woman in v.16. In that promise the final victory was to be through the “seed” of the woman. In the beginning, when the man and the woman were created, childbirth was at the center of the blessing that their Creator had bestowed on them (1:28). Now, after the Fall, childbirth is again to be the means through which the snake would be defeated and the blessing restored. In the pain of the birth of every child, there was to be a reminder of the hope that lay in God’s promise. Birthpangs are not merely a reminder of the futility of the Fall; they are as well a sign of an impending joy (Ro 8:22–24; cf. Mt 24:8).
17–20 Because of the curse the man could no longer “freely eat” of the “good land” provided by the Creator. Throughout chs. 2–3, humankind’s ongoing relationship with the Creator is linked with the theme of “eating.” At first God’s blessing and provision for man are noted in 2:16. Then it was exactly over the issue of “eating” that the tempter raised doubts about God’s ultimate goodness and care for the man and his wife (3:1–3). Finally, the pair’s act of disobedience is that “she ate it . . . and he ate it” (3:6). Significantly, then, “eating” is related to the judgment on the man. (On “eating” and the relationship of man to God, see Lev 11 and Dt 14 on clean and unclean food and Lev 23 on eating as participation in the feasts of God.)
The description of the “land” is a reversal of that in ch. 2. The present condition of the land is not the way it was intended to be but is the result of human rebellion (see comment on 2:4–6). This opens the way for the motif of “a new heaven and a new earth” (Rev 21:1; cf. Isa 65:17; Ro 8:22–24). Similarly, v.19 shows the reversal for the man’s condition. Before the Fall he was taken from the ground and given the “breath of life” (2:7). Now he must return to the dust he was taken from. Thus the verdict of death had come about (2:17). A further reminder of the effect of the Fall is the connection between the man’s name, “Adam” (adam, v.20; GK 134), and the “ground” (adamah; GK 141) from which he was taken. Adam again named his wife, this time calling her “Eve” (GK 2558) and pointing to her destiny (“the mother of all the living [GK 2645]”), whereas her previous name (cf. 2:23) pointed to her origin (“out of man”).
3. Protection (3:21)
21 The mention of the type of clothing that God made—“garments of skin,” i.e., tunics—is perhaps intended to recall the state of the man and the woman before the Fall: “naked” and “no shame” (2:25). The author may also be anticipating the notion of sacrifice in the animals slain for the making of the skin garments (cf. Ex 28:42).
4. Exile (3:22–24)
22–23 The verdict of death consisted of being cast out of the garden and barred from the tree of life (Ex 31:14), cut off from the protective presence of the community in the garden (cf. Ge 4:14). Ironically, when the human race, who had been created “like God” (cf. 1:26), sought to “be like God” (vv.5–7), they found themselves after the Fall no longer “with God.” Their happiness does not consist of their being “like God” so much as it does their being “with God” (cf. Ps 16:11).
In 2:15 (see comment) the man was put into the garden for “worship” (leobdah; GK 6268) and “obedience” (leshomrah; GK 9068); but here in v.23, after the Fall, he is cast out of the garden “to work [laabod; GK 6268] the ground,” and he is “kept” (lishmor, NIV, “to guard”; GK 9068) from “the way to the tree of life” (v.24).
24 The depiction of the garden and of the tree of life after the Fall guarded by cherubim anticipates God’s plan to restore blessing and life to the human race in the covenant at Sinai and in the law (Ex 25:10–22; cf. Dt 31:24–26). Only through the covenant can human fellowship with God be restored (Ex 25:22). In the covenant humans return to the state enjoyed in Ge 2:15, as people who serve God, obey his will, and enjoy his blessing. At this point in the narrative, “east” only signifies “outside the garden” (but cf. 11:2; 13:11).
C. Life in Exile (4:1–26)
1. Worship (4:1–8)
1–2 Eve’s first words after the Fall raise many questions. Her acknowledging God’s help makes it look as though she were hopeful that the promise of a “seed” to crush the head of the serpent (3:15) might find its fulfillment in this son. Her words, however, can also be read in a less positive light as a boast that just as the Lord had created a man, so now she had created a man, expressing her confidence in her own ability to fulfill the promise of 3:15. The latter interpretation is more likely. First, the recurring theme in the narratives of this book is that of human effort in obtaining a blessing that only God can give (cf. ch. 11; 16:1–4). A second consideration is the contrast in Eve’s words. At the beginning Eve said, “I have brought forth a man,” whereas at the close of the narrative she acknowledged, “God has granted me another seed” (v.25). Moreover Eve did not say that Seth was given to replace Cain, but he was to replace Abel, which suggests that she had not placed her hope in Cain but in Abel.
3–4 The narrative of Cain and Abel teaches a lesson on the kind of worship that is pleasing to God—that which springs from a pure heart. How does the narrative teach a lesson about a pure heart? The difference between the two offerings is not explicitly drawn out by the author. Contrary to the popular opinion that Cain’s offering was not accepted because it was not a blood sacrifice, it seems clear from the narrative that both offerings, in themselves, were acceptable—they are both described as “offerings” (GK 4966) and not “sacrifices.” Furthermore, they were both “firstfruits” offerings; thus Cain’s offering of “fruits of the soil” was as appropriate for a farmer as Abel’s “firstborn of his flock” was for a shepherd.
5–7 Whatever the cause of God’s rejection of Cain’s offering, the narrative focuses our attention on Cain’s twofold response: (1) anger against God (v.4b) and (2) anger against Abel (v.8). By stating the problem in this way, the author surrounds his lesson on “pleasing offerings” with a subtle narrative warning: “by their fruit you will recognize them” (Mt 7:20). God pled with Cain to “do what is right” or face the consequences of shedding innocent blood and exile from the land (cf. v.12; cf. Jer 7:5–7).
8 Possibly the present narrative is to be read in light of the legislation of the “cities of refuge.” The purpose of the cities was to ensure that “innocent blood will not be shed in your land” (Dt 19:10), which, of course, is the central point of the Cain and Abel narrative (v.10).
The law (Dt 19:11) specifies that a guilty murderer is one who lies in wait for his neighbor, “rises up” (NIV, “assaults”) against him, and slays him. Here it states that “while they were in the field, Cain attacked [lit., rose up (against)] Abel and killed him.” According to Deuteronomic law, Cain’s offense was punishable by death. That God showed mercy on Cain and that later in the story God’s mercy was connected with Cain’s building a city suggest more than coincidental relationship between the story of Cain and the cities of refuge.
2. Repentance (4:9–15a)
9–12 Again (cf. ch. 3) when the Lord came in judgment, he first asked questions (v.9) and then meted out the punishment (vv.11–12). The picture of Cain’s judgment is remarkably similar to the exile Israel was warned of in Dt 28:16–18 (cf. Isa 26:21; ch. 27).
13–14 Both the sense of “bear” (GK 5951) and the Lord’s response to Cain in v.15 suggest that his words are not to be understood as a complaint about his punishment but rather as an expression of remorse over the extent of his “iniquity.” In v.14 Cain acknowledged that God’s punishment (v.12) would result in his own death since he would not have the protection of an established community. Like his parents, Adam and Eve, who were driven out of their home, the penalty of death was to be carried out against Cain by banishment from a protective community.
15a By themselves Cain’s words do not necessarily suggest repentance, but the Lord’s response implies that Cain’s words in v.13 are words of repentance.
3. Protection (4:15b–24)
15b–18 The background of the cities of refuge (Nu 35:9–34) may provide a clue to the sense of the “sign” or “mark” (GK 253) given to Cain. Its purpose was to provide Cain with protection from vengeance. Most English versions state that the “mark” was put “on” Cain, though the passage states that the sign was given “to” or “for” Cain (lit., “and he appointed to Cain a sign”; cf. 21:13, 18; 27:37; 45:7, 9; 46:3 with 21:14; 44:21). Though the sign is not explicitly identified, the narrative continues with an account of Cain’s departure to the land of Nod, “east of Eden,” where he built a city. In light of the purpose of the later cities of refuge, it may be significant that the “sign narrative” is followed by the “city narrative.” Cain’s city may have been intended as the “sign” that gave divine protection to him, since the purpose of the “sign” was to provide protection for Cain from anyone who might attempt to avenge Abel’s death (cf. Nu 35:12). Even in Lamech’s day Cain’s city was a place of refuge for the “manslayer” (see comments below). Thus Cain’s city may be viewed as a “city of refuge” given to him by God to protect him and his descendants from blood revenge (see Dt 19:11–13). The remainder of the chapter is devoted to the “culture” that developed in the context of the “city” that Cain built.
19–24 The primary components of city life were animal husbandry (Jabal, v.20), arts (Jubal, v.21), craftsmanship (Tubal-Cain, v.22), and, apparently, law (Lamech, vv.23–24). Lamech’s words to his two wives are frequently read as an example of a boasting arrogance and rebellion. But in the context of the Mosaic law and the teaching regarding the cities of refuge, Lamech’s words appear to be an appeal to a system of legal justice. The Mosaic law provided for the safe refuge of any “manslayer” until a just trial could be held (Nu 35:42). Lamech, by referring to the “avenging of Cain” (cf. v.24), made it known that in his city he too had been “avenged.”
To show that he had not shed innocent blood, Lamech appealed to the fact that he killed a man “for wounding” and “for injuring” him. He did not “hate his neighbor, lie in wait for him, rise up against him, and kill him” (cf. Dt 19:11), as Cain had done, but rather based his appeal on a plea of sell-defense. Lamech’s appeal bears striking resemblances to the principle of lex talionis (Ex 21:25). The force of the principle was to ensure that a given crime was punished only by a just penalty. Thus Lamech killed a man for wounding him, not because he “hated him” (Dt 19:4–6). If Cain, who killed his brother with malice, could be avenged, then Lamech would surely be avenged for a killing in self-defense, that is, for “wounding” him. The point is not that Lamech’s sense of justice was correct or even exemplary but that Cain’s city and descendants had a system of law and justice representative of an ordered society.
4. Blessing (4:25–26)
25–26 Though Cain’s sons have prospered and have become the founders of the new world after the Fall, the focus turns from the line of Cain to the new son born “in place of Abel.” In such narratives as these, the author betrays his interest in the “seed” of the woman. A pattern is established that will remain the thematic center of the book. The promised seed will come not through the heir apparent but through the one whom God chooses. Cain takes his place as one of those who were not to become a part of the line of the “seed” (cf. Japheth, 10:2–5; Ham, 10:6–20; Nahor, 11:29; 22:20–24; Ishmael, 17:20; Lot, 19:19–38; Esau, ch. 36). The importance of the line of Seth is underscored by the fact that in his days people already practiced true worship of God.
D. The Story of Noah (5:1–10:32)
A major break is signaled at the beginning of ch. 5 by the new heading: “This is the written account of Adam’s line.” This section, which concludes at 9:29, is built around a list of ten of the descendants of Adam, concluding with Noah. After the death of Noah is recorded (9:29), a new list of his sons begins, ending with the birth of Abraham (11:26). Several narrative passages, varying greatly in size, are interspersed within these lists of names. The interweaving of narrative and genealogical lists is a characteristic feature of Genesis.
1. Prologue (5:1–3)
1–3 The prologue first redirects the reader’s attention back to the course of events in ch. 1, reiterating the “likeness” of God motif. Second, vv.1–3 tie ch. 5 together with 4:25–26 by continuing the pattern of “birth” and “naming.” There is a similarity between the picture of the first parents and their sons and that of God and Adam. God’s naming of Adam appears here for the first time in Genesis, casting God in the role of a father who names his son. This role of God as a father is heightened even further by the parallels between his creating Adam “in the likeness of God” and Adam’s giving birth to a son “in his own likeness, in his own image.” Clearly, although Adam is the father of Seth and Seth the father of Enosh, etc., God is the Father of them all. The return to the theme of God’s “blessing” (GK 1385) humankind (cf. v.2) recalls a father’s care for his children, a recurring theme in Genesis. The picture that emerges is of a loving father ensuring the future well-being of his children through an inherited blessing. God’s original plan of blessing, though thwarted by human folly, will be restored through the seed of the woman (3:15), the seed of Abraham (12:3), and the “Lion of the tribe of Judah” (49:8–12; cf. Rev 5:5–13).
2. The sons of Adam (5:4–32)
4–32 The genealogical list in ch. 5 is nearly identical in form to that of 11:10–26, the genealogy of Shem. A comparison of the two shows that the only difference between them is the inclusion of the clause “and then he died” (ch. 5). The reason is because Enoch did not die. The death of each patriarch in ch. 5 is underscored to highlight the exceptional case of Enoch. He “walked [GK 2143] with God.” The phrase is used of Noah (6:9) and of Abraham and Isaac (17:1; 24:40; 48:15).
In Enoch the pronouncement of death is not the last word. A door is left open for a return to the tree of life. Enoch found that door by “walking with God” and has become a paradigm for all who seek to find life. Significantly, this theme recurs at the opening of ch. 17, where God establishes his covenant with Abraham. “Walking with God” is the way to life, not just a mere “keeping” of a set of laws. This theme is associated with those who could not have had a set of “laws,” which shows that there is a better way to live than merely a legalistic adherence to the law.
The genealogical list in ch. 5 has been purposefully restructured at its conclusion to accommodate the Flood narrative, which has been inserted into the genealogy between the notations of Noah’s age at the time he begat his three sons (5:32) and the total length of his life and his death (9:29). Two points in particular call for attention. First, we are told that Noah will bring comfort from the labor and painful toil of the curse (v.29). Likely the comfort Noah brought was the salvation of humankind in the ark as well as the reinstitution of the sacrifice after the Flood (cf. 8:21). Second, it is then significant that the narrative of the Flood is inserted into the genealogical list just before the final word about Noah’s death, where it, in effect, is part of the following table of nations (ch. 10). The same explanation for Enoch’s rescue from death (“he walked with God”) is made the basis for Noah’s rescue from death in the Flood.
By means of a brief genealogical note, the story of Noah’s drunkenness is appended to the close of the Flood account (9:18–27). This strikingly different picture of Noah provides a basis for the final word concerning him: “and he died” (v.29). Noah’s deed was one of disgrace and shame (he took of the fruit of his orchard and became naked), which parallels that of Adam and Eve (who took of the fruit of the garden and saw that they were naked).
3. Epilogue (6:1–4)
1–2 At the conclusion of the list of patriarchs and before the account of the Flood, the author summarizes the state of affairs of Adam’s descendants (cf. 10:31–32; 11:27–32; Ex 1:7.) Historically there have been three primary views of vv.1–4. The “sons of God” are (1) angels (the oldest); (2) royalty (also very old); and (3) pious men from the “line of Seth.” The first view has not been widely held since it appears to contradict Mt 22:30. The commonly accepted view is that the “sons of God” refer to the godly line of Seth. This assumes that vv.1–4 introduce the account of the Flood and are to be understood as its cause. If, however, vv.1–4 summarize ch. 5, there is little to arouse our suspicion that the events recounted are anything out of the ordinary. This little narrative, therefore, is a reminder that Adam’s children had greatly increased in number, had married, and had continued to have children; i.e., a picture of everyday affairs (cf. Mt 24:38–39).
3 The sense of v.3 is clear if read within the context of what precedes and follows. After creating humans as male and female, God “called them man [adam; GK 134]” (5:2), which obviously had a wider scope than the personal individual of ch. 4. In the remainder of ch. 5, the focus was on the lives of individual men again. Here in v.3 God speaks a second time, again speaking of “man”(GK 132) as “humankind.” Between these two statements of God about humankind is the list of ten great individual men, whose length of life stands in stark contrast to the “one hundred and twenty years” of the life of humankind. The inference is that it was God’s Spirit dwelling with these men that gave them their long lives. The sad reality is that such long lives belonged to another age and that they were exceptions rather than the rule. The shorter life marks humankind’s fall and separation from the Creator. Thus the author continues to show the ages of the men of the book and notes that generally their ages grow increasingly shorter (cf. 11:10–26). At the close of the Pentateuch we finally reach an individual who is specifically mentioned as dying at the age of 120 years (Dt 34:7).
The 120 years was taken by Luther and others to refer to a time of reprieve granted by God to humankind before sending the Flood. This apparently is an attempt to resolve the discrepancy between the limit of 120 years and the record of 11:10–26. The reprieve interpretation may also reflect the influence of 1Pe 3:20, which many take to refer to the period of 120 years in Ge 6:3.
4 “Nephilim” (GK 5872) elsewhere in the Pentateuch refers to the great men who were in the land of Canaan at the time of the Exodus (Nu 13:32–33). Here “Nephilim” appears to refer to the great men of antiquity. Since the author has just referred to ten such great men (ch. 5), perhaps these were the “men of renown.” Numbers 13:33 indicates that there were still survivors of the “Nephilim” in the days of the Exodus, which would appear to conflict with our taking them as the ten great men of ch. 5, unless the word is a generic term that means “great men.”
4. The Flood (6:5–9:17)
a. The decree (6:5–12)
5–8 These verses form the introduction proper to the Flood story. The cause for the Flood is tied directly to the earlier account of the fall of humankind (ch. 3). Although humans had obtained the “knowledge of good and evil,” it had not been beneficial. They were far better off when they had to trust God for “the good.” The grief and pain of human sin were not something that only people felt. God himself was grieved over it. The purpose of v.8 is to say no more than that Noah found favor with God. Verses 9–12 explain why God found him to be an exception.
9–12 The Flood account begins with the description of Noah’s being “righteous” (GK 7404). It seems that the main purpose of the story is not to show why God sent a flood but rather why God saved Noah. Noah’s “righteousness” is contrasted with the “violence” of “all flesh.” The message is quite straightforward. God saved Noah because he “walked with God” and did not “corrupt” God’s way (cf. 5:22–24). The picture of Noah that emerges becomes a model of the kind of life that finds grace in the sight of God. It is simple obedience to God’s commands and trust in his provision by faith (cf. Heb 11:7).
b. The command to build the ark (6:13–22)
13–15 The list of specifications for the ark is not so much that we might be able to see what the ark looked like but rather that we might appreciate the meticulous care Noah exercised as he obeyed God’s will. The size and shape are described only in general terms. The word rendered “ark” here is an Egyptian loan word that means “palace” (not “chest” or “coffin”) and is a different word than “ark” in Ex 2:3, 5. The term focuses on the structure as an abode.
The exact nature of the material the ark was made from is unknown. NIV’s “cypress wood” rests on the doubtful association of a Latin word and a Hebrew word as well as on the fact that such wood was commonly used for shipbuilding. The exact meaning of the term remains a mystery. This wood was sealed with “pitch,” another rare word found only here. For a wooden vessel, the ark was enormous. By modern standards it is comparable to a small cargo ship.
16 The ark was constructed with three stories, or decks, of “rooms” (v.14) or separate compartments; it had an opening for light and a door in its side. Obviously the structure consisted of more features than those enumerated in this brief description. We should not conclude from the brevity of the narrative that Noah and his sons built such a vessel on their own.
c. The command to enter the ark (7:1–5)
1–5 The command to make the ark had been given and followed to its completion (6:22). The next scene opens with the command to enter the ark before the coming rains. The emphasis of the section lies in the special provisions for the “clean animals” to be taken into the ark. The specific mention of the “clean animals” suggests that while in the ark Noah and his family ate only “clean meat” (cf. Lev 7:19–21). As entrance into the tabernacle was possible only with an offering of unblemished animals, so too Noah’s entry into the ark is tied to his taking with him “seven pairs” of every clean animal. The sacrificial importance of these “clean animals” is seen in 8:20–21.
d. The floods (7:6–24)
6–24 What is most apparent in the description of the onset of the Flood is the focus on the occupants of the ark. With great detail the procession of those entering the ark passes by the impatient eyes of the reader. Facts like Noah’s age, the month and the day of the beginning of the rain, the source of the waters, the kinds of animals and their number suggest that first and foremost this is a picture of Noah’s salvation. It is only at the conclusion of ch. 7, when the ark is resting safely over the highest mountains in the surging flood, that the author casts his glance in the direction of those who did not seek refuge in the ark (vv.21–23). But even then the author’s attention on those who did not survive the Flood is motivated by the reason why they perished: “Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark” (v.23). Thus when it is repeated four times that those who survived the Flood were those who had done “as God had commanded” (7:9, 16; cf. v.5; 6:22), the point is clear. Obedience to the Lord is the way to salvation.
e. The floods abate (8:1–14)
1 While those in the ark may have been safe, they had not yet been saved. The author does not finish his story until Noah and his family are back on dry ground (v.14). But those in the ark had to wait before God sent his deliverance. So the story passes over the time of waiting in the ark and proceeds immediately to the decisive moment when “God remembered Noah and all . . . that were with him in the ark.”
2–14 Again it is noticeable how the author has prolonged the picture of God’s deliverance. God is depicted at work stopping the flow of the waters and removing the sources of the floods. But it still takes time before Noah can be back on dry land. He still has to wait. With this picture of God at work as background, the author turns his attention to Noah inside the ark and focuses on his patience as he waited on God’s deliverance. At the end of forty days, Noah began to look for signs of his impending deliverance. He sent out a raven and a dove, but no signs of dry land appeared. Noah continued to wait. When the sign of the return of the dry lands finally appeared and the dove did not return, Noah had waited exactly one year (cf. 7:6, 11 and 8:13–14). But even then Noah could only open the window to look out of the ark. He still had to wait for God’s command before leaving the ark (vv.15–17).
The image that emerges from this portrait of Noah is that of a righteous and faithful remnant (“Only Noah was left,” 7:23), patiently waiting for God’s deliverance (cf. Isa 8:17–18; 40:31; Jas 5:7–11). Henceforth “the Flood” is synonymous with eschatological judgment (Isa 8:7–8), and Noah’s deliverance is an image of the salvation of the faithful (Mt 24:37–39).
f. The command to exit the ark (8:15–19)
15–19 Noah left the ark only at God’s command. The description, though condensed, closely follows the Creation pattern in Ge 1. The picture is of a return to the work of Creation “in the beginning.” Significantly, at this point the author takes up a lengthy account of the covenant (8:20–9:17). The restoration of God’s Creation was founded on the establishment of a covenant.
There is a striking thematic parallel between the picture of God’s calling Noah out of the ark (8:15–20) and the call of Abraham (12:1–7). Both Noah and Abraham represent new beginnings. Both are marked by God’s promise of blessing and his gift of the covenant.
g. The altar and the covenant (8:20–9:17)
8:20–9:17 In the account of Noah’s altar and covenant, the author continues his close associations with ch. 1. As a result of this altar and offering, the whole of the state of humankind before the Flood is reestablished. The human race is still fallen (9:21), but through an offering on the altar they may yet find God’s blessing. It is significant that just as in Ge 1, the focus of the author’s interest in “man” after the Flood is his creation in God’s image (9:6).
Just as significant as the associations of this passage with the Creation account, however, are the several close associations between Noah’s altar and Moses’ altar at Mount Sinai following the Exodus (Ex 24:4–18). These similarities between God’s “covenant” (GK 1382) with Noah and the covenant at Sinai suggest that God’s covenant at Sinai is not a new act but rather a return to God’s original promises. The covenant with Noah plays an important role in the restoration of blessing, for it lies midway between God’s original blessing of all humankind (1:28) and God’s promise to bless “all peoples on the earth” through Abraham (12:1–3).
5. Noah’s drunkenness (9:18–29)
18–19 These verses conclude the Flood story and introduce the short episode of Noah’s drunkenness. What should not be overlooked in this particular transitional unit is the identification of Canaan as one of the sons of Ham. This is crucial to what follows (cf. vv.22, 25).
20–21 Just as in the Creation God planted a garden for people to enjoy, so now Noah plants an orchard. The outcomes are remarkably similar. Noah ate of the fruit of his orchard and became naked. That is, even after the salvation from the Flood, enjoyment of God’s good gifts by the human race could not be sustained. Noah, like Adam, sinned, and the effects were felt in the generations of sons and daughters to follow. As in ch. 3, the effect of Noah’s sin is seen in his “nakedness” (cf. 2:25; 3:7).
22–29 Ham looked on his father’s nakedness. Shem and Japheth instead covered it without looking on him. All speculation concerning the nature of Ham’s sin aside, what the author apparently wants to show is simply the contrast between the deeds of Ham and those of Shem and Japheth. That contrast becomes the basis for the curse and the blessing that follow. The significance of the contrast between the actions of the sons is seen from the author’s account of the Fall in ch. 3. In covering their father’s nakedness, Shem and Japheth were like Adam and Eve (3:7) and God (3:21), who did not look on human nakedness but covered it (cf. 2:25). Ham did not follow that lead. His actions were more like those of whom God warned later in the Torah, those who “expose their own nakedness” before God and others (cf. Ex 20:26). Since some scholars interpret Ex 20:24–26 as a prohibition of Canaanite forms of worship, there may be an intended link between Ham and the Canaanites in the notion of “nakedness.” The sons of Noah belong to two groups of humankind, those who like Adam and Eve hide the shame of their nakedness, and those who like Ham, or rather the Canaanites, have no sense of their shame before God. To the one group, the line of Shem, there will be blessing (v.26); but to the other, the Canaanites (not the Hamites), there can only be curse. These three sons—as later the “seed of Abraham” and the “nations”—represent two responses to human guilt and disobedience. It is not simply because one is born into a certain family line that he or she is blessed or cursed.
6. The line of Noah (10:1–32)
The author’s purpose in giving a list of names at this point can be seen in the statement at 10:32. These names give a panoramic view of the nations as a backdrop for the rest of the book and beyond. There are exactly seventy nations represented in the list, which symbolizes the totality of nations. In other words, “all nations” find their ultimate origins in the three sons of Noah.
Though he is on the verge of narrowing his focus to the “seed of Abraham” and the “sons of Israel,” the author first lays a solid foundation for his ultimate purpose in God’s choice of Abraham: through his “seed” God’s blessing will be restored to “all people on earth” (12:3). It is not without purpose that the author reminds his readers that the total number of Abraham’s “seed” at the close of Genesis is also “seventy” (46:27; cf. Ex 1:5). Before Abraham, the nations numbered “seventy.” After Abraham, at the close of Genesis, the seed of Abraham numbered “seventy.” He who was taken from the nations has reached the number of the nations.
a. The sons of Noah (10:1)
1 Chapter 10 is bracketed at either end with an identification of the list of names as “Noah’s sons” and the temporal marker “after the flood.” The author was concerned that the list in ch. 10 not be read outside its context. Such conspicuous attention to context is another indication that the author has a plan to unfold and that he did not want the reader to lose sight of it.
b. The sons of Japheth (10:2–5)
2–5 The list begins with those nations that are considered the “islands of the nations” (cf. v.5), i.e., those that make up the geographical horizon of the author, a kind of “third world” over against the nations of Ham (Canaan) and Shem. Later, when the focus is on the establishment of God’s universal kingdom, these nations again come into view to show that his plan includes all peoples (Ps 72:8, 10).
Copyright ©1991 Zondervan Publishing House.
A pattern in the author’s selection is clearly discernible in the list of the sons of Japheth. Fourteen names are listed in all: seven sons of Japheth, then seven grandsons. The author has omitted the sons of five of the seven sons of Japheth (Magog, Madai, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras). He lists only the sons of Gomer and Javan. Thus his intention is not to give an exhaustive list but rather a “complete” list, one that for him is obtained in the number “seven.”
c. The sons of Ham (10:6–20)
6–12 The list of the sons of Ham begins as the list of the sons of Japheth does, with the simple naming of Ham’s four sons. Then, as also in the Japheth list, the grandsons of the first listed (Cush) are given. But before going on to the next son (Mizraim), the great grandsons (sons of Raamah) are listed. The end result is a list of “seven sons”—a complete list. Immediately following are the exploits of Nimrod and his cities, introducing the city of Babylon, the subject of 11:1–9.
The deliberate association of Assyria with Babylon is significant because it takes Assyria out of its natural associations with Shem and identifies it with Babylon. Thus the way is opened for an association and identification of any city with the city of Babylon (Isa 13–14; Rev 17:5). The prophet Micah can already speak of Assyria as the “land of Nimrod” (Mic 5:6).
13–20 The genealogy of Ham continues with a list of the sons of Mizraim, again seven names. This is the last list of the numerical pattern “seven.” The remainder of the lists of names appear to be influenced by no particular numerical pattern except that of the total number of “seventy nations” that dominates the list of names as a whole. The focus of the “non-seven” lists (vv.15–29) is more comprehensive because the Canaanites and the sons of Shem play prominent roles in the book of Genesis and the Pentateuch. The exact boundaries of the area of Canaan are singled out since that area lay at the heart of the purpose of the book. This was the land promised to Abraham, though “at that time the Canaanites were in the land” (12:6).
d. The sons of Shem (10:21–31)
21–31 The reference to Shem and Japheth without Ham recalls Noah’s blessing of Shem and Japheth in 9:26–27, where there also Canaan is excluded. The mention of the “sons of Eber” anticipates the genealogy that yet lies ahead and results in the birth of Abraham (11:10–26).
The list of descendants of Shem is also highly selective, going to the two sons of Eber and then following the line of the second son, Joktan. Significantly, another genealogy of Shem is repeated after the account of the building of Babylon (11:1–9), and there the line is continued to Abraham through the first son of Eber, Peleg (11:10–26). Thus a dividing line is drawn through the descendants of Shem on either side of the city of Babylon, falling between the two sons of Eber, Peleg and Joktan. One line leads to the building of Babylon and the other to the family of Abraham. A hint to this division is in v.25. Typically, the “earth” refers to the “inhabitants of the land.” Thus not only is the land divided in the confusion of languages (11:1), but two great lines of humanity diverge from the midst of the sons of Shem: those who seek to make a name (shem; GK 9005) for themselves in the building of the city of Babylon (11:4) and those for whom God will make a name (shem, 12:2; GK 9002) in the call of Abraham.
e. Epilogue (10:32)
32 The final verse of ch. 10 again takes up the theme of the division of the nations, providing a context for the narrative of the city of Babylon that follows. What has been described “geographically and linguistically” in ch. 10 is described “theologically” in ch. 11, namely, God’s judgment of Babylon and his dispersion of the nations.
E. The City of Babylon (11:1–9)
1–9 The oneness of the people up to this point divides in the two sons of Eber (10:25). One line ends in Babylon, the other in the Promised Land. The first scene opens with a movement “eastward” to the “plain in Shinar.” Thus the starting point of the events of the story was a land west of Babylon. Both the man and woman and Cain moved eastward after being cast out from the presence of God (3:24; 4:16). When Lot divided from Abraham, he moved “toward the east” (13:10–12). When a man goes “east,” he leaves the land of blessing (Eden and the Promised Land) and goes to a land where his hopes will turn to ruin (Babylon and Sodom).
The word “name” (shem; GK 9005) plays a central role here. First, the builders of the city wanted “to make a name [shem]” for themselves. Second, the conclusion of the story returns to the “name” (shem) of the city, ironically associating it (Babylon/Babel) with the confusion of their language. “Scattered” (GK 5880) is another key word. The purpose of the city was so that its inhabitants would not “be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” Ironically, at the conclusion of the story it is the Lord who “scattered” the builders from the city “over the face of the whole earth,” a fact repeated twice at the conclusion. The expression “the whole land” is a third key term in the story. The people had left “the whole land [NIV, world]” to build a city in the east. The purpose of the city was to keep them from being scattered throughout “the whole land.” But in response the Lord reversed their plan and scattered them over “all the land.”
The focus of the author since the beginning chapters of the book of Genesis has been both on God’s plan to bless humankind by providing them with that which is “good” and on human failure to trust God and enjoy the “good” God had provided. The characteristic mark of this failure has been the attempt by humans to grasp the “good” on their own. The author has centered his description of God’s blessing on the gift of the land (1:28). The good land is the place of blessing. To leave this land and to seek another is to forfeit the blessing of God’s good provisions. It is to live “east of Eden.”
F. The Line of Shem (11:10–26)
10–26 This list of ten descendants of Shem, like that of Adam in ch. 5, draws the line of the “faithful” (Noah to Abraham) and bypasses the “unfaithful” (10:26–30). In ch. 5 the list of ten patriarchs from Adam to Noah provided the link between the “offspring” promised to the woman (3:15) and the offspring of Noah, the survivor of the Flood (7:23). Not only does the list mark the “line of the promise,” it also bypasses the line of Cain (4:17–22)—the line of the builders of the city (v.17) and the civilization (vv.20–24) that was destroyed in the Flood.
Verses 10–26 show that God’s promise concerning the seed of the woman cannot be thwarted by the confusion and scattering of the nations at Babylon. Though the seed of Noah were scattered at Babylon, God preserved a line of ten great men from Noah to Abraham.
II. Abraham (11:27–25:11)
A. The Line of Abraham (11:27–32)
27–32 The genealogy that precedes the narrative of Abraham provides the necessary background for understanding the events in his life. Thus far the author has followed a pattern of listing ten names between important individuals, but this short list has only eight names. This raises the question of who the ninth and, more importantly, the tenth names will be. As the narrative unfolds, the ninth and tenth names are shown to be the two sons of Abraham, “Ishmael” (16:15) and “Isaac” (21:3). The genealogical introduction, then, anticipates the birth of Isaac, the tenth name.
Interspersed in the list of names is the brief notice that Terah and his family, including Abraham and Lot, had left Ur of the Chaldeans and traveled as far as Haran, en route to the land of Canaan. There is no mention of the call of God until 12:1, and that appears to be after the death of Terah (v.32b). The initial impression is that while in Haran Abraham was called to leave his homeland—after the death of his father, Terah, and not while in Ur of the Chaldeans. That impression is further sustained by the narrative in 12:4–5, which recounts Abraham’s obedient response to the call of God and explicitly states that he “set out from Haran,” not mentioning Ur of the Chaldeans. A second look, however, suggests that the author intended us to understand the narrative differently.
Verses 27–2 show that it was Ur of the Chaldeans, not Haran, that was the place of Abraham’s birth. Thus the command given to Abraham to leave the place of his birth (12:1; NIV, “your country”) could only have been given at Ur of the Chaldeans. Putting the call of Abraham within the setting of Ur aligns this narrative with themes in the later prophetic literature and connects the call of Abraham (12:1–3) with the dispersion of the city of Babylon (11:1–9), thus making Abraham prefigure all those future exiles who, in faith, wait for the return to the Promised Land (cf. Mic 7:18–20).
Marked similarities are evident between the introductions to the Abraham and the Isaac narratives (25:19–26). Abraham’s brother, Haran, died “before” his father; Isaac’s brother Ishmael died “before his brothers” (25:18b). Abraham took a wife, and she was barren; Isaac took a wife, and she was barren (25:20–21). Both narratives contain an element of struggle between brothers. Abraham was accompanied by Lot from birth, and Jacob was accompanied by Esau from birth (25:22–24). In the struggles that ensued, Abraham was “separated” from Lot (13:9, 11, 14) and Jacob was “separated” from Esau (25:23).
B. The Call of Abraham (12:1–9)
1–5 Abraham, like Noah, marks a new beginning as well as a return to God’s original plan of blessing “all peoples on earth” (cf. 1:28). Notable is the frequent reiteration of God’s “blessing” throughout the narratives of Abraham and his descendants (12:1–3; 13:15–16; 15:5, 18; et al.). Abraham is here represented as a new Adam, the seed of Abraham as a second Adam, a new humanity. Those who “bless” (GK 1385) him, God will bless; those who “curse” (GK 826) him, God will curse. The way of life and blessing, which was once marked by the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (2:17) and then by the ark (7:23b), is now marked by identification with Abraham and his seed.
The identity of the seed of Abraham is one of the chief themes of the following narratives. At the close of the book (49:8–12), a glimpse of the future seed of Abraham is briefly allowed. This one seed who is to come, to whom the right of kingship belongs, will be the “lion of the tribe of Judah” (cf. 49:9); and “the obedience of the nations is his” (49:10).
6–9 The account of Abraham’s entry into the land of Canaan is selective. Only three sites are mentioned: Shechem, a place between Bethel and Ai, and the Negev. Significantly, these are the same three locations visited by Jacob when he returned to Canaan from Haran (chs. 34–35), as well as the same sites occupied in the account of the conquest of the land under Joshua.
C. Abraham in Egypt (12:10–13:4)
12:10–13:4 Verse 10 opens with a notice that a famine forced Abraham to seek refuge in Egypt. The recurring theme of the threat to God’s promise in 12:1–3 is first noted in the present story. In nearly every episode that follows, the promise of a “numerous seed,” “blessing to all peoples on earth,” or the “gift of the land” is placed in jeopardy by the actions of the characters of the narrative. The promise looks as if it will fail. In the face of such a threat, however, God remains faithful to his word and safeguards the promise. God can bring about his promise, despite human failures.
The account of Abraham’s sojourn in Egypt parallels in many respects the account of God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt (Ge 41–Ex 12). Both passages have a similar message. The past is not allowed to remain in the past. Its lessons are drawn for the future. That is, Abraham’s stay in Egypt prefigures Israel’s later stay in Egypt (both initiated by a famine). Behind the pattern stands a faithful, loving God. What he has done with Abraham, he will do for his people today and tomorrow. In light of such parallels we should also understand the close similarity between the accounts of Abraham’s sojourns in Egypt (ch. 12) and Gerar (ch. 20) and Isaac’s in Gerar (ch. 26). The similarities have long been recognized, though not always appreciated.
D. The Lot Narratives (13:5–19:38)
1. Abraham and Lot (13:5–18)
5–18 The narrative here is governed by the theme of “struggle” and shaped around the “separation” (vv.9, 11, 14) that ensues. At its conclusion stands the second statement of God’s promise to Abraham. Just as the first statement of the promise was preceded by Abraham’s separation (10:32; 12:1), so the second statement of the promise is put in the context of Abraham’s separation from his closest kin, Lot. Significantly, the final statement of the promise to Abraham comes immediately after he has demonstrated his willingness to be separated from his only son and heir, Isaac (22:15–18).
Abraham’s separation from Lot also carries the theme of the promise into jeopardy. Ironically, Abraham is on the verge of giving the Promised Land to Lot, who later (19:37–38) became the father of the Ammonites and the Moabites. These people throughout Israel’s subsequent history (Dt 23:3–6; Ezr 9:1) were the primary obstacle to the fulfillment of the promise. Thanks to Abraham the promise seems to teeter on the whim of the father of the Moabites. But Lot “chose” to go “east”; so Abraham remained in the land. Thus God’s promise was secure, in spite of Abraham’s passivity.
The land Lot chose was “like the garden of the LORD” and “like the land of Egypt,” a positive description within the context of Genesis. But there is a subtle foreshadowing of the fatal results of Lot’s choice in the geographic marker “toward Zoar.” That was where Lot fled for safety from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (19:22). Lot’s choice of a land “toward the east” forebodes disaster.
Definite ties connect Lot’s separation from Abraham to the separation (10:32) of the nations at Babylon (11:1–9) and the judgment of the nations at Sodom (19:1–29). The ties between ch. 13 and the destruction of Sodom (ch. 19) can be seen in v.10b and vv.12b–13.
The account of the dispersion of the nations closes in 10:32b with a reference to the nations being “spread out [i.e., separated; GK 7233] over the earth after the flood.” Then the narrative of the dispersion of Babylon opens with the people of the land traveling “eastward” (11:2). Similarly, Lot traveled “toward the east” when he “parted” (GK 7233) from Abraham (13:11). Following the separation of the nations at Babylon, the narrative resumes with Abraham traveling throughout the land of Canaan, receiving it as a promise, and then building an altar in response to God’s promise (12:1–9). So also, after Lot separated to Sodom, Abraham traveled throughout the land of Canaan, received it a second time as a promise, and built an altar in response.
2. Abraham and the nations (14:1–24)
1–11 At first glance the ties between chs. 13 and 14 seem meager. Abruptly the narrative begins in the time frame marked as “In the days of Amraphel” (NIV, “At this time Amraphel”). Just as abruptly the location moves from Hebron (13:18) to an international arena and the wars of four kings. Again, Lot is the link between the two accounts. Immediately following the report of Lot’s capture, the narrative returns to Hebron (14:13b). At that point Abraham is brought into the center of the account of the battle with the four kings (vv.14–17). The mention of “Mamre” at v.24 returns us to the scene at the close of ch. 13.
“The LORD” (GK 3378), the God Abraham worshiped at Hebron (13:18), is the “Creator of heaven and earth” (14:22) who delivers the four kings of the east into Abraham’s hands. Abraham, who asks nothing and wants nothing from the kings of this world (vv.22–23), is the only one who proves able to dwell peacefully in the land. As 12:3 has forecast, those who join with Abraham (v.13b) will enjoy his blessing (v.24b); but those who separate from him, as Lot had done (13:12), will suffer the same fate as Sodom and Gomorrah (14:11–12).
Shinar has already been identified as Babylon (10:10; 11:2, 9). The author has deliberately put the king of Shinar’s name first in the narrative, thus aligning the account with the theme of “Babylon” introduced in chs. 10 (v.10) and 11 (v.2). Elsewhere throughout the chapter Kedorlaomer is always first among the four kings (vv.4, 5, 9, 17).
Although very little information is given about the actual battles other than that the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah were soundly defeated and completely routed, the account is overladen with geographical and political details. What emerges as certain from this feature of the narrative is that the events recounted were global in scope and ended in the disgraceful defeat of the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah.
12 The perspective changes markedly from the war with the four eastern kings to the fate of Lot. The ultimate cause of Lot’s unfortunate fate was that “he was living in Sodom,” a reminder of the blessing in the land (12:1–3; 13:14–17) and the fate of all those who separate themselves from Abraham.
Lot’s fate is the first stage in a lesson that will bring him still further in need of the intercession of Abraham (18:23–32). Twice Abraham intercedes for Lot: here he rescues Lot in the war with Babylon, and later (chs. 18–19) Abraham’s intercession (18:23–32; 19:29) effects Lot’s deliverance. The picture of Abraham that emerges here is the same as that in 20:7: “He is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live.”
13–16 The scene returns to Abraham and his three friends at Hebron, strangely unaffected by the events of the previous narrative. In this brief scene Abraham musters a select army, defeats the four kings, and returns Lot with the rest of the captives.
17–20 After his return from battle, Abraham was met by two kings in the “King’s Valley.” Suddenly Melchizedek appears as if out of nowhere and just as quickly is gone, not to be encountered again or subsequently explained. The insertion of the encounter with Melchizedek into the section dealing with the king of Sodom suggests that it is to be read as the background to the encounter with the king of Sodom. Thus a contrast is established between Abraham’s responses to the king of Salem and the king of Sodom. One is positive, the other negative. Lying behind Abraham’s responses is the contrast between the offers of the two kings. The king of Salem brings “bread and wine” as a priestly act and acknowledges that it was the “God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth,” who delivered the adversaries into Abraham’s hand. The king of Sodom offered Abraham the booty of the battle (v.21; see next comment). Abraham’s response to Melchizedek is an appropriate recognition of the validity of his offer as well as of his priesthood: Abraham paid a tithe (see Nu 18:21).
21–24 The king of Sodom offered Abraham all the “goods” recovered in the battle. Abraham would have nothing to do with an offer of reward from him. Abraham’s reward would come from “the LORD, the Creator of heaven and earth” (cf. 15:1, 14b). Although he rejected the offer from the king of Sodom, Abraham laid claim to rightfully own what his young men had eaten (cf. Dt 20:14b). Abraham also recognized that his three friends had their own rightful share in the spoil. But Abraham flatly refused to take anything from the king of Sodom (cf. Dt 20:17). Abraham is a man of faith.
3. Abraham and the covenant (15:1–21)
1–4 God’s address to Abraham is in the elevated style typical of later prophetic literature (vv.1, 4; cf. Jer 34:12). Like the seer Balaam (Nu 24:4, 16), Abraham saw the word of the Lord “in a vision.” For the first time it is recorded that Abraham spoke to God. Previously when God spoke to him, Abraham obeyed but did not speak in return. Abraham raised a question of how the promise would be fulfilled. In fact, he raised so many questions that we are reminded of his unwavering faith (v.6).
Abraham’s questions provide the backdrop for the central issue of the chapter: God’s apparent delay in fulfilling his promises. The issue at stake is the same one faced by Jeremiah. God’s people, instead of enjoying the promised blessing, would find themselves about to enter captivity in Babylon. The promise appears to have come to naught (cf. Jer 25:11). But in Jeremiah’s warning there is the promise of ultimate blessing. The time of exile has a limit (v.12). Abraham’s predicament is like that of later generations of God’s people. He too must wait in faith for the fulfillment of the promise, being counted righteous in his faith (v.6), but realizing that the promise was far off to another generation (vv.15–16; cf. Heb 11:13).
What was Abraham afraid of? What “reward” (GK 8510) did God have in mind? Were the military events in ch. 14 still posing a threat to Abraham? Since ch. 15 makes a major break with ch. 14 (“after this”; cf. 22:1; 39:7; 40:1), God’s first words to Abraham probably do not relate to the immediate context of ch. 14. Apparently Abraham had begun to fear for the final outcome of God’s promise to make his “offspring like the dust of the earth” (13:16; cf. v.2).
The questions Abraham raised betray the fact that such a fear lay behind God’s first words of comfort. Not only do his questions betray the fear that lay within him, but also the Lord’s continued assurances point in the same direction (v.4). From all appearances around him, Abraham has little to give him hope that God will remain faithful to his word. It is significant that the next words Abraham spoke to the Lord (17:18) appear to reveal doubt. On the other hand, when he is silent, his actions always exhibit faith.
5 The appeal to the number of the stars of “the heavens” recalls Abraham’s own words in 14:22, where his hope for reward was based solely on the “Creator of heaven and earth.” If the Lord was the Creator of the great multitude of stars, he was able to give Abraham an equal number of descendants (cf. 22:17; 26:4; Ex 32:13; Dt 1:10; 28:62). God’s faithfulness in the past was the basis for Abraham’s trust in the future.
6 God was about to enter a “covenant” (GK 1382) with Abraham that would be the basis of all God’s future dealings with him and his offspring (vv.7–21). Verse 6 sets the record straight: Abraham had believed in the Lord and had been accounted righteous. The “covenant” did not make in him “righteousness” (GK 7407); rather, it was through his “faith” that he was reckoned righteous.
7–16 These verses recount the establishment of a covenant between the Lord and Abram. The opening statement is virtually identical to that of the Sinai covenant (Ex 20:2). “Ur of the Chaldeans” refers to 11:28 and 31, grounding the present covenant in a past act of divine salvation from “Babylon” (cf. Ex 20:2). The coming of God’s presence in the awesome fire and darkness of Mount Sinai (Ex 19:18; 20:18; Dt 4:11) appears to be intentionally foreshadowed in Abram’s pyrotechnic vision (vv.12, 17). In the Lord’s words to Abram, the connection between Abram’s covenant and the Sinai covenant is explicitly made by means of the reference to the four hundred years of bondage of Abram’s descendants and their subsequent exodus.
17 The act of dividing the animals and walking through the parts was apparently an ancient form of contractual agreement (cf. Jer 34:18). While the meaning of the details may remain a mystery, fortunately the writer of Genesis has explained the custom: “On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram.”
The sudden and solitary image of the birds of prey that Abram must drive away (v.11) give a fleeting glimpse of the impending doom that awaits Abraham’s seed but in the same moment points to the protective care of God’s promises (cf. Mt 24:28). The imagery of the birds of prey surrounding the carcass is followed by a reference to the darkening of the sun (Ge 15:12; cf. Mt 24:29) and the promise of future redemption (Ge 15:14; cf. Mt 24:30).
18–21 The author again draws the promise of the land back into the narrative by concluding with a description of the geographical boundaries of the covenant land. The borders of the Promised Land appear to coincide with those of the Garden of Eden (cf. 2:10–14).
4. Hagar (16:1–16)
1–6 The mention of Hagar’s geographical origin (“Egyptian”) links this account to 15:18b–21. Twice we read that Hagar, the Egyptian, “despised” Sarai (cf. 12:3). As a consequence, Hagar was forced into the “desert” (v.7), where she was to stay until she submitted herself again to Sarai. Only then did the Lord offer Hagar a blessing (v.10; cf. 17:2, 20).
To deal with her barrenness, Sarai’s plan of offering her maid to Abram to bear him an heir was apparently acceptable within the social custom of the day. Sarai’s plan, however, was one more example of the futility of human efforts to achieve God’s blessing. Although successful, Sarai’s plan does not meet with divine approval (17:15–19; cf. 11:1–9; 12:10–20; 13:1–12; 14:21–24).
7–12 The location shifts to the wilderness, to the “spring that is beside the road to Shur.” Hagar was returning to Egypt (see 25:18). The angel of the Lord greets Hagar with a question (cf. comment on 3:9). Then he offers a blessing to the distraught handmaid. The child to be born to her will be named “Ishmael” because the Lord “has heard” (a play on words, since both terms are built on the same Heb. root) her “misery” (GK 6715). The key term throughout the chapter is “misery,” which occurs as a noun in v.6 and as a verb in v.11b (“mistreated”; GK 6700) and v.9 (“submit”; GK 6700). Hagar was afflicted by Sarai (v.6); she was told to put herself back under that affliction (v.9); and the Lord heard her affliction (v.11).
The second half of Hagar’s “blessing” did not portend well for her son: he would be a “wild donkey of a man.” There is a wordplay between “donkey” and “Paran,” the later location of the tribes of Ishmael. The sense of the last statement in the blessing can perhaps be gained from 21:21, where it is said that Ishmael “was living in the Desert of Paran.” Ishmael was to dwell on the outskirts of civilization, i.e., in the wilderness.
13–16 The final section of the narrative consists of Hagar’s naming of God and the birth of Ishmael. The two events go together in that the birth of the child was the confirmation of the name given to God in this section: “the God of seeing.”
5. Abraham, Sarah, and Ishmael (17:1–27)
1a Abram was eighty-six years old when Ishmael was born (16:16). At the beginning and close of ch. 17, his age is given as ninety-nine. Thus his age functions as a framework.
1b–2 The Lord’s first speech to Abram establishes the interpretive boundaries for the rest of the chapter and establishes the fact that the events of the chapter represent the making of a covenant between the Lord and Abram. The substance of the covenant is the promise of abundant descendants.
God is immediately identified as the “LORD” (GK 3378), the God of the covenant at Sinai (Ex 3:15). Within the narrative, however, God identified himself to Abram as “God Almighty.” An insight into the faith of Abram is that he worshiped the covenant God, “the LORD,” but knew him as “God Almighty” (see Ex 6:3). After identifying himself, the Lord gives a brief synopsis of the covenant, stressing Abram’s obligation: “Walk before me and be blameless” and the divine promise: “[I] will greatly increase your numbers.” Had not God already “made” a covenant with Abraham in 15:18? Why did he establish a covenant with Abram a second time? The two covenants are, in fact, two distinct aspects of God’s covenant with Abraham—one stresses the promise of the land (15:18–21) and the other the abundance of descendants (17:2).
3a The report of Abram’s response is also brief: Abram “fell facedown,” a sign of deep respect. Comparing Abram’s response to the Lord’s second speech (v.17), we see that he not only “fell facedown” but also “laughed.” When Abram heard that God would greatly increase his descendants, he responded with respect and submission. But when he heard how God would carry out his plan, his respect contained a tinge of laughter.
3b–16 The second divine speech is divided into three sections by the clause “and God said.” Each section deals respectively with one of the parties of the covenant (the Lord, Abram, and Sarai). The substance of each section is memorialized by a specific sign within that section: the change of Abram’s name, the circumcision of all males, and the change of Sarai’s name. God’s part of the covenant consists of two promises: abundant descendants and eternal faithfulness. The descendants of Abraham who belong to this covenant will owe their existence to God alone. The promise of abundant descendants is memorialized in the change of Abram’s name to “Abraham,” which is interpreted to mean “father of many nations.”
The choice of the word “be fruitful” (GK 7238) in v.6 and “multiply” in v.2 (“increase your numbers”; GK 8049) recalls the blessing of all humankind in 1:28 and its reiteration in 9:1, showing the covenant with Abraham to be the means God uses to channel his blessings to all people.
A new element is added in v.6b: “kings will come forth from you.” This anticipates not only Abraham’s descendants recorded in Samuel and Kings but, more importantly, provides a link between the general promise of blessing through the seed of Abraham and the subsequent focus of that blessing in the royal house of Judah (Ge 49:8–12; Nu 24:7–9). The notion that the blessing would come from a king is not new (cf. 14:18–19), but the idea that this king would come from the seed of Abraham is.
The focus of vv.7–8 lies in the repetition of the term “everlasting” (GK 6409). The covenant promised is “everlasting” and the possession of the land is “everlasting.” The promises in these verses were given before (cf. 13:14–15; 15:18–21); however, here the everlasting nature of promises is in view. Eternality was certainly implied in the “forever” of the land promise (13:15); but when the covenant was granted in ch. 15, there was no mention yet of its being “eternal.” Thus as God reiterated his role in the covenant, the focus was centered on his everlasting faithfulness.
Abraham’s part in the covenant consisted of his obedience to the covenant. What this involved immediately was that “every male among you shall be circumcised.” To keep the covenant was to faithfully practice circumcision; to “break” the covenant was to be “uncircumcised.” But the whole of the covenant was not simply the rite of circumcision, for that was to “be the sign of the covenant.”
Sarai’s part in the covenant was to be the mother of nations, and “kings of peoples will come from her.” As with Abraham, her new name—Sarah—was a sign of her part in the covenant. In Hebrew “Sarah” means “princess.”
17–18 Abraham’s response—“fell facedown” and “laughed” (GK 7464)—is unexpected. Abraham’s own words uncover the motivation behind his laughter. In 18:12, when Sarah also responded to God’s promise with laughter, her laughter was met with divine disapproval. The absence of such a rebuke here suggests that Abraham’s laughter does not so much reflect a lack of faith as it does a limitation of his faith. Abraham’s faith must grow if he is to continue to put his trust in God’s promise. One clear purpose in Abraham’s laughter is that the Hebrew expression “he laughed” foreshadows the name “Isaac.”
The irony of Abraham’s response is evident. His laughter became a verbal sign marking the ultimate fulfillment of the promise in Isaac. Throughout the remainder of the narratives surrounding the birth of Isaac, a key word within each major section is “laughter.” Sarah “laughed” (18:12); Lot’s sons-in-law laughed (19:14); all who heard of Sarah’s birth to Isaac would “laugh” (21:6); the son of Hagar laughed (21:9b; NIV, “was mocking”) at Isaac. Finally, Isaac’s own failure to trust in God (26:7) was uncovered when the Philistine king saw him “laughing” (26:8b; NIV, “caressing”). Thus the power of God and the limitations of human faith are embodied in that most ambiguous of human acts, laughter.
19–22 The third divine speech extends the covenant to include Isaac, who is to be born of Sarah, and consequently excludes Ishmael, the son of Hagar. Thus Isaac is here brought to the level of a participant in the original covenant, and the identification of the covenant “offspring” of Abraham is made more specific. The descendants of Abraham who are heirs of the covenant are those through Sarah, that is, the “offspring” of Isaac, anticipating 26:3b.
Although Ishmael has been excluded from the covenant with Abraham, Ishmael and his descendants are still to live under the blessing of God. In fact, in his blessing of Ishmael, God reiterated both his original blessing of all humanity in 1:28 and his blessing of Abraham in 12:2. Just as the “offspring” of Isaac would form a great nation of twelve tribes (49:1–27), so the “offspring” of Ishmael, under God’s blessing, would form a great nation of twelve rulers (cf. 25:13–15).
23 Abraham’s final response shows that he obeyed the covenant; he circumcised all the male members of his household “as God told him.” Abraham’s obedience reflects the injunction given in v.1: “Walk before me and be blameless.” “Blameless” (GK 9459) occurs in Genesis only here and in 6:9 (Noah). “Walk before God” occurs more frequently (5:22, 24; 6:9; 17:1; 24:40; 48:15). Thus Abraham and Noah are examples of those who obeyed the covenant and were therefore “blameless” before God.
24–27 The ages of Abraham and Ishmael mark the closure of an inclusio (see comment on v.1). The final word at the close restates Abraham’s obedient response to the covenant.
6. Three visitors (18:1–33)
a. Abraham’s hospitality (18:1–8)
1a The narrative begins in the same way as ch. 17, with the report that “the LORD appeared to Abraham.” The importance of this comment should not be overlooked, for it helps clarify who the three men were who visited Abraham and what their mission was. In some (albeit unexplained) way, the three men represented the Lord’s “appearing” to Abraham.
The mention of the “great trees of Mamre” reestablishes the location of Abraham during these events (cf. 13:18). Since the identification of “Abraham” within ch. 18 does not occur until v.6 (in v.1 NIV supplies his name but the Heb. has only “to him”), the opening of ch. 18 is closely bound with the end of ch. 17 and the account of the circumcision of Abraham and his household.
The final verse (v.33)—which recounts that after the Lord had finished speaking, “he left”—shows that the whole chapter is to be understood within the context of the Lord’s appearance to Abraham (cf. 17:1 and 22; 35:9 and 13).
1b–8 The narrative of the arrival of three men at Abraham’s tent is complicated by several uncertainties. First, the relationship between the three men and the appearance of the Lord (v.1a) is not explicit. Second, there appears to be a conscious shift in the verbal forms between v.3 (sing. masc.) and vv.4–9 (pi. masc.). Finally, there is the question of the nature of the relationship between the uncertainties just raised in ch. 18 and their apparent counterparts in ch. 19, where the relationship between the “two angels” (or “messengers,” 19:1a; GK 4855) and the Lord (“LORD”; GK 3378) remains unexplained (e.g., the two “men” [19:12] tell Lot they will destroy Sodom [19:13], but the text states that “the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah” [19:24]). The verbs and pronouns in Lot’s greeting are all plural masculine (19:2) and continue to be so until the end of the story, where the same sort of unevenness found in ch. 18 reappears (e.g., 19:17: “as soon as they [pl. masc.] had brought them out, one of them said [sing, masc.]”; or 19:18: “Lot said to them [pl. masc.], . . . Your servant [‘your’ is sing. masc.]”). Also, unlike 18:3b, the Masoretes’ vocalization of “my lords” (NIV) in 19:2 reflects an address to persons other than God, whereas when the same persons are addressed in 19:18, the Masoretic form of “my lords” (NIV; GK 123) is again the form used only to address God (see NIV note).
Such irregularities as exist in the narrative are the result of a conscious attempt to stress at one and the same time the theological relevance of the promise of God’s presence along with his transcendent, sovereign power. Thus the final unevenness results from the need to reconcile two equally important views of God.
There are close similarities between the account of Abraham’s visit by “three men” and Lot’s visit by the “two angels/men” (19:1–2). In ch. 18 Abraham is sitting “at the entrance to his tent,” whereas in ch. 19 Lot is “sitting in the gateway of [Sodom]” (v.1). Second, when Abraham “saw” the men, he ran “to meet them” and “bowed low to the ground” and said, “O Lord, if now” (see NIV note); so also Lot in ch. 19, when he “saw” the angels/men, he got up “to meet them” and “bowed down with his face to the ground” and said, “Behold now, my lords” (NIV, “My lord”). One primary difference between the two accounts is the way the visitors are greeted. Abraham addressed them as “Lord” and appropriately used the singular to address all three men in v.3 (see above). Lot, however, addressed the visitors as “lords” and thus used the plural to address the two angels/men. Abraham, who had just entered the covenant (ch. 17), recognized the Lord when he appeared to him, whereas Lot, who then lived in Sodom, did not recognize the Lord. Abraham knew God, but Lot did not.
The interchange between the singular and plural in v.3 and vv.4ff. appears to be one way to clarify the nature of the divine-human relationship. God makes himself known intimately and concretely to his covenant people through “speaking,” “in a vision” (15:1), or through his “angel” (16:7) who speaks for him. He even can “appear” to individuals (12:7; 17:1; 18:1). Those narratives that speak of God’s making himself known through words, visions, and angels pose no difficulty in light of the strict prohibition against the presentation of God in any physical form (Dt 4:15). But passages where it is expressly stated that God “appeared” to someone (12:7; 17:1; 18:1) would naturally raise difficult questions. How is it that God can “appear” and yet his form not be seen (Dt 4:15)? How can God “appear” and yet say “my face must not be seen” (Ex 33:23)? By carefully identifying and distinguishing the characters in the narrative by means of the singular and plural verbal forms, the author is able to show that the Lord’s appearing to Abraham and the visit of the three men are one and the same event. God appeared to Abraham, but not “face to face” in his own physical form. Rather, the singular and plural forms are so arranged that the three men always represent God’s presence and can be identified with his presence but at the same time remain clearly distinct from him.
The explanation seems to be that the three men, as such, are to be understood as the physical “appearance” of the Lord to Abraham. Although God himself did not appear to Abraham in physical form, the three men are to be seen as representative of his presence (cf. Ex 3:2–3). In such a way the actual presence of God among his covenant people was assured but without leaving the impression that God may have a physical form.
b. The promise of a son (18:9–15)
9–11 The three men inquired about Sarah but spoke only to Abraham. Abraham and Sarah were too old to have children. Sarah, as all women her age, no longer was physically capable of even conceiving a child. Thus, although Abraham’s age was a factor to be reckoned with, the main obstacle to the fulfillment of the promise was Sarah’s age (cf. 25:1–4). The primary importance of her age can also be seen in v.12, where she listed her limitation first and then that of Abraham’s. Finally, Sarah’s thoughts are revealed in v.13 with no mention of Abraham’s old age. Thus it is repeatedly stressed that for her to have a child was not simply unlikely; it was impossible (v.14; NIV, “too hard”)!
12–15 The key to the sense of this short passage lies in the Lord’s question to Abraham about Sarah’s laughter. The subtle changes in the wording of Sarah’s thoughts reveal that the Lord was not simply restating her thoughts but was interpreting them as well. First, the Lord restated Sarah’s somewhat ambiguous statement—“After I am worn out, . . . will I now have this pleasure?”—as simply “Will I really have a child?” Then he took Sarah’s statement about her husband—“my master is old”—and reshaped it into a statement about herself: “now that I am old.” Finally, he went beyond her actual words to their intent: “Is anything too hard for the LORD?” The underlying issue, then, is the physical impossibility of the fulfillment of the promise through Sarah.
Once the physical impossibility of Sarah’s giving birth was firmly established, the Lord repeated his promise to Abraham. At this point Sarah, who had only been “listening,” entered the conversation with a terse reply: “I did not laugh.” The author then quickly puts her response aside as a lie and states that she lied because “she was afraid.” This brief narrative concludes with the Lord’s reiteration of what the reader by now certainly knows to be the truth—Sarah did in fact laugh.
c. Sodom in the balance (18:16–22)
16 As the three men arose and looked out toward Sodom, Abraham accompanied them to send them off. With a seemingly insignificant gesture, the three men “looked down toward Sodom,” the doomed city of the next chapter.
17–19 The Lord’s words reveal the inner motivation for his actions (“what I am about to do”). Verse 18 looks back to the original promise that Abraham would become a “great . . . nation” (cf. 12:2a) and that “all the nations on earth will be blessed through him” (cf. 12:3b).
Verse 19 seems to be an expansion on the ideas of 17:1. The Lord puts into words what has been a central part of the narrative, namely, Abraham’s election: “I have chosen him” (GK 3359). Second, the Lord expresses his purpose in choosing Abraham. Here attention is directed internally (“to keep the way of the LORD”) with the end in view that Abraham and his descendants do “what is right and just.” Only then will the Lord fulfill what he had promised to Abraham. The notion of an internalized obedience is remarkably close to the terms of the “new covenant” (Jer 31:33) and is deeply rooted in the theology of Dt 30:6.
20–21 Apparently in vv.17–19 the Lord was speaking to himself. Here, however, Abraham was most certainly the one being addressed. The Lord’s words answer the question in v.17. Thus the Lord revealed to Abraham that he would go down to investigate the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah.
22 Notice that the narrative first states that the “LORD (GK 3378) said, “I will go down and see” (v.21); then “the men turned away and went toward Sodom.” Once again the Lord and the men are brought into close association. If “the men” are the emissaries of the Lord and represent his presence amid everyday affairs, then when they journey to Sodom and Gomorrah, it can rightly be said that the Lord himself was visiting these cities.
As has been the case throughout this narrative, “the men” represent the Lord’s appearance but are not actually identified as the Lord. Thus the fact that the Lord remained behind after two of “the men” had left is no more a surprise than the fact that the Lord was again present with Lot in Sodom along with two of “the men” (19:12, 16). So when the Lord said, “I will go down and see,” it stands to reason that, as in ch. 18, “the men” in ch. 19 represent the Lord’s presence with Lot.
One question remains, however. If the three men left Abraham, why did only “two messengers” (19:1) arrive in Sodom? Clearly the two messengers who visited Lot are two of the “three men” who visited Abraham, especially since in ch. 19 the “messengers” are subsequently referred to simply as “the men.” But what happened to the other “man”? The most common explanation is that the “man” is a “christophany,” i.e., an appearance of the Second Person of the Trinity in human form, before the Incarnation. Thus when the text says that “the men turned away and went toward Sodom” and that the Lord remained with Abraham, and then further that only “two messengers” (19:1) came to Sodom, one of the men must have stayed behind with Abraham. Since we know that the Lord stayed behind, that man must have been the Lord. Abraham was then visited by the preincarnate Christ who was accompanied by two “angels.”
Clearly the two men in Sodom represent the carrying out of the Lord’s intention to “go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry.” But how did the Lord investigate the “outcry of Gomorrah”? Since the narrative records only the events of the men’s visit to Sodom, and since at the conclusion of ch. 19 the mention is made not only of the Lord’s destruction of Sodom but also of Gomorrah (v.24a), apparently the third man went to Gomorrah and carried out a similar task in that city. By specifying the number of men who visited Sodom, the author has left us with an answer to the question of the Lord’s righteous and just treatment of Gomorrah. Thus “the Judge of all the earth” (v.25) has “dealt justly” (cf. 19:15b).
d. Abraham’s intercession (18:23–33)
23–33 The central issue of the discourse between Abraham and the Lord is expressed in Abraham’s question at the end of v.25. The Lord’s answer is a resounding yes. Abraham started with a question about fifty righteous people in a city and concluded with the question of ten righteous ones. Why stop at ten? Did he not care about Lot and his family who only numbered four? One possible solution is that the sequence fifty down to ten, in units of ten, would naturally end with ten. Abraham would not have gone to zero righteous people, since he was concerned only with the salvation of the righteous amid the unrighteous, not with the destruction of the wicked. Abraham had his answer in general terms and did not need to pursue the question to the exact number.
In Abraham’s concern for Lot, the narrative addresses the larger issue of God’s treatment of any righteous person in his judgment of the wicked. While the city of Sodom was destroyed, Lot was taken out of it. Thus we have the answer to what God would do if less than ten righteous were found in the city. It should also be pointed out, however, that though Sodom was not spared for Lot’s sake, the little city of Zoar was spared on Lot’s behalf (see comments on 19:17–22).
7. Lot and Sodom (19:1–38)
a. Two angels at Sodom (19:1–14)
1a According to vv.10, 12, 15–16, the two “angels” were “men” (v.10), specifically, the men who had visited Abraham (18:3). More important is that toward the end of the narrative, the men are represented as a visitation of the Lord (v.18; cf. NIV note). They came to carry out the Lord’s retribution against the wickedness of the city (v.13b); but in response to Abraham’s prayer for the righteous (18:23–32), they also had come to rescue Lot (19:29).
1b–11 The depiction of the events at Lot’s house on the eve of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah justifies the divine judgment on the two cities. Even Lot, the righteous one who was ultimately rescued, was tainted by his association with Sodom. Unlike Abraham, Lot appears quite insensitive to God’s presence with the messengers, addressing them only as “sirs” (v.2; NIV, “lords”; GK 123). Though Lot was just as hospitable as Abraham and can certainly not be put in the same class as the men of Sodom, his suggestion that the men of the city take his own daughters and do with them what they please can hardly be taken as a sign of his good character. In fact, in an ironic turn of events, Lot himself later inadvertently carried out his own horrible proposal (vv.30–38).
12–14 The messengers clearly stated their twofold purpose: they had been sent to destroy the city and to rescue Lot and his family. The response of the two “sons-in-law” shows that they are at one with the rest of the men of the city. This provides a further vindication of the divine punishment that was to follow.
b. Lot’s deliverance (19:15–28)
15–16 In contrast to the men of Sodom who blindly groped for the door of Lot’s house, Lot and his family were taken by the hand and led out of the city to safety at the break of day. The rescue of Lot was in response to the prayer of Abraham, for the angels’ words explicitly recall the words Abraham used (cf. 18:23; 19:15, 17; see esp. 19:29).
This section pictures Lot as a righteous man living amid the unrighteous, who is rescued from the fate of the wicked through the intercession of God’s chosen one. Surprisingly, however, the basis of God’s saving Lot was not his righteousness but because “the LORD was merciful.” Lot’s “righteousness” (cf. 2Pe 2:7) comes only from the connection established between Abraham’s prayer “for the righteous” in ch. 18 and the events of Lot’s rescue in ch. 19. In the account of the rescue itself, the emphasis is on God’s compassion. Lot acknowledges in v.19 that he had found “favor” and “kindness” before God.
17–22 At the conclusion of Lot’s rescue, he requested shelter in the nearby city of Zoar. In granting the request, the Lord saved that city from destruction. Thus Lot’s rescue is a result of prayer—Abraham’s and his own. God had promised not to destroy the city “on behalf of” the righteous in it. So now, though Sodom was destroyed, Zoar was saved from the destruction on account of Lot, the righteous one living in it.
23–28 Before the onset of the description of God’s judgment, we are reminded of two things. First, “the sun had arisen over the land,” and second, “Lot reached Zoar [safely].” The mention of the sun ties this section together with Lot’s early morning rescue (v.15) and with the larger biblical picture of the “sunrise” as an image of divine salvation for the righteous and divine judgment on the wicked (Isa 9:2; Mal 4:1–2). With that as an introduction, we come to the classic image of the fate of every wicked person: “The LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah.”
Lot’s wife and Abraham both “looked” at the destruction of the cities, but with very differing consequences. Lot’s wife became a “pillar of salt” because she “looked back,” thus disobeying the words of the rescuers (v.17). Abraham, on the other hand, looked from a vantage point consistent with the men’s words in v.17. They said, “Don’t stop anywhere in the plain,” and so Abraham “returned to the place where he had stood before the LORD. He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain” (vv.27–28). Unaware of the warning to Lot and his family, Abraham obeyed and escaped the destruction.
c. Lot’s incest (19:29–38)
29–38 Verse 29 is a clear reminder of Abraham’s role in Lot’s rescue. This carries through the theme of God’s promise—in Abraham and his offspring “all peoples on earth will be blessed” (12:3). Ironically, in his own drunkenness Lot carried out the shameful act that he himself had suggested to the men of Sodom (19:8): he lay with his own daughters. The account is remarkably similar to the story of the last days of Noah after his rescue from the Flood (9:20–27). There, as here, the father becomes drunk and uncovers himself in the presence of his children with negative consequences. Thus at the close of the two great narratives of divine judgment, those who were saved from God’s wrath subsequently fell into a form of sin reminiscent of those who died in the judgment.
Lot is mentioned as the father of the Moabites and the Ammonites in Dt 2:9, 19, the passage that stresses their relationship to Israel, and not in Dt 23, where they are excluded from the congregation. Both the Moabites and the Ammonites continued to play an important role in later biblical history.
E. Abraham and Abimelech (20:1–18)
The focus of chs. 20 and 21 is the relationship between Abraham and the nations. Abraham’s role is as a prophetic intercessor, as in the promise “all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (12:3). He prayed for the Philistines (20:7), and God healed them (v.17). In the narrative Abimelech plays the role of a “righteous Gentile” with whom Abraham could live in peace and blessing. There is an implied contrast in the narratives between chs. 19 (Lot, the one who pictures the mixed multitude) and 20 (Abimelech, the righteous sojourner).
1 Abraham left the “great trees of Mamre” (18:1, 33) and traveled into “the Negev” (i.e., “southward”) to sojourn in Gerar, which is in the “land of the Philistines” (21:34).
2 Sarah was taken into Abimelech’s house. The narrative here is much briefer than the similar event in ch. 12. Clearly the focus is not so much the fate of Sarah as it is that of the Philistines. Many of the details are withheld until Abraham is given an opportunity to speak on his own behalf (vv.11–13). At that point his actions cast more light on the Philistines’ inner motives than on his own. Abraham’s words show that he had mistakenly judged the Philistines to be a wicked people, but their actions proved otherwise.
3–16 The narrative goes to great lengths to demonstrate the innocence of Abimelech, making it clear that “Abimelech had not gone near her.” Thus Abimelech’s claim to be “innocent” (lit., “righteous”; GK 7404) and his appeal to his innocence contrast sharply with Abraham’s deception. Indeed, in v.6 God himself concurred with Abimelech’s plea of innocence. Abimelech, however, was in immediate need of a warning lest he lose his innocence by his mistreatment of Abraham’s household. Abraham’s wife was to be returned, and Abraham the prophet must pray in behalf of the life of Abimelech. The surprising outcome of God’s visit of Abimelech is that he responded immediately by rising early in the morning and declaring his dream to his servants and then to Abraham. The Philistines responded quickly and decisively to God’s warning (cf. Jnh 3:6–9).
Abraham’s reply seems intended not only to justify his action with Sarah in the present narrative but also to provide a larger picture for understanding his similar actions while in Egypt in ch. 12. At the same time, by tracing the plan back to the very beginnings of his sojourning from his father’s house, he showed that the plan in this instance was not based on an actual assessment of the Philistines’ religious life; rather, it was simply a part of a larger scheme. Thus an explanation is given as to why Abraham misjudged the Philistines. Though we have followed the life of Abraham closely since he left his father’s house in ch. 11, this is the first we have heard of such an overarching strategy on Abraham’s part or of this aspect of his relationship with Sarah. In the last analysis we are left only with the opinion of Abimelech himself, who undoubtedly accepted Abraham’s explanation and faulted only himself in this unfortunate situation. Just how sincerely Abimelech accepted Abraham’s story can be seen in the fact that in speaking to Sarah he called Abraham “your brother,” showing that he accepted the explanation and in turn was attempting to restore the broken relationship with expensive gifts.
17–18 Abraham accepted the gifts from the Philistines and offered a prayer on their behalf in return. Only at this point do we discover the nature of God’s words to Abimelech in v.7. The Lord had “closed up every womb in Abimelech’s household.”
F. Abraham and Isaac (21:1–25:11)
1. The birth of Isaac (21:1–7)
1–7 Verse 1 picks up a central line of narrative from 18:10. Strangely, the news of the birth of Isaac has been delayed and treated anticlimactically. More attention was paid to the announcement of the birth of the son in ch. 18 than to the report of the accomplished fact. The birth of Isaac came about “as [the LORD] had said,” stressed three times within the first two verses. Thus the narrative calls attention to God’s faithfulness to his word and to his careful attention to the details of his plan.
The importance of the announcement of Isaac’s birth is seen in the statement that “the LORD was gracious,” which focuses on his attentive care and concern. Also important is the reminder that Isaac was the “son . . . in [Abraham’s] old age” and that he was born “at the very time God had promised him,” reiterating the key themes of the earlier promise narratives (e.g., 18:10–14). The narrative also emphasizes Abraham’s obedience (cf. 17:12). Abraham was a hundred years old when Isaac was born (cf. 17:1, 24). Sarah’s words in v.7 emphasize his age.
2. Hagar and Ishmael (21:8–21)
8–21 The celebration of Isaac’s coming of age was the occasion for the expulsion of Ishmael. The similarities between this chapter and the events in ch. 16 are notable. The writer’s close attention to the similar details in the two chapters is perhaps best explained by his frequent use of “foreshadowing” to draw connections between important narratives. In this case the Lord’s promise to Hagar (16:11–12) was recounted in a strikingly similar fashion to that of the fulfillment of the promise (vv.18–21). The promise foreshadows the fulfillment.
3. Abraham and Abimelech (21:22–34)
22–34 The recurrence of Abimelech shows that Abraham was still living with the Philistines (cf. v.34). This is a reminder that Abraham did not live out all his days in the Land of Promise but spent many days in exile. Even Isaac, the son of the promise, was not born in the Land of Promise. He was born in exile and had to sojourn there with his father who “wandered from nation to nation, from one kingdom to another” (Ps 105:13). Hebrews 11:8–13 recalls that though Abraham had left his father’s land and had come to the Land of Promise, he lived there “like a stranger in a foreign country. . . . They were aliens and strangers on earth.” Abraham in exile typifies God’s care of the righteous who must suffer while waiting to enter the land. The servants of Abimelech had stolen Abraham’s wells. But because God was with Abraham in all that he did, Abraham made a covenant with their king; and all was restored to him.
4. The binding of Isaac (22:1–14)
1–14 The clear statement that “God tested Abraham” reveals the Lord’s real purpose in this incident. There is no thought of an actual sacrifice of Isaac in the narrative, though in the mind of Abraham within the narrative that was the only thought that was entertained. The abruptness of God’s request surprises us as much as it would have Abraham. Without any further explanation, the request is made in three simple imperatives: “Take,” “go,” and “sacrifice him.”
Although, unlike Abraham, we know that this was a test, we are as much in the dark about the intention of God’s ways as Abraham was. Noteworthy is the way the narrative excessively and deliberately details Abraham’s preparation for the journey and the journey itself. Without explicit commentary, we are left to ponder the thoughts of Abraham as he so matter-of-factly carried out God’s directions. When at last someone in the narrative speaks, it is Isaac, not God, who breaks the silence; and the question he raises serves only to heighten the anguish of the Lord’s request. When Abraham finally speaks, his reply to Isaac’s question anticipates precisely the final outcome of the story: “The LORD will provide.”
Abraham’s words cast a new light on his silence. Amid the anguish that can be read into his silence emerges a confidence in the Lord who will provide. Abraham’s words are not merely an attempt to calm the curious Isaac but are a settled expression of his trust in God. Few narratives can equal the dramatic tension of the last moments before God interrupts the action and calls the test to a halt. Abraham’s every action is described in exaggerated detail. At the last dramatic moment the Lord intervened and, as Abraham had already anticipated, provided a substitute. Abraham therefore named the altar he had built “The LORD will provide.”
5. The angel of the Lord (22:15–19)
15–19 At the end of the narrative is a “second” encounter between Abraham and the angel of the Lord. Since in v.19 Abraham returns to the two young men who had accompanied him, apparently this “second” encounter occurred on the same occasion as the first, though at a separate time (after Abraham had finished the burnt offering). The reason why it is called a “second” encounter is to show that the renewal of God’s original promises to Abraham was not based on Abraham’s specific actions in carrying out the test but on the faith and obedience of Abraham that showed through this test.
The promise reiterated here is similar to that of the earlier chapters. The promise of “blessing” recalls 12:2. The increase of Abraham’s “descendants” is similar to 13:16; 15:5; and 17:2. The view of the “nations’ ” enjoyment of and participation in Abraham’s blessing is similar to 12:3 and 18:18. The reference to Abraham’s act of obedience as the basis of the promise is similar to 18:19. Perhaps, also, the reference to Abraham’s descendants possessing the “cities of their enemies” (v.17) is to be taken as a reference to the gift of the “land” (12:7; 13:15; 15:18; 17:8).
6. The relatives of Abraham (22:20–24)
20–24 Immediately after the reiteration of the promise of a great multitude of descendants comes a notice regarding the increase of the family that Abraham and Sarah had left behind in their homeland. The twelve names in the list suggest that the writer intended to draw a comparison of these names with the twelve sons of Jacob or the twelve sons of Ishmael in 25:12–15. In any event, the central purpose of listing the names is to introduce the future bride of Isaac, Rebekah, and to show that she was of the lineage of Milcah and not of her concubine.
7. Machpelah and Sarah’s death (23:1–20)
1–20 Sarah died in Hebron, and Abraham apparently came there from Beersheba (cf. 22:19) to mourn her death. The point of ch. 23 is to show how Abraham fairly and squarely first came into legal possession of a parcel of land in Canaan. Through what appears to be a hard bargain, Abraham bought not only a cave for the burial of his wife but also a large field with many trees. This became an important burial site for the patriarchs and their wives (cf. 49:30–32; 50:13). As Abraham would not accept a gift from the king of Sodom lest it be said that the king had made Abraham wealthy (14:23), similarly here Abraham refused to accept the parcel of land as a gift. Apparently against the wishes of the Hittites, he paid the full price. God, not a human being, was the source of Abraham’s hope of blessing. He would not seek to become wealthy or to own land apart from the promises of God. Abraham’s purchase of land embodied his hope in God’s promise that one day all the land would belong to him and his descendants (cf. Jer 32:6–15).
8. A bride for Isaac (24:1–67)
1–9 Abraham’s concern that God’s promise come to the descendants of Isaac is evidenced in the oath Abraham made with his servant. Two important points are made regarding the future of Abraham’s descendants. First, they were not to be mixed with the inhabitants of Canaan, which appears to be a further expression of the notion of the two lines of blessing and curse (cf. 9:25–27). The seed of Abraham must be kept separate from the seed of Canaan. Second, Abraham’s descendants are not to return to the land of their fathers. Canaan is their home, and Abraham is careful to ensure that Isaac not be taken back to the ancestral home.
This section once more portrays the faith of Abraham. The questions raised by the servant provide the occasion. As so many times before, Abraham’s reply proves to be both prophetic (anticipating the final outcome of the story) and thematic (providing the central motive of the narrative): “The LORD, the God of heaven, . . . will send his angel before you so that you can get a wife for my son from there.” The key idea is God’s going before the servant to prepare his way.
10–27 The servant spelled out specifically the nature of the sign he sought from the Lord. God prepared the way, bringing the young girl in question on the scene even before the servant finished speaking. All the details of her background are given as soon as she enters the picture. While the servant is unaware of the actual identity of the girl, we know that she is Rebekah, the daughter of Bethuel, the son of Milcah. Clearly, the Lord has answered the servant’s prayer. From the type of information given, there is no doubt that this was the girl the servant had asked for and that God had indeed sent his messenger out ahead of him to prepare the way. Such divine preparation for the descendants of Abraham and the line of the blessing must be accompanied by the kind of appreciation seen in the servant in vv.26–27.
28–49 After meeting Laban and his household, the servant retells the episode. Rather than a mere repeating, however, the retelling reasserts the central points of the first narrative. Originally Abraham is recorded as saying, only generally, that God would send a messenger and that the servant would find a wife for Isaac (v.7). When he retold the story, however, the servant included the idea that God would send the angel and also added that the angel would make his journey a success by gaining a wife for Isaac from his own family. The further details make the miracle of God’s provision even more grand than suggested in the original incident itself.
50–61 At the conclusion of the servant’s account, Laban and Bethuel acknowledge that it was the Lord who prepared the way for the servant to meet Rebekah. Thus several witnesses testify that these events were the work of God: the narrator (vv.15–16), the servant (vv.26–27), and Laban and Bethuel (v.50). The final witness is Rebekah herself, who, against the wishes of her brother and her mother, returned with the servant to Isaac. The simplicity of her response (v.58) reveals the nature of her trust in the God of Abraham (cf. Ruth 1:16).
62–67 The importance of the blessing of Rebekah by her family lies in the similarity of this blessing to that given to Abraham by the Lord in 22:17. This reveals the careful attention to detail the Lord has shown in choosing this wife for Isaac. In God’s plan the same blessing is given to both Isaac and his bride.
For the first time in the story, Isaac enters the narrative, just as the servant is bringing the young woman to him. They both lift up their eyes and see the other in the distance. The narrator, along with the readers, knows who it is that Isaac and Rebekah see, but they themselves do not.
Verse 66 shows that the writer knows just how long to tell the story and stops short of going beyond that point. He says merely that the servant “told Isaac all he had done.” The final remarks again show that God’s guidance in the mundane areas of life is good for those who put their trust in him. When Isaac took Rebekah as his wife, he loved her and was comforted with her after the death of his mother. So Rebekah follows Sarah in the line of the descendants of Abraham.
9. Abraham’s death (25:1–11)
1–6 The narrative reads as though after the death of Sarah, Abraham took another wife by the name Keturah. Because the Chronicler called Keturah a “concubine” (1Ch 1:32), some have suggested that she was one of the “concubines” mentioned in v.6, and hence these sons were born to Abraham and Keturah while Sarah was alive. Though Keturah is called a “concubine” in Chronicles, she is called a “wife” here, which seems to preclude her from being a mere concubine during the time Sarah was alive.
The picture that emerges of Abraham’s life after the death of Sarah is that of a complete rejuvenation of the old man of the previous narratives. He continued to be rewarded with the blessing of many offspring. But only Isaac had any share in the promised blessing.
7–10 Surprisingly little attention is given to the details of the death of Abraham. The length of his life is given, which connects him to the patriarchs (cf. 11:32). That Abraham died “at a good old age” recalls the word of the Lord in 15:15. The mention of Abraham’s “good old age” contrasts to Jacob’s “few and difficult” (lit., “evil”) years (47:9). This narrative thus picks up the “good” and “evil” theme begun in the first chapters of the book and carried through to the end (cf. 50:20). The final resting place of Abraham was in a portion of the Promised Land that he rightfully owned—the field that he purchased from Ephron the Hittite.
11 There are relatively few narratives devoted to the theme of “blessing” in the life of Isaac. Most are woven into the busy tapestry of ch. 26. All the more important, then, is this brief statement that God blessed Isaac, a reminder that his was the line of the divine blessing (cf. 17:21).
III. The Account of Ishmael (25:12–18)
12–18 The Isaac stories open (cf. v.11) with a final statement regarding the line of Ishmael. The statement consists of a genealogy of the twelve leaders of Ishmael’s clan, a report of the length of Ishmael’s life, and a report of his death. The number twelve appears again to be a deliberate attempt to set these individuals off as founders of a new and separate people (see comment on 22:20; cf. 17:20). No mention is made of the blessing of Ishmael recounted in 17:20, and we hear nothing more about him in Genesis. The descendants of Ishmael, however, continue to play a part in the Genesis narratives (28:9; 36:3; 37:27–28; 39:1).
IV. The Account of Isaac (25:19–35:29)
A. The Birth of Jacob and Esau (25:19–28)
19 The “account of Abraham’s son Isaac” almost immediately turns out to be about the sons of Isaac rather than Isaac himself. Although an important link in the line of Abraham, as an individual character Isaac is given little attention (but cf. ch. 26).
20–28 Isaac, like Esau (26:34), was forty years old when he took a wife, Rebekah. Like Sarah (11:30), Rebekah was barren. Like Abraham (20:17), Isaac prayed for his wife, the Lord answered, and she bore two sons. The barrenness of both Sarah and Rebekah, as well as Rachel (29:31) and Leah (29:35), reiterates the point that the promised blessing through the chosen seed of Abraham is not to be accomplished merely by human effort. The fulfillment of the promise at each crucial juncture requires a specific act of God.
A central theme of Genesis—the struggle between brothers—occurs here in the womb of Rebekah. The conflict between brothers began with Cain and Abel and continues throughout the book (cf. 9:20–27; 13:7–12; 21:9; chs. 29–31; 37–50), perhaps stemming from the first words of judgment in the book (3:15). The point is not that the struggles were necessary for the accomplishment of the will of God but that God’s will was accomplished in spite of the conflict.
Another important motif is that “the older will serve the younger.” From ch. 4 the narrative has portrayed God choosing and approving the younger and the weaker through whom he would accomplish his purpose and bring about his blessing (cf. 4:1–5, 26–5:8; 17:18–19; 29:18; 37:3; 49:8). The blessing was not a natural right but was extended solely by God’s grace (cf. Mal 1:1–5; Ro 9:10–13).
B. Selling the Birthright (25:29–34)
29–34 The story of Esau’s rejection of his birthright is a narrative example that God’s choice of Jacob over Esau did not run contrary to the wishes of either. Esau “despised” (GK 1022) his birthright, while Jacob went to great lengths to gain it. Esau, though he had the right of the firstborn, did not value it over a small bowl of stew. Thus, when in God’s plan Esau lost his birthright and consequently his blessing, there was no injustice dealt him.
C. Isaac and Abimelech (26:1–35)
There are several similarities between the events of this chapter and those in the life of Abraham (12:10–20; 20:1–18). Each brief narrative of Isaac parallels a similar situation in the life of Abraham. The short span of one chapter shows how the whole life of Isaac is a retelling of what happened to Abraham. The lesson conveyed is of God’s continuing faithfulness.
1–5 The present famine was not the one that forced Abraham to go to Egypt (12:10). At first we are told only that Isaac went down to Gerar to Abimelech; but in the warning Isaac received in the vision of v.2, we are informed that he was on his way to Egypt. No explanation is given why he should not go to Egypt, except that he is to “live in the land.” The Lord’s warning, however, became the occasion for a formal restatement of the blessing. In the face of the impending famine, the Lord promised to be with Isaac, to bless him, and to bring about all that had been promised to his father, Abraham. Essentially the same promise given to Abraham was given to Isaac. His seed would be great in number (cf. 12:2), the land would be his (12:7), and all the nations of the land would be blessed in him (12:3).
The Lord then added a remarkable note: Abraham “kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws” (cf. Dt 11:1). Did Abraham know the law? If so, how? If not, what was the meaning of the Lord’s words? At several points Abraham acted in accordance with the law—particularly the law as recorded in Deuteronomy; yet he never actually had a knowledge of the law itself. For example, in ch. 14 Abraham’s actions followed quite closely the stipulations of Dt 20; he obeyed the law from the heart (cf. Dt 30:6; Jer 31:33). He is the ultimate example of true obedience. Thus, Abraham, a man who lived in faith, could be described as one who kept the law.
6–11 There are several similarities between Isaac and Abraham in this section. Just as Abraham “stayed in Gerar” (20:1), so also did Isaac. Just as Abraham once devised a scheme with his wife Sarah, calling her his “sister” (20:2), so also did Isaac with Rebekah. Just as Abraham was rebuked by the Philistine king, Abimelech, for the great shame he might have brought on his people (20:9), so also was Isaac. Such similarities can hardly be coincidental. Unlike the same incident in the life of Abraham, however, it was not God who warned Abimelech not to touch Abraham’s wife (20:6); Abimelech himself forbade anyone to touch Isaac’s wife. It was not God who protected the wife with the threat of capital punishment (20:7); Abimelech himself said that anyone who molested Isaac or his wife “shall surely be put to death.”
Though earlier Abimelech was said to have been “pure of heart” (20:6; NIV, “clear conscience”), in ch. 26 his actions alone show that his heart was right. Abimelech did not need to be warned in the dream. All that was necessary was to discover that Rebekah was not Isaac’s sister; that was enough for him to fear that a great shame (NIV, “guilt”) may come upon his people. Clearly the picture of the Philistine king that emerges is of a righteous, even pious, Gentile who did what was right; by contrast, Isaac is shown to be less righteous than he. A wider picture of the nations emerges here—both as wicked and deserving judgment and as righteous and capable of entering into covenant with the chosen offspring (21:27, 32; 26:28). The Philistines also caused great hardship for Isaac in the controversies over the wells (vv.14–22).
12–13 Just as Abraham prospered while sojourning among the Gentiles (12:16; 20:14), so Isaac prospered while sojourning with Abimelech. The source of Isaac’s prosperity was that “the LORD blessed him.” This is the second reference to Isaac’s blessing, apparently to underscore the connection between Isaac’s prosperity and God’s promise to Abraham in 12:2. What God had promised to Abraham was fulfilled with Isaac.
14–22 Just as Abraham’s prosperity became the occasion for the conflict between his shepherds and Lot’s (13:5–7), so Isaac’s wealth angered the Philistines. The statement that “the herdsmen of Gerar quarreled with Isaac’s herdsmen” (v.20) parallels the narrative of the “quarreling” (13:7) that broke out between the herdsmen of Abram and of Lot. As the name that was given to the well—“Rehoboth”—shows, there was a progressive resolution of the conflict as Isaac continued to move away from the Philistines and dig new wells. After finding no conflict at Rehoboth, they said, “We will flourish in the land” (cf. 1:28).
23–25 Just as the Lord had spoken to Abraham after he had separated from Lot (13:14–17) and renewed his promise of land and great prosperity, so now after Isaac had returned to Beersheba, the Lord appeared and renewed the promise. For a third time it is said that the Lord would bless Isaac (vv.2, 12). Like his father (12:7; 13:3–4), Isaac responded by building an altar and worshiping God.
26–31 Earlier Abimelech, acknowledging God’s presence with Abraham (21:22), sought to enter into a covenant with him. Likewise, Abimelech acknowledged the Lord’s presence with Isaac and sought to enter into a covenant with him. Isaac, like Abraham, was the source of blessing to those who sought him out. Isaac, like Abraham, trusted God and lived “in peace” with his neighbors.
32–33 The final picture of Isaac here concludes with the account of the discovery of a new well “on the same day” (NIV, “that day”) that Isaac had made peace with his neighbors. Consequently the writer associates the name of the city, “Beersheba” (lit., “well of the seven/oath”; cf. 21:31), with the “oath” (NIV, “[they] swore an oath”).
34–35 Initially the short notice of Esau’s marriage to two Hittite women seems insignificant. But as an introduction to ch. 27, it casts quite a different light on the events of that chapter. Just before the account of the mischievous blessing of Jacob, we are told that Esau, from whom the blessing was stolen, had married Hittite women and that they were a source of grief to both Isaac and Rebekah. These verses, along with vv.29–34, form the background to the central event of ch. 27, the blessing of Jacob. These preliminary notices put into perspective the cunning deed of Jacob and Rebekah and demonstrate that Esau was not fit to inherit the blessing.
D. The Stolen Blessing (27:1–40)
1–26 In recounting this story of Isaac’s “blessing” (GK 1385), close attention is given to those elements that heighten the suspense and highlight the deception of Jacob. Thus Jacob’s name, which means “the deceiver” (cf. v.36), has been appropriately chosen. Isaac is depicted as too old and too blind to distinguish between his two sons. Perhaps this is an attempt to ease Isaac’s culpability. Isaac’s insistence on a “good meal” before the blessing recalls Esau’s own trading of the birthright for a pot of stew and thus casts Isaac and Esau in similar roles. Isaac’s blindness makes the story more believable and more suspenseful. Thus the events of the story make sense and the suspense is real. The suspense is carried right to the end, where Jacob is shown leaving “at the same moment as” (cf. v.30) Esau returns from the hunt. The plan is in danger of not succeeding right up to the end.
27–29 The goal of Jacob’s strategy was to wrest the blessing from Isaac. Although he did not appear completely convinced, in the end Isaac blessed Jacob. The theme of “blessing” points out the relationship of this narrative both to those that precede and those that follow. The promise to Abraham (12:2–3) is alluded to in the final words of the blessing. Similarly, Isaac’s blessing foreshadows Jacob’s later prophecy concerning the kingship of the house of Judah (cf. 49:8). Thus the words of Isaac are a crucial link in the development of the theme of the blessing of the seed of Abraham. So too Jacob’s daring scheme is a link in the chain connecting the blessing of the offspring of Abraham with the rise of kingship in the house of Judah.
30–40 The reverse side of the blessing of Jacob is the disappointment and anger of Esau. He is presented as a tragic figure, a victim of his more resourceful and daring brother. His anguish on hearing about his misfortune of losing the blessing recalls the events of 25:21–34 and his loss of the birthright. Esau lost everything, and Jacob gained it all. Within the narrative, Isaac recounted the main points of the blessing a second time, underscoring the fact that he had blessed Jacob rather than Esau. Finally, weepingly, Isaac answered Esau’s pleas for a blessing with a third reiteration of the central point of Jacob’s blessing: “You will serve your brother.” These reiterations underscore the irretrievability of the lost blessing and hence the certainty of the fulfillment of the blessing itself.
E. Jacob’s Flight From Beersheba (27:41–28:5)
27:41–28:5 Jacob’s scheme not only resulted in his obtaining the blessing that Isaac had intended for Esau, it also became the occasion for Jacob’s journey to the house of Laban in search of a wife. The picture of Esau at the conclusion of this story is that of a bitter, spiteful brother and son. He made plans to kill Jacob and regain by force his birthright and blessing. Again Rebekah thwarted the plans, having Isaac send Jacob back to her homeland to find a wife. As in many of the narratives of Genesis, Isaac’s words of blessing to the departing Jacob precisely anticipate the eventual outcome of the ensuing story: Jacob would visit Laban “for a while,” Esau’s anger would subside (see ch. 33), and Jacob would find a wife and return as a great assembly of people. Within Isaac’s farewell blessing is a final reiteration of the central theme of the preceding narrative: The blessing of Abraham was to rest on the family of Jacob. The promises of Abraham and the promises of Isaac were now the promises of Jacob.
F. Esau’s Bitterness (28:6–9)
6–9 The final picture of Esau in this narrative is that of a bitter son seeking to spite his parents through deliberate disobedience. The marriage of Esau to the daughter of Ishmael reminds us that the promised offspring of Abraham was determined, not by the will of human beings, but by the will of God. The families of the two “older” sons (Ishmael and Esau) were united in the marriage, but neither received the blessing promised to Abraham. The families of the “younger” sons (Isaac and Jacob), however, did.
G. Jacob at Bethel (28:10–22)
10–22 Jacob, like Abraham (ch. 15), received a confirmation of the promised blessing while asleep in the night. Abraham received God’s word “in a vision” (15:1), and Jacob saw the Lord in a dream. Both times a divine confirmation was given regarding the establishment of the same covenant of promise. In a remarkably similar fashion, both chapters turn to the future “exile” of Abraham’s descendants and the promise of a “return.” Abraham’s vision looked forward to the sojourn of God’s people in Egypt and also to the Lord’s deliverance in the Exodus. Jacob’s dream looked forward to his own sojourn in Haran and to the Lord’s eventual return of Jacob to the land promised to Abraham. In both cases the promise was that God would not forsake them and would return them to their land.
The Lord’s words in v.15, “I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go, and I will bring you back to this land,” become the guiding principle that governs the course of the narrated events. So when Jacob returned from Laban’s house after many years, he went back to the same place, Bethel, where God again blessed him and promised to give him the land he had already promised to Abraham (35:12); God also reaffirmed his promise to make Jacob’s descendants into a great nation (35:11). Just as Jacob erected a “pillar” at the outset of his journey and then named the place “Bethel,” so also when he returned, he erected another “pillar” and named the place “Bethel” (35:14–15). At either end of the Jacob narratives is the reminder that God was with him in all that he did and that God was faithful to his promises.
H. Jacob and Rachel (29:1–14a)
1–14a In keeping with the picture of Jacob’s sojourn as an exile from the Promised Land, the account opens with the words “Jacob continued on his journey and came to the land of the eastern peoples.” Jacob’s journey to find a wife was similar to that of Abraham’s servant who sought a wife for Isaac. In ch. 24 the words of the servant guide the narrative and show that it was God alone who directed him to the right young woman for Isaac. In this chapter Jacob is relatively silent. He does not reflect on God’s guidance nor on the Lord’s promise to be with him wherever he goes (28:15). It is Jacob’s actions, not his words, that tell the story of God’s help and guidance. First, as with the servant in ch. 24, God directs Jacob to the well where Rachel is watering her flocks.
The description of the size of the rock covering the well and the number of shepherds already on hand hint that Jacob was going to do a mighty deed. Only when all the shepherds are present are the men able to lift the rock from the well and water the flocks, because the rock was big. When Jacob saw Rachel, however, and the shepherds identified her as the daughter of Laban, he single-handedly removed the rock and watered her sheep. Then, in a great show of emotion, Jacob kissed Rachel and cried with a loud voice. Clearly Jacob saw in these circumstances the guiding hand of God (cf. 24:27). Jacob’s physical strength was perhaps meant as further evidence that God was with him and that he had not forsaken his promises (28:15; cf. 24:27).
I. Jacob’s Marriages (29:14b–30)
14b–30 For the first time Jacob was the object of deception. Laban turned the tables on him. In the case of the blessing (ch. 27), Jacob was able to exchange the younger for the older, whereas here Laban reversed the trick and exchanged the older for the younger. Jacob was getting what he deserved. The seven extra years that Jacob had to serve Laban appear as a repayment for his treatment of Esau.
Jacob was indignant. But he was left speechless by Laban’s reply in v.26. After that the narrative says only that Jacob conceded. Unknown to him, Laban’s words had deftly expressed the very circumstances that had led Jacob on his present journey. Jacob’s past had caught up with him, and he could do no more than accept the results and serve Laban seven more years. At first it had looked as if Jacob’s journey was in fact following the course that Rebekah had anticipated (27:44). Thus we are not surprised to read that Jacob’s first seven years of working for Laban seemed as if they were “only a few days.” But with the discovery of Laban’s trick, seven more years are added to Rebekah’s “few days”; and Jacob’s—and Rebekah’s—plans begin to unravel.
J. The Birth of Jacob’s Sons (29:31–30:24)
29:31–30:24 In a way that recalls the beginning of the Abrahamic narratives (11:30), the central problem is introduced: The Lord opened Leah’s womb, “but Rachel was barren.” It is at first surprising that the Lord was behind Rachel’s barrenness. In the preceding chapter God had promised that Jacob’s descendants would be more numerous than the “dust of the earth.” Now Rachel, Jacob’s intended wife, was barren; and it appeared to be the Lord’s doing. Again Jacob’s plans have come to naught. He had planned to take Rachel as his wife, but God intended him to have Leah. Jacob sought to build a family through Rachel, but she was barren; and God opened Leah’s womb.
Jacob’s schemes, which had brought him fortune thus far, were beginning to crumble. Schemes will not be sufficient to carry out the plans of God. Jacob too will have to depend on God to bring about the divine blessing. In the conflict that ensued between Jacob and his two wives over the birth of their sons, the pattern is set for the remainder of the narratives in Genesis. One of Leah’s sons was Judah, while Rachel was the mother of Joseph.
Though all twelve sons are important, Joseph and Judah stand out markedly in the narratives that follow. Both are used by God in important ways, but each has a different role to play in the accomplishment of God’s blessing. Here, at the beginning, it appears that ultimately Judah, the son of Leah, was given the place of preeminence. Counter to Jacob’s plans, God had opened the womb of Leah and not Rachel.
In the end the Lord did hearken to Rachel, and her son Joseph was born (30:22). But as Jacob’s words to Rachel underscore, God had withheld sons from Rachel so that the descendants of Abraham would be built from Leah (30:2). Even after Leah had ceased bearing children, she managed to have two more sons and a daughter by Jacob. Just as Jacob had purchased the birthright for a pot of stew (25:29–34), so also Leah purchased the right to more children by Jacob with the mandrakes of her son Reuben. All the conflict and tension that existed between Joseph and his brothers—and particularly Joseph and Judah—in the narratives that follow are anticipated and foreshadowed here.
Jacob’s journey took him from Beersheba in Canaan to the home of his uncle Laban near Haran and back to Canaan. His route back (after twenty years in Haran) likely took him toward Aleppo, then to Damascus and Edrei before reaching Penial on the Jabbok River. From Penial he camped at Succoth, finally reentering Canaan and settling at Shechem, where he built an altar to the Lord.
©1989 The Zondervan Corporation.
K. Jacob and Laban’s Sheep (30:25–43)
25–43 After the account of the birth of the sons, we have the first mention of Jacob’s departure from Haran. Laban, seeking the Lord’s blessing on behalf of Jacob, attempted to settle his account for the work Jacob had done for him over the years. So Laban asked Jacob to name his wages. Laban’s offer apparently contained a request that Jacob stay on with him and continue to watch over his herds. Jacob struck a bargain with Laban that resulted in great blessing and wealth for Jacob.
The blessing did not come from Laban; rather, it was a gift from God (cf. 14:21). What Jacob took instead was the right to stay on and shepherd Laban’s flocks and to keep part of the herd that he raised. After the deal was struck, Jacob was to keep all the speckled or spotted goats and all the black sheep. From this he would build his own herds.
The passage is surely to be read as an example of the Lord’s promise in ch. 28 to be with Jacob during his sojourn in the East. Jacob’s clever use of the peeled poplar branches was not so much intended to demonstrate his resourcefulness as it was to further the theme of God’s continued faithfulness to his word. The clue to the meaning of the passage is in v.43, where a summary of the whole narrative is given. The summary recalls quite clearly God’s blessing of both Abraham (12:16) and Isaac (26:14); it thus puts the events of this chapter within the larger context of the themes developed throughout the book, namely, God’s promise of blessing and his faithfulness to that promise. Jacob’s wise dealings with Laban then are an example of the way God caused him to prosper during this sojourn. Further confirmation that such is the sense of the narrative comes from the words of Jacob himself in the next chapter. Looking back he told his wives that it was God who had taken Laban’s herds and given them to him (31:9).
L. Jacob’s Flight From Laban (31:1–21)
1–3 Just as Isaac’s wealth had made the Philistines jealous (26:14), so Jacob learned that Laban was now angry and jealous of his wealth. At this time the Lord also directed Jacob to return to the land of his fathers. We are again reminded of the Lord’s promise to be “with” (28:15) Jacob on his journey; and thus the direction of Jacob’s life again points toward Bethel, the place of the original promise.
This seems to be the middle point of the narrative and life of Jacob. He was on his way back to Bethel. Later on (32:10), when Jacob looked back at this point, he repeated the Lord’s words of comfort and promise. However, instead of the promise “I will be with you,” Jacob recalled God’s words as “I will make you prosper” (32:10). Thus Jacob’s own words offer an expansion and commentary on the sense of God’s promise to be “with” him.
4–13 Jacob’s words of explanation repeat the primary events of the preceding chapter. Though the events of ch. 30 give the appearance that Jacob was getting the best of Laban, from another perspective Jacob’s actions are to be understood as the Lord’s enabling him to be repaid for Laban’s mistreatment. The events were all part of the outworking of God’s plan, the plan that began with Jacob’s vow at Bethel and the Lord’s promise to be with him. Now even Laban’s change of attitude toward Jacob and the jealousy of his sons are seen as part of the plan of God.
14–21 Jacob’s wives were willing to leave their own family and go with him to the land of Canaan (cf. 24:58; Ruth 1:16). More important, they were ready to put their trust in God and seek his blessing. Despite the wives’ positive response to Jacob, an ominous note is sounded about Rachel’s stealing of Laban’s “household gods.” It is unclear whether Rachel’s actions are to be viewed favorably or reveal a weakness of character. There is a similarity and contrast between Rachel’s stealing her father’s “household gods” when fleeing from home with her husband and Jacob’s stealing his father’s blessing when fleeing from home to find a wife (ch. 27). In both cases the younger stole what rightfully belonged to the elder. As we see later (v.32), Jacob did not know that Rachel had taken the gods. It is through Rachel’s resourcefulness alone that Laban’s prized possessions were successfully taken. In addition, Rachel’s covert action is matched by Jacob’s deception in departing from Laban secretly.
M. Jacob Overtaken by Laban (31:22–55)
22–42 The dispute over the stolen household gods gives an occasion for the writer to restate his central theme, which is expressed in Jacob’s words to Laban in v.42: Jacob’s wealth had not come through his association with Laban but through God’s gracious care during Jacob’s difficult sojourn.
43–55 The narrative concludes with an account of a covenant between Jacob and Laban. Just as Isaac parted ways with Abimelech by entering into a covenant (26:28–31), so also Jacob and Laban parted ways with a covenant.
N. Jacob’s Meeting With Angels (32:1–2)
1–2 The events of this chapter are couched between two accounts of Jacob’s encounter with angels (vv.1, 25). Jacob’s meeting with angels on his return to the land recalls a similar picture of the Promised Land in the early chapters of Genesis, when the land was guarded on its eastern borders by angels (3:24). It can hardly be accidental that as Jacob returned from the east, he was met by angels at the border of the Promised Land. This brief notice may be a clue to the meaning of Jacob’s later wrestling with the “man” at Peniel (vv.25–30), who too may have been an angel.
O. Messengers Sent to Esau (32:3–22)
3–12 The emphasis of this chapter and the next is on the wealth of Jacob and the restoration of Jacob and Esau. Much suspense surrounds Jacob’s reunion with his brother, Esau. Like Jacob, we are not sure of Esau’s intentions in gathering four hundred men to meet Jacob on his return. The last we heard from Esau, his intention was to slay Jacob in revenge for the stolen blessing (27:41). Jacob’s fear that Esau had now come to do just that seems well founded. In light of this, Jacob’s prayer plays a crucial role in reversing the state of affairs. Jacob prayed for safety and then appealed to the covenant promises God had made earlier.
13–22 True to form, Jacob made elaborate plans to save himself and his family in the face of Esau’s potential threat. He provided his servants with abundant gifts for Esau and instructed them carefully on how to approach Esau when they met. In it all his desire was to “pacify” Esau and deliver his family from his hand. Again we see Jacob the planner and the schemer. As he had taken Esau’s birthright and blessing, as he had taken the best of Laban’s herds, so now he had a plan to pacify Esau. However, it was not Jacob’s plan that succeeded but his prayer. When he met with Esau, he found that Esau had had a change of heart. Running to meet Jacob, Esau embraced and kissed him and wept (33:4). Jacob’s plans and schemes had come to naught, for God had prepared the way.
P. Jacob’s Wrestling Match (32:23–32)
23–32 Jacob’s wrestling with an angel epitomizes the whole of Jacob’s life. He had struggled with his brother (chs. 25, 27), his father (ch. 27), and his father-in-law (chs. 29–31), and now he struggles with God (ch. 32). Jacob’s own words express the substance of these narratives about him: “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” Here is a graphic picture of Jacob struggling for the blessing—struggling with God and with a man (v.28).
Significantly, Jacob emerges victorious in his struggle. His victory, even in his struggle with God, came when the angel “blessed him.” The importance of the name “Peniel” is that it identifies the one with whom Jacob was wrestling as God. Jacob’s remark that he had seen God face to face did not necessarily mean that the “man” he wrestled with was in fact God. Rather, when one saw the “angel of the LORD,” it was appropriate to say that he had seen the face of God (e.g., Jdg 13:22; but cf. Hos 12:2–4).
Q. Jacob’s Meeting With Esau (33:1–17)
1–17 When Jacob saw Esau and the four hundred men approaching, he divided his entourage again (cf. 32:7–8). He showed his preference for Rachel and Joseph by putting them last. Esau’s greeting was totally unexpected. Jacob had expected revenge from Esau, or, if not revenge, then heavy bargaining and appeasement. But, seemingly in response to Jacob’s prayer (cf. 32:11), Esau had had a change of heart.
The change in Esau is depicted graphically in the contrast between Jacob’s fearful approach and Esau’s eager excitement to see his brother. All of Jacob’s plans and preparations pale in the light of Esau’s joy. Ironically, the four hundred men accompanying Esau turned out not to be for battle with Jacob’s household and for taking his spoils, but for safeguarding the final stage of Jacob’s journey. Once again Jacob is portrayed as one who has gone to great lengths to secure his own well-being but whose efforts have proved pointless. Jacob continued to scheme and plan; yet God’s own plans ultimately made Jacob’s worthless.
This reconciliation of the brothers and Esau’s partaking of the blessing that Jacob had received (v.11) picture the ultimate fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham: “All peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (12:3).
R. Jacob at Shechem (33:18–34:31)
33:18–20 These last verses form a transition in the narrative between Jacob’s sojourn in the east and the events of the later years of his life in the land of Canaan. As he left Canaan in ch. 28, Jacob vowed that if God would be with him and watch over him so that he returned to the land “in peace” (NIV, “safely”’ GK 8969), he would give to God a tenth of all he had (28:20–22). The narrative has been careful to follow the events in Jacob’s life that have shown the Lord’s faithfulness to this vow. Thus Jacob returned “safely” to the land of Canaan. God had been faithful.
Jacob returned to Bethel in ch. 35 and built an altar there (v.7). No mention is made of Jacob’s giving a “tenth” to the Lord. But perhaps the erection of an altar here and in ch. 35, along with the offerings, represented his “tenth.” It may be also that the “hundred pieces of silver” represent a part of that “tenth.” The portion of land purchased by Jacob plays an important role in the later biblical narratives. This was the land where the Israelites buried the bones of Joseph (Jos 24:32) and thus represented their hope in God’s ultimate fulfillment of his promise of the land.
34:1 The birth of Dinah was recorded without much comment in 30:21. But once Jacob and his descendants had departed from Paddan Aram and settled in the vicinity of Shechem (vv.18–20), Dinah became the center of the conflict between Jacob and the inhabitants of Canaan. The point of the narrative is to reiterate the portrait of Jacob that has been central throughout these stories: he was a man who planned and schemed for what appears to be his own ends, but who in the end actually accomplished God’s purposes. In the present narrative God’s purpose in setting apart the descendants of Abraham comes into jeopardy with the proposal of marriage between Dinah and Shechem. Twice we are informed that the purpose of the marriage was that the family of Jacob should become “one people” (vv.16, 22) with the inhabitants of Canaan. This runs counter to Abraham’s admonition (24:3), Rebekah’s fear (27:46), and Isaac’s command (28:1).
While the story operates at a level of family honor and brotherly concern for a ravished sister, it nevertheless also carries along the theme that God works through and often in spite of the limited, self-serving plans of human beings.
2–4 Though the Hivite son genuinely loved Dinah, the point is that he lay with her, apparently against her will, and thus humiliated her. Simeon and Levi’s final words express clearly how they viewed the situation: “Should he have treated our sister like a prostitute?” (v.31).
5–24 Jacob was curiously silent about the incident. When he heard what had happened to Dinah, he waited for the return of his sons. The reason behind Jacob’s silence is not clear at the beginning of the story. It is significant that it was the sons of Jacob, not Jacob himself, who carried out the deception; and at the end of the story Jacob admonished his sons for their actions. The plans and schemes no longer were Jacob’s; they were the plans and schemes of his sons. Jacob’s last words to Simeon and Levi concerning the events of this chapter were very harsh: “Let me not enter their council, let me not join their assembly, for they have killed men in their anger. . . . Cursed be their anger, so fierce, and their fury, so cruel!” (49:6–7).
That Simeon and Levi had a plan of deception to repay the offense is suggested in the report of their anger at hearing the news of Dinah. The bitterness of their anger shows that they would not let such an act go unpunished. In ch. 17 the rite of circumcision was to be a sign (v.11) of the unity of the covenant people and their separation from the rest of the nations. Circumcision was not limited to Abraham’s descendants but was rather given as a sign of one’s joining in the hope of God’s promises to Abraham. It was, in fact, a sign given of the covenant promise that Abraham would become the father of “many nations” (17:5). But in the way the sons of Jacob carried out the request that these Canaanites be circumcised, it offers a curious reversal of God’s intention. They offered circumcision as a means for the two families to become “one people.” The Canaanites were not joining the offspring of Abraham; rather, the descendants of Abraham were joining with the Canaanites. This point is stressed in Hamor and Shechem’s report to their countrymen: “Won’t their livestock, their property and all their other animals become ours?”
25–31 When the sons of Jacob carried out their deception to the end, their actions did not go unrebuked. Jacob’s words in v.30 express his final judgment on their actions. That the sons’ reply stands as the last words of the narrative shows that their motive had not been mere plunder but the honor of their sister.
S. Jacob’s Return to Bethel (35:1–15)
1–5 The chapter opens with a reference back to the appearance of the Lord to Jacob at Bethel (28:10–15). As Jacob had once fled to Bethel to escape the anger of his brother Esau, so now the Lord has told Jacob to return to Bethel and dwell there in the face of the trouble that his two sons, Simeon and Levi, had stirred up. When Jacob obeyed and went to Bethel, the Lord delivered him from the anger of the Canaanites who dwelt nearby. It is significant that Jacob called God the one “who answered me in the day of my distress and who has been with me wherever I have gone.” That epithet is a fitting summary of the picture of God that has emerged from the Jacob narratives. Jacob was in constant distress; yet in each instance God remained faithful to his promise and delivered him.
The only previous mention of the “gods” that Jacob’s household might have had is the “household gods” (31:19) that Rachel stole from her father. These may be included in the term “foreign gods”; but in light of the fact that the writer mentions that they buried the “rings in their ears” along with these “foreign gods,” it is likely that Jacob’s household had picked up other religious objects while living in Shechem. The point is that Jacob and his family were leaving such things behind and purifying themselves in preparation for their journey to Bethel.
6–15 The arrival at Bethel marked the end of Jacob’s journey and the final demonstration of the faithfulness of God. He had been with Jacob throughout his journey, and now Jacob had returned to Bethel in safety. As Abraham and Isaac had done on numerous occasions, Jacob built an altar and named it in commemoration of the Lord’s appearing to him there when he left for Haran (cf. 28:10–22). In response the Lord appeared again to Jacob and “blessed him.” For a second time Jacob’s name was changed to “Israel” (cf. 32:28). The point of the second renaming was to give the name “Israel” a more neutral or even positive connotation. It does so by removing the notion of “struggle” associated with the wordplay in 32:28 and letting it stand in a positive light, contrasting it with the name “Jacob,” a name frequently associated throughout these narratives with Jacob’s deceptions. Jacob’s successive names reveal his standing before God.
The importance of God’s words to Jacob in vv.11–12 cannot be overemphasized. First, God’s words recall clearly the primeval blessing of Creation (1:28) and hence show God to be still “at work” in bringing about the blessing to all humanity through Jacob. Second, for the first time since 17:16, the mention is made of royalty in the promised line. Third, the promise of the land, first given to Abraham and then to Isaac, was renewed here with Jacob. Thus within these brief words several major themes come together. The primeval blessing of humankind was renewed through the promise of a royal offspring and the gift of the land.
In the course of the narrative, this section represents a major turning point and thematic focus. Two lines that have thus far run parallel are about to converge, and out of them both will emerge a single theme. Jacob has two wives, each representing a possible line through which the promise will be carried on. Just as Abraham had two sons and only one was the son of promise, and just as Isaac had two sons and only one was the son of the blessing, so now Jacob, though he has twelve sons, has two wives (Leah and Rachel), and each has a son (Judah and Joseph) who can rightfully contend for the blessing. As the Jacob narratives have already anticipated, in the end it was Judah, the son of Leah, not Joseph, the son of Rachel, who gained the blessing (49:8–12).
T. Benjamin’s Birth and Rachel’s Death (35:16–20)
16–20 Rachel, Joseph’s mother and Jacob’s favorite wife, died giving birth to her second son, Benjamin. The account of the birth of this youngest son is separated from the rest of the sons in 29:32–30:24, but it follows closely on that passage. The last son to have been born was Rachel’s first son, Joseph. At the time of his birth, Rachel had said, “May the LORD add to me another son” (30:24). Apparently looking back to that request, Rachel’s midwife said, “Don’t be afraid, for you have another son.” As she was about to die, Rachel named the son “Ben-Oni,” meaning “son of my trouble.” Jacob, however, making a wordplay on “Oni,” which can mean either “trouble” or “wealth,” named him “Benjamin” (lit., “son of my right hand”), reinterpreting the name given by Rachel to mean “son of my wealth or good fortune.”
The site of Rachel’s burial, Ephrath, was clearly identified with the city of Bethlehem, an important place in biblical history (cf. 1Sa 17:12; Mic 5:2). This site is further identified by the pillar that Jacob set up to mark Rachel’s grave (cf. 1Sa 10:2). This passage continued to play an important role in later biblical texts (cf. 48:7; Jer 31:15; Mic 5:2; Mt 2:18).
U. The Sons of Jacob (35:21–26)
21–26 Because of their horrendous conduct, the three oldest sons of Jacob fell from favor. The writer has already recounted the violence of Simeon and Levi (ch. 34); now he briefly notes the misconduct of Reuben. As the list that follows shows, the next brother in line was Judah, the son of Leah. With the older sons out of the way, the stage is set for the development of the lines of Judah and Joseph, which continues throughout much of the rest of the OT. The Genesis narratives that follow are devoted primarily to Joseph, but that is no indication of the final outcome. The last word regarding the future of these two lines of Abraham’s descendants is not heard until chs. 48 and 49.
V. The Death of Isaac (35:27–29)
27–29 The end of the Jacob narratives is marked by the death of his father, Isaac. This notice is not simply to record Isaac’s death but to show the complete fulfillment of God’s promise to Jacob (28:21). According to Jacob’s vow, he had asked that God watch over him during his sojourn and return him safely to the house of his father. Thus the conclusion of the narrative marks the final fulfillment of these words as Jacob returned to the house of his father, Isaac, before he died.
V. The Account of Esau (36:1–43)
1–8 The separation of Jacob and Esau is cast in the same form as the separation of Abraham and Lot (ch. 13). The possessions of the two brothers were too great, and the land was not able to sustain both of them (cf. 13:6); so just as Lot parted from Abraham and went eastward, so Esau parted from Jacob and went to Seir. The heirs of the promise remained in the land, and the other sons moved eastward. The parting of ways was beneficial to both Jacob and Esau.
In the remainder of this chapter, the writer shows the progress and well-being of the line of Esau. He is particularly careful to note that Esau is, in fact, “Edom” (GK 121). The repeated identification of Esau as “that is, Edom” throughout the chapter prepares us for the future importance of Edom during Israel’s later history.
9–19 The unusually long “genealogy” of Esau is made up of several smaller lists. The first list, of the sons of Esau, is largely dependent on the brief narratives regarding Esau’s wives (26:34; 28:9; 36:3). Verse 10 divides the sons of Esau into two groups: the sons of Adah and the sons of Basemath. Adah’s sons (and grandsons) are listed in vv.11–12, then Basemath’s in v.13, and finally Oholibamah’s in v.14. Verses 15–19 list the tribal “chiefs” of the sons of Esau, beginning with the eldest, Eliphaz, and again grouped according to their mothers. The term “chief” (GK 477) is used in the Bible only for the tribal leaders of Edom, with the exception of Zec 12:5–6, where it is also used of the leaders of Judah. Outside the Bible the word refers to the leaders of foreign nations. The title then would have denoted primarily a political or military function.
20–30 To the two above lists is added a list of “the sons of Seir the Horite, who were living in the region,” and then a list of their tribal “chiefs.” Seir is ordinarily the name of the geographical territory occupied by the Edomites, but here it refers to an individual. He and his descendants are listed here because they occupied the territory of Edom. In 2Ch 25:11, 14, the “sons of Seir” are called “Edomites.” The list identifies Seir as a “Horite,” which earlier commentators interpreted as “cave dwellers”—deriving the sense from the similarity of the word “Horite” to the Hebrew word meaning “cave.”
31–43 The list of Edomite kings is introduced by the heading, “These were the kings who reigned in Edom before any Israelite king reigned.” This presupposes a knowledge of the kingship in Israel, or at least an anticipation of the kingship. Thus it is a part of those texts (e.g., 17:6, 16; 35:11) that look forward to the promises of Ge 49:10; Nu 24:7, 17–18; and Dt 17:14–20 (cf. 1Sa 2:10).
The chapter closes with a final list of the tribal “chiefs” of Esau’s clan. Several names in this list overlap with those in vv.10–14.
VI. The Account of Jacob (37:1–49:33)
A. Jacob in the Land (37:1)
1 Jacob is back in the Land of Promise but is still dwelling there as a sojourner, like his father (and grandfather) before him (cf. Heb 11:13). As his ancestors, he was awaiting the fulfillment of the promises of God. The verse is a fitting transition to the narratives that trace the course of events by which the sons of Jacob left the Land of Promise and entered the land of Egypt. According to 25:11 Jacob’s father, Isaac, dwelt in Beer Lahai Roi, which evidently is where Jacob lived at this time.
B. Joseph’s Dreams (37:2–11)
2–3a The formal title “This is the account of Jacob” obscures teh fact that the remaining narrative is not about Jacob but about Joseph and, later, Judah. Joseph, at seventeen years of age, is (along with his brothers) a shepherd of his father’s sheep. He is only a young lad compared with his other brothers. We are told that Joseph brought a “bad [GK 8273] report” about his brothers to his father and also that his father, Jacob, loved him more than the other brothers because he was the son born to him in his old age. Jacob’s special love for Rachel (29:30) has carried over to that of her son, Joseph. Since the story of Joseph is filled with wordplays and reversals, it seems likely that the reference to the “bad report” foreshadows the brothers’ intended “evil” (NIV, “harm”; same word in Hebrew) spoken of in 50:20.
3b–11 The “richly ornamented robe” Jacob made for Joseph illustrates the father’s preferential love for Joseph. The repeated references to the coat throughout the story remind us that Joseph’s preferred status was the central problem that angered his brothers and turned them against him. Eventually their anger resulted in a plan to do away with him altogether. But first, adding to their hatred, Joseph recounted two dreams, both of which end with the image of his brothers “bowing down” to him. This foreshadows the conclusion of the story where, because he is ruler of the land of Egypt, his brothers “bowed down” (42:6) to him, and Joseph “remembered his dreams about them” (42:9).
The reason for the two dreams is to be understood in light of Joseph’s own words in ch. 41, where he explained to the Pharaoh that the twofold occurrence indicates that the matter has been firmly decided by God (41:32). So too here God will surely bring to pass the fulfillment of Joseph’s dream. The significance of the dreams is seen in the words of Joseph’s brothers: “Will you actually rule us?” This reveals the sense of the “bowing down” to be an acknowledgement of royalty and kingship. The irony of the narrative composition is that in the end such royal honor does not reside in the house of Joseph but in the house of Judah (49:10).
C. Joseph’s Journey to Egypt (37:12–36)
12–18 After a minor difficulty in which he temporarily lost his way and had to seek help from a stranger, Joseph found his brothers in Dothan. The purpose of this small account can be seen by comparing it with the brief and similar prelude to the second part of the story, where he met his brothers in Egypt (chs. 42–44). The symmetry reinforces the sense that every event is providentially ordered. Here at the beginning of the Joseph story, when Joseph’s brothers “saw him” approaching, they “plotted to kill him.” In the same way midway through the narrative, when Joseph first “saw his brothers” in Egypt (42:7), he eluded them by disguising himself so that they did not recognize him and then planned a scheme that, at least on the surface, looked as if he intended to kill them.
19–36 Both the details of the brothers’ plans and their motivation are given. Behind those plans lie Joseph’s two dreams. Little did they suspect that the very plans that they were then scheming were to lead to the fulfillment of those dreams. The first plan was simply “to kill him,” throw his body in a pit, and then tell their father that a “ferocious” (lit., “evil”; GK 8273) animal had eaten him. Again, the brothers punctuated their plan with a reference to Joseph’s dreams in an obviously ironic statement: “We’ll see what comes of his dreams” (cf. 42:9). This initial plan is interrupted by Reuben, who saved Joseph from their hands.
The reference to Reuben is countered later by a similar reference to Judah. It was not merely Reuben who saved Joseph from the plan of his brothers, but Judah also played an important role. Again we can see the central importance of Jacob’s last words regarding Judah in 49:8–12. In the end it is Judah who is placed at the center of the narrative’s focus on the fulfillment of the divine blessing. It is the descendants of Judah who will ultimately figure in the coming of the Promised Seed. Reuben’s plan is to persuade the brothers merely to throw Joseph into a pit and, apparently, leave him to die. His actual plan, however, was to return later and rescue Joseph. Reuben’s plan was partly successful. The brothers threw Joseph into the pit alive and left him there. The reference to Joseph’s coat highlights the central point of the story, that the present plan is part of a larger divine plan foreshadowed in Joseph’s dreams.
An important turn of events occurs with the arrival of the “Ishmaelites.” They become the occasion for Judah to enter the story with the suggestion that the brothers could “sell [Joseph] to the Ishmaelites.” Only a cursory account of Joseph’s fate follows in the text. The Ishmaelites, who are also called “Midianites” in this narrative, arrive, and Joseph is sold to them for twenty shekels. They then take him to Egypt with them.
When the focus of the narrative returns to Reuben and to the outcome of his plan to deal with Joseph, ironically it serves only to underscore the role of Judah in the actual rescue of Joseph. Verse 29 suggests that Reuben had no part in the plan to sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites. He returned to the pit, expecting to find Joseph there and to rescue him, but Joseph was not there. He was surprised and angry that Joseph was gone. Thus in no uncertain terms we learn that it was Judah, not Reuben, who saved the life of Joseph. Ultimately the brothers must fall back on their original plan of telling their father that a “ferocious” (lit., “evil”) animal had killed Joseph.
Once again the coat provides the narrative link in the story. The symbol of the brothers’ original hatred for Joseph becomes the means of the father’s recognition of his loss. In the end the blood-stained coat is all that remains of Joseph; on seeing it Jacob tore off his own coat and exchanged it for sackcloth. Thus Jacob’s own fate and that of his sons are briefly sketched out in this opening narrative. What happens to Joseph foreshadows all that will happen to the sons of Jacob. They will be carried down into Egypt and will be put into slavery. In this sense, then, Jacob’s final words set the focus of the narratives to follow: “in mourning will I go down to the grave [Sheol] to my son.” Ironically, the Joseph narratives conclude with Jacob’s going down (46:3–4) to Egypt to see his son and then to die (50:24–26).
D. Judah and Tamar (38:1–30)
1–11 The narrative of ch. 38 has only a loose connection with the Joseph story. The first verse notes only that these events occurred “at that time.” Without this remark we would have little basis for relating these events to the story of Joseph. In the overall strategy of the book, however, this chapter plays a crucial role.
The narrative begins with the mention of three sons (cf. the three sons of Adam, Noah, and Terah). Two sons died because of the evil they did. The point of this introductory information is to show that the continuation of the house of Judah lay in Judah’s hands. The narrative that follows shows that he does nothing to further his own household. It takes the “righteousness” (GK 7405) of the woman Tamar (v.26) to preserve the seed of Judah. The story is much like the other patriarchal narratives outside the story of Joseph, which show the promised offspring in jeopardy and the patriarch showing little concern for its preservation. Just as in ch. 20, where the seed of Abraham was protected by the “righteous” (NIV, “innocent”) Abimelech, here it is the woman Tamar, not Judah the patriarch, who is ultimately responsible for the survival of the descendants of the house of Judah.
The text is not clear from whose house Jacob originally took Tamar for his son’s wife. Since we are told that Judah’s own wife was a Canaanite, had Tamar also been a Canaanite, a similar statement presumably would have been mentioned. Since she was likely not a Canaanite, this introduction shows another point at which the promise to Abraham was in jeopardy. By marrying the daughter of a Canaanite, Judah had realized the worst fears of Abraham (24:3) and Isaac (28:1); so the promise regarding the descendants of Abraham and Isaac was in danger of being unfulfillable. Through Tamar’s clever plan, however, the seed of Abraham was preserved by not being allowed to continue through the sons of the Canaanite, the daughter of Shua. The line was continued through Judah and Tamar. The genealogy at the close of the narrative underscores this point.
12–26 Tamar’s plan resembles that of Jacob and Rebekah (ch. 27). Through a disguise she obtained a part in the blessing of the firstborn. In so doing, just as with Jacob and Rebekah, she obtained what the patriarch should have rightfully given. Shelah, the son of Judah, was of age, and Tamar should have been given to him as a wife. Thus, in the end, the continuation of the line of Judah was not due to the righteous actions of the patriarch Judah, but lay in the hands of the “righteous” Tamar.
27–30 The whole of the Jacob narratives reaches a fitting summary in this brief account of the birth of the two sons Perez and Zerah. As the Jacob narrative began with an account of the struggle of twins (25:22), so now the conclusion of the Jacob narrative is marked by a similar struggle. In both cases the struggle resulted in a reversal of the right of the firstborn and the right of the blessing. The result of both struggles was that the younger gained the upper hand over the elder. As Jacob struggled with Esau and overcame him, so Perez overcame Zerah, the elder, and gained the right of the firstborn (cf. Nu 26:20, where Perez is regarded as the firstborn). The brevity and austerity with which the narrative is recounted leaves the impression that the meaning of the passage is self-evident to the reader. Indeed, coming as it does on the heels of a long series of reversals in which the younger gains the upper hand over the elder, its sense is transparent.
E. Joseph in the House of Potiphar (39:1–23)
1 Fully conscious of the intervening Judah narrative, the text resumes the account of Joseph, taking up where ch. 37 left off. As in 37:27, those who have brought Joseph into Egypt are called “Ishmaelites,” while in 37:28, 36, they are known as “Midianites.”
2–6 Verse 2 establishes the overall theme of the narrative: “The LORD was with Joseph and he prospered.” Verses 3–6 relate the theme to the specific series of events to follow: Joseph’s blessing from the Lord is recognized by his Egyptian master, and Joseph is put in charge of his household. Joseph’s sojourn in Egypt, like that of his father, Jacob (30:27), has resulted in an initial fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise that “all peoples on earth will be blessed [GK 1385] through you” (12:3). Thus we are told that “the LORD blessed [GK 1385] the house of the Egyptian because of Joseph.” Such a thematic introduction alerts the reader to the underlying lessons intended throughout the narrative. This is not a story of the success of Joseph; rather, it is a story of God’s faithfulness to his promises. The last note about Joseph in this introductory section sets the stage for what follows.
7–20 This story about Joseph reverses a well-known plot in the patriarchal narratives. Whereas before it was the beautiful wife (12:11; 26:7) of the patriarch who was sought by the foreign ruler, now it was Joseph, the handsome patriarch himself who was sought by the wife of the foreign ruler. Whereas in the earlier narratives it was either the Lord (12:17; 20:3) or the moral purity of the foreign ruler (26:10) that rescued the wife, rather than the patriarch, here it was Joseph’s own moral courage that saved the day. Whereas in the preceding narratives, the focus had been on God’s faithfulness in fulfilling his covenant promises, in the story of Joseph attention is turned to the human response.
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob repeatedly fell short of God’s expectations, though, of course, they continued to have faith in God. Joseph, however, is a striking example of one who always responds in total trust and obedience to the will of God. The Joseph narratives give expression to that part of the promise found in 18:19: “that they may do righteousness and justice so that the LORD may fulfill what he has promised to Abraham” (pers. tr.). There was a human part to be played in the fulfillment of God’s plan. When God’s people respond as Joseph responded, then their way and God’s blessing will prosper. Significantly, in all the book of Genesis only Joseph is described as one who was filled with the Spirit of God (41:38). In fact, the narrative is explicit in its emphasis on his total uprightness throughout the attempted seduction by the Egyptian’s wife. He was in jail because of false witness brought against him.
21–23 The emphasis of the epilogue is clear. God has turned an intended evil against Joseph into a good. God was with Joseph and prospered his way. Lying behind the course of events is the lesson that all the Joseph narratives teach: “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good” (50:20). Like Daniel during the Exile, Joseph suffered for doing what was right, but God turned the evil into a blessing.
F. Joseph in Jail (40:1–23)
1–23 Chapter 40 represents an intermediate stage in the development of the plot of the Joseph story. Joseph had been cast into jail and had risen to a position of prominence there. Apparently Joseph’s position was responsible for his being assigned to wait on the two incarcerated royal officials. They each had a dream that Joseph correctly interpreted, but ultimately to no avail, since the surviving official soon forgot the matter. Later, when the Pharaoh himself had a dream, the butler remembered the events of this chapter and told the king about Joseph. The picture of Joseph that comes through these events is of one who, like Daniel, is an interpreter of dreams and mysteries. He discerns the course of future events that to others lies in total darkness.
The sense of the cupbearer’s dream may seem self-evident, but as the sense of the baker’s dream shows, such apparently self-evident meanings are by no means certain. Who could, on the face of it, discern between the meanings of the two dreams? One is favorable and the other is not. There is clearly more to the dreams than a plain reading of each would suggest. The picture of Joseph that emerges from this narrative is precisely that which the Pharaoh himself later expresses: Joseph is “one in whom is the spirit of God” (41:38). Joseph knows the interpretations of dreams, which, in his own words, “belong to God” (40:8). He is set apart from all those who have preceded him in the book. He is “discerning and wise” (41:39), and “things turned out exactly as he interpreted them” (41:13). Whereas Abraham was a “prophet” (20:7), Joseph is a “wiseman” (cf. 41:39). Whereas Abraham sees the course of future events “in a vision” (15:1), Joseph discerns (41:39) the course of the future in the mysterious dreams of others.
G. Joseph’s Interpretation of Pharaoh’s Dreams (41:1–36)
The central theme of ch. 41 is expressed by Joseph in v.32: “The matter has been firmly decided by God, and God will do it soon.” “Two” dreams with the same meaning show that God will certainly bring about what was foreseen in the dreams. In the previous chapter the “two” officials of the king each had a dream. One dream was good, the other bad. The dreams and their interpretations are repeated twice, once in the narrative of ch. 40 and then again by the cupbearer before the Pharaoh in vv.9–13. After “two years” the king himself had “two” dreams; one part of each dream was good (v.29) and the other bad (vv.27, 30). Within the narrative, each dream is repeated twice, once by the writer and again by Pharaoh. Such symmetry in human events is evidence of a divine work.
1–8 Pharaoh’s two dreams are more transparent than those of the two officials. The sense of the two dreams can be seen in the elements of the dream. Seven good cows and seven good heads of grain are seven good years. Seven ugly cows and seven blighted heads of grain are seven bad years to follow. To show that the dreams’ simplicity conceals rather than reveals their meaning, the writer tells us that all the king’s magicians and wise men were unable to give their meaning (cf. Dan 2:4–12). Joseph not only had to forecast from the dreams what was to happen, but, more important, he advised Pharaoh how to prepare for what was to come. Joseph’s wisdom in dealing with the situation forecast in the dreams is portrayed as of equal importance to the interpretation of the dreams. His wisdom consisted more in planning and administration than in a knowledge of secret mysteries.
9–13 Though the cupbearer had forgotten about Joseph, he now recalled that Joseph’s interpretation had stood the test of time. As it turns out, even the cupbearer’s forgetfulness worked in Joseph’s favor since just at the opportune moment he remembered Joseph and recounted his wisdom before the king. By drawing the reader’s attention to the events of the previous passage, both the wisdom of Joseph and the sovereign workings of God are emphasized. Joseph’s wisdom is highlighted by the fact that in contrast to the wise men of Egypt, the interpretation of Joseph, “a young Hebrew,” proved true. God’s sovereign power is highlighted in the fact that though the cupbearer did forget Joseph at the time, he remembered just at the right moment and thus served as the means for Joseph’s ultimate rise to power.
14–36 When the Pharaoh repeated the dreams, he added only two major parts—the comments about the ugly cows and these cows looking just as “ugly” (lit., “evil”; GK 8273) after they ate the good cows as before. In both cases the repetition seems to stress the “evil” of the appearance of the cows in contrast with the “good” cows of the first group.
The emphasis on the “good” and “evil” represents Joseph’s ability to distinguish between the “good” and the “evil.” It is clear that ultimately such knowledge comes only from God (v.39). Thus the lesson of the early chapters of Genesis is artfully repeated in these last chapters. In light of such considerations, it can hardly be accidental that Joseph’s plan seemed “good” to the Pharaoh and all his servants.
H. Joseph’s Exaltation Over Egypt (41:37–57)
37–57 The account of the king’s appointment of Joseph over all his kingdom presents a picture of Joseph that recalls Adam in Ge 1. Just as Adam was dependent on God for his knowledge of “good and evil,” so Joseph also is portrayed here in the same terms. Just as Adam is made God’s “vicegerent” to rule over all the land, so Joseph is portrayed here as the Pharaoh’s “vicegerent” over all his land. As Adam was made in God’s image to rule over all the land, so the king here gave Joseph his “signet ring” and dressed him in royal garments. Just as God provided a wife for Adam in the garden and gave the man all the land for his enjoyment, so the king gave a wife to Joseph and put him over all the land.
At many points in the story, Joseph appears to be represented as an “ideal” of what a truly wise and faithful man is like. He is a model of the ideal man, the ideal king. He accomplishes all that Adam failed to do. The story of Joseph is a reflection of what might have been had Adam remained obedient to God and trusted him for the “good.” At the same time the picture of Joseph anticipates what might yet be, if only God’s people would, like Joseph, live in complete obedience and trust in God. The picture of Joseph, then, looks back to Adam, but even more looks forward to one who was yet to come, the one from the house of Judah to whom the kingdom belongs (cf. 49:10). Thus the tension between the houses of Joseph and Judah is resolved by making the life of Joseph into a picture of the one who is to reign from the house of Judah.
I. Joseph’s Brothers in Egypt (42:1–28)
The preceding chapter recorded Joseph’s rise to power. The present chapter turns to the divine purpose behind his miraculous rise.
1–2 The narrative returns to Jacob, who has been out of the picture since 37:34. As so frequently in biblical narratives, the words spoken at the beginning of a story foreshadow the outcome. Jacob, sending his sons to Egypt, said, “Go down there . . . so that we may live and not die” (cf. 45:5).
3–13 The “twelve” sons of Jacob are divided into two groups throughout the narrative. There are the “ten of Joseph’s brothers” and then the “two” sons of Jacob by Rachel—Joseph and Benjamin. These two sons are contrasted with the two sons of Leah—Reuben and Judah. Both Reuben and Judah play an important and similar role in the narrative. They speak on behalf of the other brothers and are the catalysts in the resolution of the plots instigated by Joseph. It was Judah, however, who saved the day by offering himself as a pledge for the young lad Benjamin; and it was Judah who repeated Jacob’s own thematic words “that we and you and our children may live and not die” (43:8; cf. 42:2). Finally, it was Judah who spoke before Joseph and offered himself as a substitute for Benjamin, lest he cause any evil to come on his father, Jacob (44:33–34).
Throughout the narrative the plot is woven around the interplay between Joseph and Judah, and in the end it is Judah who resolved the conflict. By the same token it is Joseph who created the conflict and tension throughout the narrative. When his brothers approached him to buy grain, he “pretended to be a stranger” and spoke harshly, accusing them of being spies. Verse 9 reveals that Joseph’s schemes and plans against his brothers were motivated by the dreams of the earlier narratives and not by the things his brothers had done to him.
In response to Joseph’s accusation that they were spies, the brothers defended their integrity by saying, “Your servants are twelve brothers”; but lest their integrity be gainsaid, they were forced to add: “and one is no more.” Joseph’s schemes have provoked the first hint that their evil deed accomplished long past may yet rise up against them. When the brothers recounted this event to their father (v.32), they reported their own words in a different order than that of the narrative in v.13. Here they mentioned first the “one who is no more”; but when they tell their father about Joseph’s accusations and their response, they mention last the “one [who] is no more” and then tell of Benjamin who is home with their father. Though subtle, such a reversal suggests that the memory of what they did to Joseph was beginning to rub on their consciences.
Another reminder that reveals Joseph’s motives in perplexing his brothers is the conclusion they draw from his trick of having their money returned to them in their grain sacks. When they saw their money, they asked, “What is this that God has done to us?” (v.28). However they might have meant it, their words have a ring of truth about them. Though we know it was Joseph who had had the money put back into their sacks, their words point us to the work of God, confirming the direction the narrative as a whole appears to be taking.
14–24 Joseph devised two plans to test his brothers. The first was that “one” of the brothers should return for the youngest and the rest remain in prison. After three days the second plan was announced; “one” of the brothers was to remain behind and the others were to return to get the youngest. The focus is on the “one” brother who rescues the others. Within the narrative this “one” brother appears to be an echo of the “one [who] is no more.” No wonder, then, that the brothers’ own conclusion is that their present distress has been caused by the distress that they had brought on Joseph. When they begin to talk about this distress, we catch a glimpse of where Joseph’s plans are leading. Reuben’s words focus on the central point: “Now we must give an accounting for his blood.” Joseph’s plans were not in revenge for how his brothers once treated him; rather, they were to show how, in God’s world, the “guilt” of the brothers came back on them and called for justice. The remarkable message of the narrative, however, is that Joseph had already forgiven his brothers of the evil they had done to him, for he had to turn away from them to hide his sorrow for the distress his plan caused. What awaited the brothers was not the “evil” they intended for Joseph but the “good” God intended for them through Joseph (50:20).
25–28 Joseph’s next plan was to fill the brothers’ sacks with the money they had brought to buy grain (see comment on vv.3–13). God was behind it all, and through it all was working out his purposes.
J. Joseph’s Brothers Return for Benjamin (42:29–38)
29–38 The events of this chapter are now retold in an abbreviated form by the brothers. Their focus was on the plan of Joseph for the return of the youngest son. As if he knew all that had in fact happened between his sons and Joseph, Jacob’s words in v.36 ring truer than he would ever have suspected. The brothers had deprived him of Joseph, and it was because of them that Simeon was not now with them and that Benjamin was to be taken away. Thus in the words of their father, there was a reminder of the guilt that lingered over their treatment of Joseph.
In the face of Jacob’s words, Reuben’s response was unusual. He certainly meant his words to ensure confidence in his own resolve to return Benjamin; but within the context of the narrative, it appears only to add insult to injury. Jacob’s reply to Reuben not only summarily dismissed Reuben’s pledge, but it raised one more time the matter of the loss of Joseph.
K. Joseph’s Identity (43:1–45:28)
1. The second trip to Egypt (43:1–34)
1–14 In keeping with the general motif of “pairs” of events throughout the Joseph narratives, the story now begins the “second” journey of the sons into Egypt. The famine was still in the land, and the grain purchased earlier was gone; so the father sent his sons back for more. This time Judah insisted on taking Benjamin back with them in accordance with Joseph’s demands.
In persuading his father, Judah offered to take full responsibility for Benjamin if he was allowed to accompany the brothers to Egypt. That both Reuben and Judah had suggested ways Benjamin could be safely taken to Egypt recalls the events of ch. 37 and the brothers’ maltreatment of Joseph. There both Reuben and Judah attempted to save Joseph’s life (37:21, 26). Here they attempt to save Benjamin from the plan Joseph had initiated against the brothers. Judah expresses his impatience with Jacob by making explicit reference to the fact that this was the “second” time a journey to Egypt had been made (cf. 41:32).
Jacob gave in. Just as it was Judah’s plan that ultimately saved the life of Joseph (37:26), so now his plan saved the life of Simeon and, in the end, of Benjamin. Jacob’s farewell words in v.14 (note especially the word “mercy”) provide the narrative key to what follows. At the conclusion of the narrative, when the sons reached Joseph and he saw Benjamin, we are told that “his mercy” (v.30; part of “deeply moved” in NIV) was kindled toward his brother. It is important that in these words of Jacob the compassion that Joseph was to find toward his brothers was given by “God Almighty.”
15–25 Curiously, the whole problem of the brothers’ being “spies” (42:9) is not raised again. Their fears and misgivings as they were ushered into the royal house of Joseph reveal their conviction that nothing good was going to come of this. We are told at the start, however, that the brothers were being taken into the house for a great feast. We know that their fears in v.18 were misguided. They need not have feared becoming Joseph’s slaves.
When the brothers repeat to the steward how they found the money in their grain sacks, we see why they were so anxious and just how misguided they actually were. The purpose of the retelling is to get the steward’s response. Joseph’s steward brushed off their explanation. The reader surely knows that the steward’s words cannot be taken seriously, for there was no mention of money given to the steward. Apparently the steward has been in on Joseph’s secret plan all along. But unwittingly the steward expresses one of the central themes of the book: “Your God, the God of your father, has given you treasure.”
26–34 Joseph was conspicuously careful to ask about the well-being of the brothers’ father and the lad, Benjamin, whom they had brought back with them. It is only when we see Joseph hurry to another room to hide his tears that we are sure his identity was still unknown. One wonders what the brothers themselves thought about Joseph’s questions and their treatment in his house. They had come expecting to be made into servants, but it was they who were being served. The text simply states that the brothers were “dismayed” (NIV, “in astonishment”). They asked no questions and seemed to accept the words of Joseph’s steward (v.23) and Joseph’s words to Benjamin (v.29) as the most plausible solution.
2. The silver cup (44:1–34)
1–13 Once more Joseph tricked his brothers by having his cup and Benjamin’s money returned in Benjamin’s sack of grain. The purpose is clear from what Joseph instructed his men to say. If we are to judge by the brothers’ response when the servants reached them with Joseph’s message, the word that the servants spoke was more detailed than what we are given in the narrative. The brothers immediately made reference to the silver and gold that were supposedly in their sacks. Perhaps Joseph’s words were reported only in general terms because they expressed the central issue of the Joseph narratives: the contrast between the “evil” done by the brothers and the “good” intended and accomplished by God (cf. 50:20).
Joseph’s question appears to include the issue of the brothers’ treatment of him in ch. 37, which raises again the matter of their guilt in their treatment of Joseph. A residue of guilt still hung over their heads; and almost everywhere they turned, they heard an echo of their mistreatment of Joseph.
Joseph’s plan worked as if every detail had been carefully planned out ahead of time. Not knowing that the cup and money were in Benjamin’s sack, the brothers made a rash vow, putting the life of Benjamin and their own freedom in jeopardy. When the cup was discovered, their response was one of complete hopelessness. “They tore their clothing in a rage” (lit. tr.) and returned to the city. There was nothing else to do. Curiously, their response mirrored their father’s response to hearing their earlier report of the loss of Joseph (37:34). The grief they had caused their father had returned on their own heads.
14–17 While it had looked as if Joseph was working a slow revenge on his brothers, his purpose was not revenge but repentance. Through his schemes his brothers were coming to an awareness of their guilt and were ready to acknowledge it. Their utter frustration is expressed in their questions and their expression of guilt. The rhetorical answer to their questions is that they have nothing to say or cannot show themselves to be right. Thus the conclusion they drew was that “God has uncovered your servants’ guilt.”
Though the brothers have only the immediate issue of the lost “cup” in mind, within the compass of the whole of the Joseph narrative, their words take on the scope of a confession of their former guilt as well. We know that the brothers did not take the cup; Joseph had it put into Benjamin’s sack. We also know that the brothers know they did not take the cup. So when they speak of God “uncovering [their] guilt,” we are forced to generalize their sense of guilt within the context of the entire narrative. In his response Joseph steered the matter in a direction that even more closely resembles his brothers’ treatment of him. The young lad was to be sold into slavery in Egypt, and the brothers were to return to their father.
18–34 In Judah’s final speech, he retold the whole of the Joseph story. His own retelling reveals the brothers’ perception of the events as well as the hopelessness of their situation. The overall sense of Judah’s version is that the brothers have been mistreated. He implies that if anyone was to blame, it was Joseph. According to Judah’s version, Joseph had initiated the series of mishaps that led to the present predicament. All the brothers had done was follow his instructions and the instructions of their father. Judah’s words, however, reveal something more to the reader than even he intended; they show that the fault did not lie with Joseph but with the “evil” intention of the brothers toward Joseph. Once again his words raised the issue of the brothers’ mistreatment of Joseph.
Curiously, at this point Judah said of Joseph, “[He] is dead,” rather than what was said of him on other occasions, namely, that “[he] is no more” (42:13). The meaning of “he is no more” does not imply that one is dead (cf. 5:24; 42:36). Thus, in retelling the story Judah added a dimension that was not previously there. The story now resembles the original intention of the brothers (37:18), and it corresponds to the story that the brothers gave to Jacob. What in real life would have perhaps been a “slip of the tongue” is a clue to the state of mind of the brothers as well as to their guilt.
But Judah’s account raises even further the issue of the brothers’ guilt regarding Joseph when he recounted Jacob’s response to the demand that Benjamin be taken to Egypt. On that occasion Jacob had said, “You know that my wife bore me two sons. One of them went away from me, and I said, ‘He has surely been torn to pieces.’ ” How could Judah recount the story this way? He surely knew that Jacob’s words were mistaken. It was not a wild animal that killed Joseph; the brothers themselves had sold him into slavery. But to tell the story the way it actually happened would be to admit to a guilt even greater than that of which they were presently accused. Thus even when retelling the story to demonstrate his own innocence, Judah gave testimony of his own guilt and the guilt of his brothers. Though it is through Judah’s speech that the reader is again reminded of the brothers’ guilt, it was Judah who intervened on behalf of Benjamin and ultimately his words that saved the day.
After this speech Joseph could contain himself no longer. He felt compelled to unveil his identity to his brothers.
3. Joseph’s revelation (45:1–28)
1–8 Joseph had taken no personal enjoyment in deceiving his brothers. When he could hold back no longer, he revealed his true identity. In his words of explanation and comfort to his brothers, Joseph returned once again to the central theme of the narrative: though the brothers were responsible for Joseph’s being sold into Egypt, and though they intended “harm,” God was ultimately behind it all and had worked it out for the “good.” As he told his brothers, “It was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you,” and, “God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives.” In the narrative thus far, this theme has been expressed by Jacob (42:2) and Judah (43:8) and has also been indirectly alluded to by Joseph himself (42:18). Here, however, and in 50:20, the theme is given its full expression in the words of Joseph.
Furthermore, it was not the brothers who sent Joseph to Egypt; it was God. And God had a purpose for it all. Joseph, the one ultimately responsible for initiating the plots and subplots of the preceding narratives, reveals the divine plan and purpose behind it all. Through it all he saw God’s desire to accomplish a “great deliverance.” In describing how God had taken care of him, Joseph alluded to the brothers’ initial question regarding his dreams as a young lad (37:8). He reminded them that he had been made “ruler of all Egypt.”
9–20 In the second part of his speech, Joseph made plans to bring his father to Egypt. He twice repeated that the brothers were to go to Jacob and with all haste bring him down to Egypt. In the midst of the famine, the sons of Israel were to be well provided for in Goshen. When the Pharaoh restated Joseph’s offer and “twice” gave the brothers the “good” (vv.18, 20; NIV, “best”) of the land of Egypt, it is hard not to see an allusion to the “good” (1:31) land given to Adam. Joseph pictures restoration, not just of the good fortune of Jacob, but of the blessing that was promised through the offspring of Jacob.
21–28 At first, when Jacob heard the news that Joseph was alive, “his heart grew numb” (NIV, “Jacob was stunned”) and “he did not believe.” But when he heard everything that Joseph had said and saw all that he had sent to take him back to Egypt, “the spirit . . . of Jacob revived,” and he set out to go to him. A new dimension in Jacob’s faith is the contrast between his “numbed heart” and his “revived spirit.” Jacob’s lack of faith is identified with his “numbed heart”; when his spirit was renewed, however, he believed.
L. Jacob’s Journey to Egypt (46:1–7)
1–4 Before Jacob went to Egypt, he traveled to Beersheba, built an altar there, and offered sacrifices to the God of his father, Isaac. The patriarchs all worshiped the same God. The Lord had said to Isaac, “Do not go down to Egypt” (26:2); but he now said to Jacob, “Do not be afraid to go down to Egypt.” Such a change in attitude toward the patriarchs’ traveling to Egypt indicates that the Lord was following a specific plan with regard to his people.
The words spoken to Jacob in the night vision reiterate the promise to Abraham (12:2), but they also add that God would perform this in Egypt. He would bring his people into Egypt and be with them there; and after they had become a great nation, he would bring them back to the Promised Land. This was the second “vision” in which God revealed his future plans with the offspring of Abraham (cf. 15:1, 13–14).
5–7 Special attention is given to the journey of Jacob and his household into Egypt. Just as Abraham had left Ur and journeyed to Canaan (12:4–5), so now Jacob left Canaan and journeyed to Egypt. Both men were leaving the land of their birth in obedience to the will of God, and the obedience of both plays a pivotal role in God’s election of the seed of Abraham. Thus vv.6–7 emphasize by repetition that “all his offspring” went with Jacob into the land of Egypt. To graphically demonstrate the importance of this point, the writer lists the names of “all his offspring,” numbering them at “seventy” (see next comment).
M. Jacob’s Sons in Egypt (46:8–27)
8–27 The list of names in these verses appears to have been selected so that the total numbers “seventy” (v.27). It can hardly be coincidental that the number of nations in Ge 10 is also “seventy.” Just as the “seventy nations” represent all the descendants of Adam, so now the “seventy sons” represent all the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the sons of Israel. What we see is a demonstration of the theme in Dt 32:8, that God apportioned the boundaries of the nations (Ge 10) according to the number of the sons of Israel. Thus the new nation of Israel is portrayed as a new humanity and Abraham as a second Adam. The blessing that is to come through Abraham and his offspring is a restoration of the original blessing of Adam, a blessing that was lost in the Fall.
N. Settling in Goshen (46:28–47:12)
28–34 Curiously, it was Judah, not Joseph, who led the sons of Israel into the land of Goshen. Once again Judah is singled out for special attention over against Joseph. Although in the Joseph story as a whole it was Joseph who was responsible for the preservation of the sons in Egypt, here, within this detail of the passage, it is Judah who “pointed out the way” (NIV, “to get directions”) to the land of Goshen. Such a special focus on Judah highlights his crucial role in God’s plan to bring about Israel’s deliverance. The prominence of Judah is seen most clearly in Jacob’s words of blessing to his twelve sons (49:8–12).
The chapter ends with Joseph’s plan to secure the land of Goshen as a dwelling place for the sons of Israel. The plan was simply to tell the Pharaoh that they were shepherds. The Egyptians hated shepherds and thus would allow the Israelites to dwell by themselves in Goshen. Joseph’s plan succeeded, and his family was given the land of Goshen. In these two brief narratives, Joseph and Judah are placed in marked contrast. Judah led the brothers to the land of Goshen, but it was Joseph’s wise plan that resulted in their being able to live there.
47:1–12 Joseph’s wisdom resulted in the sons of Israel dwelling safely in the land of Goshen while there was severe famine in the land of Canaan. Pharaoh’s response was even more generous than the previous narrative would have suggested. Not only did he grant their wish and allow Joseph’s brothers to settle in Goshen, he also put the brothers in charge of his own livestock, a result reminiscent of Joseph’s own rise to power in the house of Pharaoh (cf. 41:41). Thus Joseph’s fortune was duplicated in the fortune of his brothers. The land of Goshen is called the “best part of the land,” which perhaps is a wordplay on the “good” that God intended in all of these recorded events (50:20).
Significantly, the central concern of this narrative is to show that Jacob “blessed Pharaoh” (vv.7, 10) when he was brought before him. Lying behind such an emphasis is God’s promise to Abraham that he would bless those who blessed the offspring of Abraham. The passage shows that in Joseph and Jacob, the promise to Abraham was being fulfilled with the nations around them.
Jacob’s words to the Pharaoh in v.9 sound unusual in the way they contrast with the two accounts of his blessing Pharaoh. They seem a deliberate contrast to the later promise in Deuteronomy that one who honors his father and mother should “live long and that it may go well with you in the land” (Dt 5:16). Jacob, who deceived his father and thereby gained the blessing, must not only die outside the Promised Land, but we also learn here that his years were few and difficult, perhaps a recompense for his earlier actions. Abraham obeyed God and lived long in the land (Ge 26:5), but Jacob’s years were short and difficult. In spite of such a final verdict, Jacob lived out his remaining years “in the good [NIV, best part] of the land,” though not the Promised Land; and Joseph, his son, provided for him and his household.
O. Joseph’s Rule in Egypt (47:13–27)
13–27 The narrative returns to the story line of 41:57 with an account of the affairs of Joseph in Egypt and his work on behalf of the Pharaoh. The brothers are no longer the center of attention; the focus is on Joseph and his sons.
Perhaps the account of Joseph and his brothers (chs. 42–46) is inserted in the midst of the narratives dealing with Joseph’s rise to power in Egypt (chs. 39–41, 47) because of the way this final narrative resembles the story of Joseph and his brothers. Throughout those narratives the theme was repeatedly expressed that Joseph’s wisdom and administrative skills saved the life of his brothers and father. Thus at the beginning of the story, Jacob had told his sons to go down to Egypt to buy grain “that we may live and not die” (42:2). Then Judah, “in the second year” (45:6), told his father to let them return to Egypt “that we may live and not die” (43:8). Finally, when he revealed himself to them, Joseph told his brothers that God had sent him to Egypt “to save life” (45:5; NIV, “to save lives”).
In keeping with that emphasis, the present narrative opens with the statement of the Egyptians to Joseph as they seek to buy grain from him: “Why should we die before your eyes?” Then it continues with the account of their return to Joseph “the second year” (NIV, “the following year”), when they again said, “Why should we perish?” and then again, “that we may live and not die.” Such repetitions suggest that a thematic strategy is at work. First with his brothers and then with the Egyptians, Joseph’s wisdom is seen as the source of life for everyone in the land. Furthermore, through God’s wisdom given to this descendant of Abraham, the nations are receiving a blessing (cf. 12:2–3).
A further evidence of a distinct strategy behind the present narrative in ch. 47 can be seen in the ironic twist given the earlier narratives by the outcome of this chapter. The whole of the story of Joseph and his brothers began with Joseph being sold (37:28) into slavery (39:17) for twenty pieces of silver (37:28). Now, at the conclusion, Joseph is shown selling the whole of the land of Egypt into slavery and taking their “money” (v.18). In the end, because of the wisdom of Joseph, the offspring of Abraham became “fruitful,” “increased greatly in number,” and were dwelling safely and prosperously in the “region” of Goshen. Such a picture appears to be an obvious replication of the intended blessing of the early chapters of Genesis (1:28).
P. Jacob’s Deathbed (47:28–49:33)
1. Jacob’s burial instructions (47:28–31)
28 The initial impression from this verse is that the Jacob narratives are coming to a close, but such is not the case. Two crucial chapters remain. Verse 28 provides continuity within the Jacob narrative that had been broken into by the account of Joseph’s further rise to power (vv.13–27); it also moves the narratives to a new time frame, seventeen years later. Perhaps the underlying assumption is that by now the famine was over and Joseph’s position in Egypt has been well established.
29–31 As he approached death, Jacob’s only request was that he not be buried in the land of Egypt. The manner of the request alludes back to Abraham (cf. 24:2). As he approached death (24:1), Abraham did not want his son to take a wife from among the people in the land where he was then dwelling (24:3–4). In the same way, as Jacob approached death (v.29), he did not want to be buried among the Egyptians but with his fathers in his own land. The same theme is taken up in ch. 50, when Joseph makes his sons swear that they will carry his bones back to the Promised Land, a request carried out in Jos 24:32.
A central element of the covenant with Abraham was the promise of the land. The request of the patriarchs to be buried in the land “with their fathers” emphasizes their trust in the faithfulness of God to his word. Henceforth a key symbol of Israel’s faith in the promises of God is the bones of the faithful offspring that lie buried in the Promised Land. One other chapter of the Bible, Eze 37, with its prophecy of the “dry bones,” pays specific attention to this symbol.
As early as the rivalry between Leah, Judah’s mother, and Rachel, Joseph’s mother (ch. 30), the question of the preeminence of one of the brothers over the other has occupied a central role. In chs. 48 (the blessing of Joseph) and 49 (the blessing of Judah) the issue comes to a final resolution in the choice of one from the tribe of Judah who will reign over the rest of the brothers (49:8–10). Similarly in Eze 37 the prophet returns to the theme of the Joseph narratives and the rivalry between the brothers. There, as here, the brothers are reunited under the king from the tribe of Judah, David (Eze 37:15–17, 22–24).
2. Ephraim and Manasseh blessed (48:1–22)
The phrase “some time later” suggests an important break from the events that have preceded. Chapter 48 fittingly concludes the Joseph narratives. As in the earlier patriarchal narratives, the blessing of the father is passed along to the next generation. Two features stand out. First, as earlier, it was the younger son, Ephraim, who was blessed as the firstborn rather than the older, Manasseh (v.19), thus continuing the well-worn theme that the blessing did not follow the lines of natural descent or natural right. The blessing was a gift bestowed on those who could not claim it as a right. Second, the blessing recorded here is largely subordinated and superseded by the blessing of Jacob in ch. 49.
Curiously, Judah rather than Joseph ultimately gained preeminence among his brothers. As important as Joseph is in the structure of the Genesis narratives, his role is subordinate to that of Judah. Consequently, not the blessings of the sons of Joseph, but the blessing of Judah plays the dominant role in the continuing story of the promise and the blessing. From Judah comes the house of David, and from David comes the Messiah. Ephraim and Manasseh play an important role in the texts dealing with the divided northern kingdom, but the importance of that kingdom, which ultimately was exiled and lost in the Dispersion, pales quickly in the light of the rising star of David.
1–4 The frailty of Jacob foreshadowed that his life was drawing to a close. As soon as he saw Joseph and his two sons, however, Jacob was revived, and he prepared to bestow God’s blessing on the house of Joseph. Jacob’s recollection of God’s promise to him at Bethel (35:9–13) is significant. He repeated the Lord’s words almost verbatim; but in the minor alterations we can see not only Jacob’s assessment of the promise but also the writer’s perspective. As he had acknowledged in 35:9, so now Jacob recalled that God had “blessed him.” When he recounted what God had said, Jacob brought out a nuance to God’s words that helps clarify our understanding of the Lord’s promised blessing.
In 35:11 the Lord had said, “Be fruitful and increase in number. A nation and a community of nations will come from you.” In essence he was saying, “May you be fruitful and increase,” as in Ge 1:28. But as Jacob retold the story to Joseph here, he stressed that God was the one who would bring about all that had been promised: “I am going to make you fruitful and will increase your numbers. I will make you a community of peoples, and I will give this land as an everlasting possession to your descendants after you.” As he reflected back on the blessing and recounted it to his sons, Jacob brought out just that aspect of the blessing that had been the theme of the Joseph narratives: God ultimately will bring about all that he has promised.
A second nuance noticeable in Jacob’s recounting God’s promise of the land is that he again did so verbatim: “I will give this land . . . to your descendants after you” (cf. 35:11). But there is a significant addition to Jacob’s retelling. He has added “as an everlasting possession.” Only one other time is the promise of the land called an “everlasting possession” (17:8; cf. 13:15).
5–7 Ephraim and Manasseh were taken into the family of Jacob and were to be treated as his own. They, along with the other sons of Jacob, would inherit the promise of Abraham. Henceforth the families of Ephraim and Manasseh were counted among the sons of Jacob and later became two of the most important tribes of Israel. Later these two names became synonymous with the northern kingdom of Israel, which stood in bitter opposition to the kingdom of Judah.
The mention of Rachel and her burial site could be prompted by the fact that just as she had borne Jacob “two sons” (44:27, Joseph and Benjamin) at a time when he was about to enter (48:7) the land, so also Joseph had given Jacob “two sons” just at the time when he was about to enter Egypt. Such symmetry suggests that Ephraim and Manasseh are seen as replacements of Joseph and Benjamin, which furthers the sense of divine providence behind Jacob’s life.
Furthermore, Jacob’s recollection is virtually verbatim to that of the account of Rachel’s death in 35:16–19. Both passages stress the site of “Ephrath,” which is identified as Bethlehem. As in the earlier cases of the concern for the burial of the patriarchs in the Promised Land, Jacob’s mention of Rachel’s burial is tied to the promise that the land would be an “eternal possession” of the seed of Abraham, a reminder of the faithfulness of God to his covenant promise.
8–14 The blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh is recounted in great detail. In the account of Jacob’s blessing his sons (ch. 49), these two sons are not mentioned. In other words, the present account augments ch. 49. Great care is taken to emphasize that in the blessing of these two sons, Ephraim, the younger, was given the blessing of the firstborn (v.20b).
The first blessing (vv.15–16) appears to be of Joseph rather than the two sons (“Then he blessed Joseph,” v.15). In the blessing itself, however, reference is made to the “young sons” (v.16), and the blessing of Joseph ultimately focuses on them. Before Jacob went on to address the two sons specifically in the blessing, Joseph interrupted him, attempting to get his father to place his right hand on Manasseh rather than Ephraim, thus giving the right of the firstborn to Manasseh, the older son. After objecting to Joseph’s attempt (v.19), Jacob went on to bless the two sons specifically (“He blessed them,” v.20), thus giving Ephraim preeminence over Manasseh.
15–16 Jacob’s blessing is a storehouse of key thematic terms. God is identified as the “God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked.” Not only does the mention of Abraham and Isaac connect Jacob’s faith in God to his immediate forefathers, but it also helps tie together the faith of the earliest patriarchs in Genesis with that of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. At two earlier points in the book, the faith of the primeval patriarchs is described as those who “walked with God” (5:22, 24; 6:9). The faith of the early fathers was at one with that of the patriarchs—they walked with God.
God is also described as the “God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day” and as the “Angel who has delivered me from all harm.” It is unusual that God himself should be described as “the Angel,” since earlier in the book it is said that God sent “his angel” (24:7) or simply that one of the patriarchs was visited by “the angel of the LORD” (22:11).
The blessing of the two sons picks up the theme of the promise to Abraham. They are to be called by Jacob’s “name” and the “name” of Abraham and Isaac, just as God had promised Abraham: “I will make your name great” (12:2). They were to “increase greatly,” just as God had promised Abraham, “I will make you into a great nation” (12:2).
17–20 The central concern here is to underscore that Ephraim, the younger son, was given preeminence over Manasseh. Though nearly blind himself (v.10), Jacob appeared to be making the same mistake that his father, Isaac, had when Jacob deceived him in ch. 27. When Joseph attempted to correct him, he stated his intentions clearly: “His younger brother will be greater than he.” Why so much concern over whether Ephraim or Manasseh was put first, especially since neither Joseph nor his two sons but Judah received the preeminence? The issue of preeminence is meant to address the larger question that receiving the blessing offered by God does not rest with one’s natural status in the world. On the contrary, it is based solely on God’s grace. The one to whom the blessing did not belong has become heir of the promise.
21–22 Throughout these narratives Jacob has been pictured, not as a man of “sword and . . . bow,” but as “a quiet man, staying among the tents” (25:27). Elsewhere Jacob has said of the inhabitants of the land of Canaan, “If they join forces against me and attack me, I and my household will be destroyed” (34:30). Now, suddenly, on his deathbed, Jacob revealed another picture of himself as he bequeathed to Joseph the portion of land he had taken by force. Though he spoke to Joseph, his use of the plural pronouns (“with you,” pl. Heb.) shows that he was addressing a larger audience. That larger audience appears to be the house of Joseph that was to be represented in the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.
3. Jacob’s sons blessed (49:1–28)
1–2 Jacob’s last words to his sons are the occasion for a final statement of the book’s major theme: God’s plan to restore the lost blessing through the offspring of Abraham. The key to the writer’s understanding of Jacob’s last words lies in the narrative framework that surrounds them. We are explicitly told that Jacob was speaking about those things that would happen “in the last days” (NIV, “in days to come”; see also Nu 24:14–24; Dt 31:29). On all three occasions the subject matter introduced by the phrase “in days to come” is that of God’s future deliverance of his chosen people. At the center of that deliverance stands a king (Ge 49:10; Nu 24:7; Dt 33:5). In Ge 49 that king is connected with the house of Judah.
At the close of Jacob’s discourse (v.28), the writer draws a line connecting Jacob’s words in this chapter to the theme of “the blessing” that has been a central concern of the book since 1:28. He does this by repeating the word “blessing” (GK 1385) three times in the short span of v.28, which literally reads: “And he blessed them; each according to his blessing he blessed them.” Jacob’s last words look to the future—“in days to come”—and draw on the past—God’s blessing of humanity. The order of the sons follows roughly the order of the record of their birth (chs. 29–30). The sons of Leah lead the list, followed by the sons of the handmaidens, Bilhah, Zilpah, and again Bilhah, and then the sons of Rachel.
3–4 The key to the saying regarding Reuben is the statement “you will not excel” (NIV, “no longer excel”). The word “excel” (GK 3855) is a play on the two statements that have preceded it: “excelling in honor” and “excelling in power.” Though Reuben has excelled, he will no longer excel. The reason given is brief but to the point: “for you went up onto . . . my couch and defiled it” (cf. 35:22). Reuben no longer had the right of the firstborn because he violated the honor of his father (cf. 1Ch 5:1–2 for the right of the firstborn being transferred to Joseph).
5–7 Simeon and Levi are grouped together because they instigated the bloodshed against the city of Shechem (34:25). At that time Jacob protested vehemently against the two sons and their attack on the defenseless city (34:30). Here Jacob gave his final verdict on their action: the two tribes of Levi and Simeon would not have their own portion in the inheritance of the land. The fulfillment of Jacob’s words can be found in the facts that the tribe of Simeon virtually disappears from the biblical narratives after the time of the Conquest (because they “received their territory within the territory of Judah”; Jos 19:9) and the tribe of Levi was given the responsibility of the priesthood and hence received no inheritance in the apportioning of the land.
* Jacob’s name was symbolically changed to Israel when he wrestled with the divine visitor at Penial. As patriarch of the 12 tribes, he bequeathed his new name to the nation, which often was still poetically called “Jacob.”
** Levi was not Included among the tribes given land allotments following the conquest of Canaan (cf. Ge. 49:7). Instead, Moses set the Levltes apart for national priestly duty as belonging to the Lord (Nu. 3:1–4, 49). Joshua awarded them 48 towns scattered throughout Israel (Jos. 21:1–45).
*** Joseph became the father of two tribes in Israel since Jacob adopted his two sons Ephraim and Manasseh.
© 1985 The Zondervan Corporation
8–12 Having eliminated the older brothers as rightful heirs of the blessing, Jacob foretold a future for the tribe of Judah that pictured him as the preeminent son. We have seen that the right of the firstborn, according to Ge 48:5, belonged to Joseph (see above and 1Ch 5:1–2). Though not having the right of the firstborn, Judah had been chosen over all the others as the royal tribe. According to 1Ch 5:2, Judah “prevailed” (NIV, “was the strongest”) over his brothers and thus became heir to the throne (cf. Ps 78:67–68).
Unlike the imagery used of the other sons, the words of Jacob regarding Judah are transparent. Judah is described as a victorious warrior who returns home from battle and is greeted by the shouts of praise from his brothers. The parallelism of v.8 is extended by the statement “your father’s sons will bow down to you.” It is difficult not to see in this an intentional allusion to the dream of Joseph (37:10). What happened to the house of Joseph has been picked up by way of this image and transferred to the future house of Judah.
The image of the victorious warrior is extended with the picture of Judah as a “young lion” (NIV “lion’s cub”). The young lion is pictured as sleeping in its den after having just devoured its prey. The question at the end of v.9 speaks for itself. In v.10 the picture is filled out with a description of the young warrior as a king. He is the one who holds the “scepter” and the “ruler’s staff.” The point of Jacob’s words is that Judah will hold such a status among the tribes of Israel until one comes “to whom it belongs” (Heb. shiloh; cf. Eze 21:27).
The most startling aspect of the description of this one from the tribe of Judah comes next: “and the obedience of the nations is his.” The use of the plural word “nations” rather than the singular “nation” suggests that Jacob had in view a kingship that extended beyond the boundaries of the sons of Israel to include other nations as well. There may be an anticipation of this view in the promise of God to Jacob in 28:3 and 48:4: “I will make you a community of peoples.” In any case, later biblical writers were apparently guided by texts such as this in formulating their view of the universal reign of the future Davidic king (e.g., Ps 2:8; Dan 7:13–14; Rev 5:5, 9).
Verses 11–12 draw an extended picture of the reign of this one from the tribe of Judah. In his day there will again be plenty for everyone. Poetically this idea of plenitude is expressed with the images of the donkey tethered to the choicest of vines and clothing washed in vintage wine. The sense of the imagery is that wine, the symbol of prosperity and blessing, will be so plentiful that even the choicest vines will be put to such everyday use as tethering the animals of burden and vintage wine will be as commonplace as wash water. Verse 12 returns to the picture of the king of Judah. His eyes are darker than wine and his teeth whiter than milk. He is a picture of strength and power. Later writers drew heavily from the imagery of this short text in their portrayal of the reign of the coming Messiah (cf. Isa 63:1–6; Rev 19:11, 13, 15).
Jacob’s words regarding the remaining sons, with the exception of Joseph, are noticeable not only for their brevity, but also for their cryptic allusions to epic events that at the time lay yet in the future. The destinies of the remaining sons are, in most cases, based on a wordplay of the son’s name. The central theme uniting each image is that of prosperity. Just as the victorious king from the tribe of Judah will reign over all nations in a time of rich blessing, so also each of the remaining brothers will experience the same sort of prosperity and blessing.
13 Zebulun, whose boundaries in Jos 19:10–16 do not touch the sea, will extend its borders to the sea as far as Sidon. The Hebrew name Zebulun, which means “lofty abode,” has become a cipher for the extension of the Promised Land into the “far recesses” (NIV, “his border”) of Sidon. There is apparently an intended wordplay between “abode” and “abide” (NIV, “will live”).
14–15 Issachar, whose name is a play on the word “wages” (cf. 30:18), is pictured as a strong donkey who sees that his land of rest is good and applies his back to the burden. The expression “he sees how good is his resting place” is perhaps an allusion to ch. 1, where the similar expression—“and God saw that it was good”—is a constant reminder that God’s purpose in Creation was to provide the “good” for humankind. The use of the term “resting place” or “land of rest” aligns the words of Jacob with the theme of the future rest that God will give his people in the Promised Land (cf. Ps 95:11).
16–18 Dan, whose name is a play on the expression “he will judge,” is the one who will judge his people. He is likened to a snake along the path that attacks the heels of the horse and cunningly defeats the horseman. Though the sense of the image itself is unclear, Jacob’s final words regarding Dan show that the image was meant in a positive way: “I look for your deliverance, O LORD” (v.18). Breaking in, as it does, on the increasingly terse poetic images, this expression of hope in the Lord’s deliverance provides the much-needed clue to the meaning of Jacob’s words. In the individual and future destiny of the sons is embodied the hope of all Israel. That hope is of a future prosperity for the nation and a future victory over their enemies. At the center of that hope is the king from the tribe of Judah.
19 The brief statement regarding Gad contains a wordplay on nearly every word: “Gad [gad] will be attacked [yegudennu] by a band of raiders [gedud], but he will attack [yagud] them at their heels.” Again, though it is very brief, the saying falls in line with the others, following in the path of the prophecy regarding Judah in that it gives expression to the hope of the final defeat of the enemy.
20 The statement regarding Asher has no clear wordplays, and its meaning is self-evident. In the future Asher’s sons will enjoy great abundance and rich delicacies.
21 The words regarding Naphtali are also brief. The picture they present, which is similar to the others, is of a time of great future prosperity and abundance.
22–26 Jacob has much to say about the future of the tribe of Joseph. In substance Jacob’s statements repeat much of what was said about the other brothers after Judah. The difference, however, is the repetition of the word “blessing.” Whereas Jacob’s words regarding the other brothers paint a picture of the future well-being of the sons and thus figuratively speak of a future blessing, Jacob’s words to Joseph explicitly refer to this future well-being as a “blessing.” These words to Joseph, therefore, fall in line with all those earlier passages that speak specifically of the promised “blessing” and prepare the way for the final remarks about Jacob’s words in v.28: “he blessed them; each according to his blessing, he blessed them” (lit. tr.). The reference to the “Shepherd” in v.24 appears to be an allusion to Jacob’s earlier blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh (48:15).
27 The picture of Benjamin is similar to that of Judah. Both depict the patriarch’s future in terms expressing a victorious conquest over the enemy. In both the conqueror is a vicious predator, the lion and the wolf. The stark simplicity of these words to Benjamin, however, brings out the sense of sudden victory and conquest in much stronger terms than the imagery of Judah.
28 The writer sums up Jacob’s words to his sons. They are an expression of the theme of the blessing that was to be passed along through the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Within Jacob’s words to each son (after Judah), the theme of blessing has been evident in two primary images. First, the reverse side of the blessing is stressed in the imagery of the victorious warrior. The defeat of the enemy is the prelude to the messianic peace. Second, the positive side of the blessing is stressed in the imagery of great prosperity and abundance. Behind such imagery is the Garden of Eden—the Paradise lost. The focus of Jacob’s words has been the promise that when the one comes to whom the kingship truly belongs (v.10), there will once again be the peace and prosperity that God intended all to have in the Garden of Eden.
4. Jacob’s burial instructions repeated (49:29–33)
29–33 As he lay dying, Jacob once more made a request that his sons bury him in the Land of Promise with his fathers. The specific place he had in mind was “Machpelah,” the burial place purchased by Abraham in ch. 23. Although Jacob had made a similar request earlier (47:29–30), this final one was far more specific. He wanted to be buried with Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebekah, and Leah. The request renews our awareness of the promise of the land—that Jacob’s seed would live in peace in the land promised to Abraham and Isaac. Jacob’s faith in God’s promises remained firm to the end. With such an expression on his lips, “he . . . breathed his last and was gathered to his people.”
Q. Jacob’s Death and Burial (50:1–14)
1–14 Over half of the final chapter is occupied with a description of the mourning for and burial of Jacob. Joseph himself mourned and then the Egyptians. Great preparations were made both by Joseph and the Egyptians. A special request was granted by the Pharaoh to bury Jacob in his homeland, and a large entourage was provided as a burial procession to carry Jacob’s body back to Canaan. “All Pharaoh’s officials . . . and all the dignitaries of Egypt” along with Pharaoh’s chariots and horsemen accompanied Joseph on his journey back to Canaan. Even the Canaanites recognized this as “a very large [lit., heavy; NIV, solemn] ceremony of mourning.”
Why such detail over the burial of Jacob when the deaths of the other patriarchs are simply recounted in the bare facts that they died and were buried? Even the account of the death of Joseph consists only of the brief notice that he died and was embalmed and entombed in Egypt (v.26). It is appropriate to seek a motive for such an emphasis within the narrative.
The writer has been focusing on God’s faithfulness to his promise of the land and on the hope of God’s people in the eventual return to the land. In later prophetic literature, a recurring image of the fulfillment of the promise to return to the land pictures returning Israel accompanied by many from among the nations. The prophets of Israel saw the return as a time when “all the nations will stream to” Jerusalem, and “many peoples will come and say, ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob’ ” (Isa 2:2–3; Zec 8:23).
It is difficult not to see the same imagery at work in the present narrative. Jacob, in his final return to the Land of Promise, was accompanied by a great congregation of the officials and elders of the land of Egypt. With him also was the mighty army of the Egyptians. Thus the story of Jacob’s burial in the land foreshadows the time when God “will bring Jacob back from captivity and will have compassion on all the people of Israel” (Eze 39:25).
VII. The Final Joseph Narrative (50:15–26)
A. Joseph’s Forgiveness (50:15–21)
15–21 The narrative turns once more to the scene of Joseph and his brothers and to the central theme of the Joseph narratives: “You intended to harm [lit., evil; GK 8288] me, but God intended it for good . . . [to] the saving of many lives.” Behind all the events and human plans recounted in the story of Joseph lies the unchanging plan of God. It is the same plan introduced from the very beginning of the book, where God looks at what he has just created for humankind and sees that “it is good” (1:4–31). Through his dealings with the patriarchs and Joseph, God had continued to bring about his good plan. He had remained faithful to his purposes.
The last description of Joseph’s dealings with his brothers is the statement that “he comforted [NIV, reassured; GK 5714] them and spoke kindly to them.” It is again difficult not to see in this picture a foreshadowing of the future community of the sons of Israel in exile awaiting their return to the Promised Land (cf. Isa 40:1–2).
B. Summary of Joseph’s Life and Death (50:22–26)
22–26 Though his words are few, the final statement of Joseph to his sons gives the clearest expression of the kind of hope taught in these narratives. As had his father Jacob, Joseph wanted his bones returned to the Promised Land. Also like Jacob, he saw to it that his sons swore to return his bones when they returned to the land. Though he knew he would die and not see the time when his sons returned to the land, he nevertheless expressed clearly the hope and trust that he had in God’s promise: “God will surely come to your aid and take you up out of this land to the land he promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” As has been characteristic of the literary technique of the Joseph narratives, Joseph repeated a second time (cf. 41:32) his statement of trust in God’s promise: “God will surely come to your aid, and then you must carry my bones up from this place.”
The book of Genesis ends with the Israelites “in Egypt.” The narrative, however, does not end here. As in earlier segments of the book, the death of the patriarch is followed immediately in the next book by a list of names that begins a narrative of the events in the lives of the next generations (cf. Ge 50:26–Ex 1:5 with Ge 35:29–36:43).
The Old Testament in the New
| OT Text | NT Text | Subject |
| Ge 1:3 | 2Co 4:6 | Creation of light |
| Ge 1:27 | Mt 19:4; Mk 10:6 | Creation of humans |
| Ge 2:2 | Heb 4:4 | God rested the seventh day |
| Ge 2:7 | 1Co 15:45 | Creation of Adam |
| Ge 2:24 | Mt 19:5; Mk 10:7; 1Co 6:16; Eph 5:31 | Institution of marriage |
| Ge 5:2 | Mt 19:4; Mk 10:6 | Creation of humans |
| Ge 12:1 | Ac 7:3 | Call of Abraham |
| Ge 12:3 | Gal 3:8 | Gospel to Abraham |
| Ge 13:15 | Gal 3:16 | Offspring of Abraham |
| Ge 14:18–20 | Heb 7:17, 21 | Melchizedek |
| Ge 15:5 | Ro 4:18 | Offspring of Abraham |
| Ge 15:6 | Ro 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6; Jas 2:23 | Faith of Abraham |
| Ge 15:13–14 | Ac 7:6–7 | Prophecy to Abraham |
| Ge 17:5 | Ro 4:17 | Abraham as a father of many |
| Ge 18:10, 14 | Ro 9:9 | Promise for Sarah |
| Ge 18:18 | Gal 3:8 | Gospel to Abraham |
| Ge 21:10 | Gal 4:30 | Expulsion of Ishmael |
| Ge 21:12 | Ro 9:7; Heb 11:18 | God’s choice of Isaac |
| Ge 22:17 | Heb 6:14 | God’s oath to Abraham |
| Ge 22:18 | Ac 3:25 | Nations blessed in Abraham |
| Ge 24:7 | Gal 3:16 | Offspring of Abraham |
| Ge 25:23 | Ro 9:12 | God’s choice of Jacob |
| Ge 26:4 | Ac 3:25 | Nations blessed in Abraham |