Genesis

Introduction

The English title “Genesis” comes from the Hebrew word beresit and from the Greek word geneseos—from the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible), meaning “in the beginning.” Genesis is the first book of the Torah, which was written by Moses after the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt. Though many dispute Moses as the author of the Torah, the Bible affirm his authorship (Ex. 17:14; 24:4; Num. 33:1-2; Deut. 31:9; Josh. 1:8; 2 Kgs. 21:8). Jesus Christ also attributed authorship to Moses (Matt. 19:8; Mk. 7:10; Lk. 18:29-31; 20:37; 24:27; Jn. 7:19).^[1]

Setting

Although Genesis starts at the beginning of creation and tells about the origins of humanity, sin, the nation of Israel, and redemption, its audience and reason for being written are established much later. The book of Genesis was written by Moses to the people of Israel after they had just escaped about a couple hundred years of slavery in Egypt (Ex. 14). Not only had they been slaves to the Egyptians, but also to the pagan gods, for many of them had been worshiping the pagan gods of Egypt. After their escape, Yahweh brought them to Mount Sinai, where He gave them His Law and began preparing them to enter the Promised Land. Moses wrote and gave Genesis to the Hebrews to explain Yahweh’s uniqueness from all other gods, their origins as a people, and how He had chosen them to be His nation. Genesis tells of the origins of creation, humanity, and sin. However, its focus is on the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Judah and how Yahweh used them to bring about the nation of Israel and, later, the redemption of creation and humanity.

Purpose

Genesis was written in order to reveal the character of Yahweh to the family of Abraham whom He had chosen to restore back to the image of God so that He could bless them in a covenant relationship with Himself and that they would be blessing to the world. Genesis reveals Yahweh as one who is sovereign over and transcends His creation, yet He enters it to initiate a relationship with His people. Thus, Genesis’ primary focus is that Yahweh is faithful to His promises and powerful enough to bring them to fulfillment.^[2]

Genesis’ purpose is communicated through three main events. First, Yahweh reveals Himself as the sole and sovereign creator of the universe in which He places His crowning achievement—humanity, made as His image—in order to represent Himself and be in a relationship with Him. This is, in the second event, ruined through humanity’s rebellion against His law, which casts creation and humanity into a fallen state, separated from their sovereign creator. However, Yahweh does not abandon His creation or representatives; through the Abrahamic Covenant—the third event—He initiates the foundation of redeeming both His creation and humanity. Thus it is the Abrahamic Covenant established in Genesis that becomes the seed from which the redemption of the Kingdom of Yahweh and His image grows through the rest of the Bible and finds its fulfillment in His Son, Jesus Christ.

“His theological perspective can be summarized in two points. First, the author intends to draw a line connecting the God of the Fathers and the God of the Sinai covenant with the God who created the world. Second, the author intends to show that the call of the patriarchs and the Sinai covenant have as their ultimate goal the reestablishment of God’s original purpose in Creation.”^[3]

Themes

Many themes are developed throughout the book of Genesis, but the main ones have to do with the revealing of Yahweh’s character and the development of His relationship with humanity and the descendants of Abraham.

The Sovereign and Personal Yahweh

The first and foremost concept that is pervasive in the Bible is that Yahweh is the only transcendent and the sovereign Creator over creation. Genesis begins by stating that Yahweh has always existed and is Creator of all things. Because He is Creator of all things, that makes Him sovereign over all things. Thus Yahweh has the right to determine what is right and wrong and to guide and discipline His creation according to His standard. Yahweh is also portrayed as transcendent from His creation. Unlike the pagan gods of the ancient Near East, who were gods of nature and the elements, Yahweh is self-existent (Ex. 3:14); He has no origins and is separate from His creation. Nothing that happens in the creation affects Him in His being, nor is He dependent upon any other being or thing, thus He cannot be compared to anything in creation. Yahweh establishes His transcendent sovereignty in speaking all of creation into existence (Gen. 1) and by establishing order and function in creation by which all living things must abide. When humanity violated Yahweh’s order and moral law, He justly punished them by casting them out of the garden of life and its blessing (Gen. 3), cleansing the earth of sin through the flood (Gen. 7), and scattering those who united in rebellion against Him (Gen. 11). He then demonstrated to the patriarchs His limitless power over creation—from defeating enemies in battle (Gen. 14:13-17, 15:1) to bringing life to the lifeless wombs of Sarah (Gen. 17:19; 18:9-12; 21:1-3), Rebecca (Gen. 25:21-26), Leah, and Rachel (Gen. 29:31-32; 30:22-24).

Yet at the same time, Yahweh is passionately concerned for and intimately involved in His creation. He chooses to step into space, time, and matter and involve Himself in the affairs of human history. He is fully personal and has made Himself knowable to humanity. Genesis begins with Yahweh creating a garden so that humanity could dwell with Him in a loving relationship and be blessed. Even when humanity sinned against Him, He continued to pursue them in order to redeem and restore the relationship. It was Yahweh, not humans, who pursued a relationship and redemption after Adam and Eve sinned in the garden (Gen. 3:8-10, 21), after Cain murdered his brother (Gen. 4:6-16), when the world could think and do only evil (Gen. 8:1), and when humanity unified against Him (Gen. 11:1-11). Then, despite all of this, He still revealed Himself to Abraham in order to bless him and the whole world through him (Gen. 12:1-3). And no matter how many times the patriarchs failed to obey and screwed things up, Yahweh kept using them because of His unfailing love for humanity and His desire to redeem them back into a relationship with Himself.

The Hebrew word hesed means an “unfailing love, undeserved love, loving kindness.” So far, this root word has not been found in any ancient Near Eastern text outside of the Bible, whereas hesed and its related words occur 275 times in Scripture. It is the idea of someone being given favor to which they do not have the right by someone who does not have to give that favor. It has special covenantal language.^[4] Often associated with the word hesed is the Hebrew word aman, which means “to be stable, reliable, secure.”

This idea of a transcendent and personal God is radically different from any worldview of the cultures of the ancient Near East and even today. The Greeks conceived of an unknowable being completely separate from the material realm but could not conceive of this being as knowable or personal. The religions of the rest of the world conceived of gods that were personal but were merely the forces of nature made to look like humans. Therefore, they were flawed and lacked true power to alter creation or history. The impersonal transcendence of the Greek gods had no authority or power to sway or change the human heart toward moral truth or toward loving and just action. The limited personalities of the nature gods were not only incapable of escaping their own destinies but were incapable of entering into meaningful relationships with their worshipers.^[5]

The Bible succeeds in doing what no other theological document has ever done in describing a completely transcendent God who is also personal and fully involved in His creation. His entering into creation is seen in His direct, intelligent, and verbal communication to human individuals.^[6] Yahweh is the only God among all the religions who enters into creation and unceasingly pursues humans in a relationship no matter how much they sin and violate His righteous standards.

Yahweh as a Covenantal God

A covenant is a binding relationship between two people or groups wherein each has responsibilities to the other. Thus both are blessed by the other when they fulfill their covenant responsibilities. A covenant can be conditional, wherein if one does not honor the requirements, the covenant dissolves. Or it can be unconditional, wherein it does not matter whether one violates the covenant; the other party will maintain their covenant promises.

Yahweh established a covenant with humanity when He placed them in the garden as His image bearers. As His image bearers, they were to represent His character and establish His moral rule on earth by expanding His kingdom across the earth (Gen. 1:26-28). As a blessing, they would get to dwell in a good relationship with Him and experience life and blessings to the fullest in the garden. Yahweh was willing to bind Himself to humanity in a relationship with them. Having become covenant partners with Yahweh, they not only belonged exclusively to Him but were expected to live in a way that reflected His holy character (Lev. 22:31-33). Because there is only one holy being, there is only one holy character.

However, humanity violated this covenant (Gen. 3), so they lost the right to rule on His behalf and dwell with Him in the garden, and suffering and death ensued. Gen. 3–11 traces the escalation of humanity’s horrific sin and rebellion and the hardness of their hearts toward Yahweh and His righteous character.

It is through Abraham that Yahweh chose to restore His covenant relationship with humanity and thus their ability to dwell with Him. Yahweh established a covenant with Abraham (Gen.15), wherein He promised to bless him and the whole world through him (Gen. 12:1-3). It is through this covenant that Yahweh revealed His attributes and character of love, mercy, justice, and more. He continued to develop this covenant with Abraham until it became finalized and unconditional—when Abraham demonstrated his faith through his willingness to offer up his only son to Yahweh (Gen. 22). It is here that Yahweh forever bound Himself unconditionally to the descendants of Abraham, promising to maintain a relationship with them. It is this covenant that became the foundation for every other covenant that Yahweh established and for His plan of redemption for all humanity, developed throughout the rest of the Bible. No matter how much Israel sinned and violated the covenant, Yahweh was faithful to pursue them and bring them back into a relationship with Himself. Finally, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit made it possible for all people to begin to be restored back into the covenant relationship with Yahweh that had been lost in the garden (Gen. 3).

These ideas—of a sovereign creator and of a relational and covenantal God—can be seen in the name of God, Yahweh. Though the name Yahweh will not be officially given to Israel and defined until Ex. 3:13-14, Moses as the author of the Torah inserts it all throughout Genesis to communicate to Israel, which was just brought out of Egypt, that the God who appeared before them is the same God who created the universe, who called Abraham, and who made a covenant and promises to the patriarchs. The context of Ex. 3:13-15 defines the meaning of Yahweh with three core ideas.^[7] First, by stating that He is “I AM,” He makes it clear not just that He exists but that He has always and will always exist (Isa. 6:3; Rev. 1:8; 4:8). Second, because He is coming to Moses to begin the deliverance of Israel by dominating Pharaoh and the Egyptian gods, He establishes Himself as the same sovereign creator God over all creation. Third, by the fact that Yahweh keeps responding to Moses’ doubts with “I AM with you,” He defines Himself as the ever-present helper who is always with them. And fourth, because He is revealing Himself to Israel and is coming to deliver them out of Egypt and into the Promised land, He is honoring the promises He made to Abraham in His covenant. Therefore, He is the only faithful covenantal God.

Moses uses this name throughout the Torah, as do the other authors of Scripture throughout the entire First Testament, to communicate to the readers that this is the only, unique, sovereign God of the universe who makes and keeps His covenants with humanity. This is the name that no other being has nor can have, for it describes only one God—the God of the Bible and Israel—and so this is the name used throughout this commentary.

Promises and Blessing

The core of Genesis is the concept of divine promises and blessings. Unlike all the other gods, Yahweh created a garden for humanity so that they might dwell with Him and that He might bless them with life to the fullest. The fullest blessings for humanity are found in Gen. 1:28 with the blessings and commands of being fruitful and multiplying, subduing the earth, and having dominion over the animals. One or more of these is present in every episode of Gen. 1–11.^[8]

After the disobedience of Adam and Eve, they were cast from the garden to experience suffering and death. Instead of being fruitful and multiplying, humans would have painful childbirth, hindering reproduction (Gen. 3:16a). Instead of filling the earth easily, they would be hindered by death (Gen. 5). Then there is a reduction in the human population to eight people through the flood (Gen. 8:18) and by humanity’s refusal, at the Tower of Babylon, to fill the earth (Gen. 11:4b). The subduing of the earth is made difficult by the curse on the land (Gen. 3:17-19), by humanity’s return to the dust in death (Gen. 3:19), and by the earth’s being cleansed in the flood; there is no mention of subduing the earth at the Tower of Babylon. The serpent was the first animal to oppose humans (Gen. 3:1-5), which creates conflict between humanity and creation (Gen. 3:15). Animals become human food (Gen. 9:3). Because of sin, humanity lost the blessings of Yahweh; yet despite this, He keeps pursuing them in a desire to bless them.

In Genesis 12–50, with the patriarchs, the command to multiply and have dominion is transformed into Yahweh’s promises of nationhood and land possession (Gen. 12:1-3). Yahweh made these promises to Abraham with the desire to bless him and to bless the entire world through Abraham and his descendants. All the nations that failed to receive the blessings of Yahweh at the Tower of Babylon because of their disobedience would find their fulfillment in the family of Abraham. Yahweh continued to pursue and appear to each patriarch, reiterating His promises to them despite their actions continuing to threaten the fulfillment of His promises.

Throughout Genesis, each family was crippled by infertility, and they never became more than a small family, let alone a great nation. By the end of Genesis, all that the patriarchs had of the Promised Land was a few wells they had dug (Gen. 21:17-19) and a gravesite Abraham had purchased (Gen. 23:17-19). They were also foreigners in Egypt, and Joseph had confiscated other people’s lands and enslaved their people for the foreign kingdom of Egypt, making it great instead. The reader is left with the understanding that human will and sin hinder the blessings of Yahweh. Yet there is a hope and expectation in the character of Yahweh that His promises will be fulfilled in the succeeding books.

Structure

The structure of Genesis is based on the repeating Hebrew word toledot, which comes from the root word yld, meaning “to bear children” (i.e., “generation). Yet what follows is far more than a genealogy—more of a story or an account of that family. Based on the context then, a better understanding of the word would be “this is the account of.” The word toledot occurs ten times in Genesis as a heading or introduction to a new division in the book and introduces the subject matter of what is to come. Each toledot begins with a name of a person (except for the first), introduces a genealogy, and then gives the account of the people who follow that person. The account is not about the person mentioned in the toledot but about what comes after or from them. For example, the account (toledot) of Terah is not about Terah but about what (who) he produced: Abraham.

Introduction (1:1–2:3)

The account of sky and land (2:4–4:26)

The account of Adam (5:1–6:8)

The account of Noah (6:9–9:29)

The account of the sons of Noah (10:1–11:9)

The account of Shem (11:10-26)

The account of Terah (11:27–25:11)

The account of Ishmael (25:12-18)

The account of Isaac (25:19–35:29)

The account of Esau (36:1-43)

The account of Jacob (37:1–50:26)

Genesis is divided into two main narrative divisions: Gen. 1–11 and Gen. 12–50. In Gen. 1–2 the author establishes the uniqueness of Yahweh as a creator who creates an orderly universe for Himself to dwell with humanity. Yahweh is the unique and sovereign King who formed and filled His good creation and gave rule to His image so that He might dwell with them and they might expand His kingdom. However, in Gen. 3–11 humanity chose to rebel against Yahweh and thus brought disorder into the universe. Gen. 3–11 makes the argument that Yahweh kept giving humans the chance to do the right thing with His good creation and to expand His kingdom. Yet humans kept ruining His creation through their sin. Thus humanity is hopeless and in serious need of redemption if they are going to become what they have lost.

The second division, Gen. 12–50, zooms in and tells the story of the family of Abraham. The two main divisions are linked together by a hinge story (Gen. 12:1-3) in which Yahweh comes to Abraham and promises to give him a land and to make him into a great nation so that He can bless the whole world through Abraham’s descendants. Gen. 12–25 tells the story of how Yahweh chose, revealed Himself to, and made a covenant with Abraham in order to redeem the world through Abraham’s seed. Gen. 25–50 tells how Yahweh kept honoring His promise to Abraham by continually working through his descendants—Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Judah—even though they were not much better than the rest of humanity. Thus, despite how “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23), Yahweh establishes His plan of redemption in the family of Abraham, a plan that will continue to be developed throughout the rest of the Torah and Scripture.

The main narrative divisions of Genesis become increasingly complex in plot, characterization, and theology.^[9] In the primeval history (Gen. 1–11), Yahweh is always present and is the primary character and initiator in the stories. The individual episodes are relatively self-contained, there is little to no character development, and the plot is not very complex. In these stories, morality and justice are very black and white.

In the Abraham story (Gen. 12–25), the stories are more complex in their telling but still feel episodic. Each episode still feels disconnected from the previous, though there is a sense of chronology and themes being developed. Yahweh is not as directly present or active in the story, appearing to Abraham only a few times. The story progresses by human initiative rather than by divine decree. As human characters become more independant, Yahweh becomes less anthropomorphic. Each character is rounder and more dynamic, and the actions of the characters are more morally gray and ambiguous, requiring the readers to become more engaged in their evaluation.

The Jacob story (Gen. 25–36) is less episodic and more integrated from act to act. Jacob is far more complex and ambiguous in his characterization than Abraham is. Yahweh appears even less frequently in the Jacob story, appearing to him only a couple of times in visions, than He did with Abraham.

The story of Jacob’s family (Gen. 37–50) is the most continuous story (not episodic at all), emphasizing the human condition more than any other division in Genesis. Joseph is the dominant character, surpassing Yahweh in character development. Joseph is the most developed and enigmatic character of Genesis. Yahweh never appears to anyone in the story. And compared to Gen. 1–11, the divinely omnipresent and morally unambiguous Yahweh is replaced in Gen. 37–50 with divine reticence and human ambivalence.

Outline

I. The Primeval Events (1:1–11:26)

Genesis 1–11 provides an introduction to the book of Genesis and to the Torah as a whole. These chapters explain not only the beginning of creation but the beginning and spread of sin throughout Yahweh’s creation and humanity. They also show that this was not His desire for His creation. Genesis reveals that Yahweh is different from all other gods, and thus His purpose for creation is different from that of all the other gods.

The point of Genesis 1–11 is that Yahweh is the sovereign king who formed and filled His good creation and gave rule to His image so that they may expand His kingdom. After the fall, Yahweh kept giving humans the chance to do the right thing with His good creation and to expand His kingdom. Yet humans kept ruining His creation through their sin.

Genesis 1–11 tells of how from the very beginning humanity resisted Him despite how He intervened and pursued them. It establishes the reason for Yahweh’s choosing one man, Abraham, to make into a great nation, through whom He would redeem the world back to Himself and restore His creation back to its original purpose.

The structure of the primeval history of Genesis forms an alternating structure wherein the events of Gen. 1:1–6:8 parallel the events of Gen. 6:9–11:32.^[10]

A. The Creation of the Sky and Land (1:1–2:3)

The creation account begins with Yahweh as the only thing that exists and who brings all things into existence. The main point is that because Yahweh is order and is good, everything that He creates has order and is good. Thus, because Yahweh is the creator of all things and is good, He is the only one worthy of humanity’s devotion.

Other ancient Near Eastern creation accounts are usually poetic, but Genesis 1:1–2:3 is not typical Hebrew poetry as there is no hymnic element in the language.^[11] This means it is prose narrative of straightforward, factual, and direct language. However, Genesis 1 syntax is distinctively different from normal Hebrew narrative prose; it is an elevated prose.^[12] This means there is a type of poetic element within that gives the creation account an elevated sense of importance and even mystery, yet there is enough of a historical narrative that makes the creation account historically real. Cassuto observes that “it is simpler to suppose…the special importance of the subject led to an exaltation of style approaching the level of poetry.”^[13]

This puts the Genesis creation account in a whole new category of genre that cannot be so easily interpreted. As one reads the creation account and the numbering of the days, the sense of chronology makes it clear that what is recorded truly did happen. Yet the language is far more metaphorical, with a sense of mystery, than it is scientific, and there are many gaps in how things were created. This leads to the conclusion that Genesis did not intend to explain how the world was created but who created the world and what its purpose is. The people of the ancient Near East were not interested in cosmogony—how the world came to exist—but rather in cosmology—how the universe as a whole is organized and how it works. The creation accounts of the ancient Near East and of the Bible are interested in how the universe is structured, and they explain aspects of our present reality, like why there are seasons or why animals act in the ways they do. Modern science is interested in how things came to be and how they work. Thus the Bible does what science will never be able to do: answers questions of purpose and meaning. Religion and science are, therefore, not opposed; rather, they are answering two completely different questions. We go to the Bible and find that, unlike all the other religions, Yahweh is a sovereign and loving God and has created humanity with a purpose. We go to science to understand how the world was created by Yahweh and then stand in awe of how it works. We must not try to force either the Bible or science to do what it was not meant to do. Yahweh is the author of both the Bible and science, and they both declare the glory of Yahweh in different ways.

We can never imagine that any human scientific observation or any human language could even begin to understand and communicate the technical nature or the mystery of how the infinite and transcendent God of creation brought everything into existence and structured it. The main point of Genesis 1 is that Yahweh is the creator and orderer of creation. So, although the text may not be a scientific refutation against evolution, it is a theological refutation against evolution. For in evolution, there is no design or meaning to creation and matter—just spirals through space and time with no direction or purpose. Life and humans are just random acts of chance. But the Bible gives a completely different picture of an intelligent and intentional God who created with purpose, order, and design and gave humans free choice, great value, and dignity as the image of God.

The primary purpose of this creation account was, therefore, not to give a scientific explanation of the origin of creation but to refute the pagan understanding of the origin of creation at the hands of the pagan gods. Genesis 1 reveals to those Israelites coming out of Egypt—after centuries steeped in a pagan worldview of creation and worship of the pagan gods—that the God who delivered them from Egypt was able to do so, first, because He is the one true sovereign creator over all creation, and, second, because He desired to save them because He created humans with love as His image to have value and purpose.

Because communication requires a common cultural vernacular, Yahweh communicated His creation account with the same structure and imagery of the pagan myths. However, Genesis 1 does not adopt the pagan theology; instead, it clearly proclaims that Yahweh is drastically different from all other gods and philosophies. There is a great power, order, beauty, and mystery to the universe that He created, leaving one in awe of this God, which can lead only to falling before Him in praise. The similarities create connection and understanding for the original audience, but the differences set the two apart as completely distinct. Thus one needs to understand the worldview and culture behind the ancient Near Eastern creation accounts and the way the people of the ancient Near East viewed the world in order to understand the ethos of the Bible and especially the Genesis 1 creation account.^[14] It is these similarities and differences that will be highlighted in the following commentary on Genesis 1.

What is also unique about Gen. 1:1–2:3 is that it is not an “account” (toledot) but an introduction to all the other “accounts” (toledots). Therefore, this is not the beginning of the story that Yahweh wants to tell but the introduction that sets the stage for the story He wants to tell. He must first establish how He and His creation are unique to all other gods and all other creation accounts before He can tell the story/account that He wants to tell.

1:1 “In the beginning” refers to the beginning of the creation as we know it and affirms that it is entirely the product of the creation of Yahweh. The Hebrew word beresit (“beginnings”) does not necessarily mean the beginning of something specific, as in the English language. The unique function of the term refers to an initial period or duration, rather than a specific point in time.^[15] This can be seen in the use of the word in Job 8:7 and Jer. 28:1, where it refers to the beginning of a certain period in a person’s life, not the exact or specific point of the person becoming alive. Thus this “beginning” is not a specific point in time at which everything began but the beginning of a certain period of time in the beginning part of the story that Yahweh is about to tell.

The word God comes from the Hebrew word ’elohim and is not always translated as “God” in the Bible. The Hebrew word ’elohim, refers to any spiritual and disembodied being that is not restricted to the material realm. The word ’elohim is used for angels (Ps. 8:5; 89:6), the pagan gods of the nations (Ex. 12:12; 1 Kgs. 11:33), demons (Deut. 32:17), and the spirits of the dead (1 Sam. 28:12-14), all of whom have no physical body.^[16] But of the more than 2,500 times in the First Testament, the overwhelming majority of the usages refer to the one true God, Yahweh (Gen. 2:4; Deut. 5:6; Ps. 42:2; Jer. 10:10a). The word ’elohim is not the name of God but is a word or title to describe the nature of His being as a spiritual being. The word ’elohim is a grammatically plural noun. The im ending is a masculine plural ending. It can be singular or plural, determined by the word agreement of the words surrounding it. It is similar to the word jeans, which always has a plural ending but can be used in the singular or plural. The noun ’elohim is plural, but it is always used with a singular verb when it speaks of the one true God.

It is clear from the context that the use of ’elohim in Gen. 1–2 refers to the one true God of the Bible. The phrase “in the beginning God (’elohim) created” states quite clearly that God was the one who existed long before He began to create anything else in the universe and long before this story of Genesis ever began. The rest of Genesis makes it clear that this ’elohim is responsible for the existence of all things in creation, which is true of no other god in the ancient world.

In the pagan accounts of creation, the gods are not eternal but come into existence at a specific point in time. The pagan myths also tell of their demise and deaths through heavenly wars or humanity’s forgetting them. They are also portrayed as being a part of creation and nature. Therefore, what happens to the one affects the other. However, Yahweh is portrayed as eternal, past and future, and His existence is not dependent on the belief of humanity (Neh. 9:6; Job 41:11; Ps. 102:25; Heb. 11:3; Rev. 1:8). Yahweh is transcendent, above His creation. What is done to the creation is not automatically what happens to Yahweh in His being. Though He is emotionally and relationally affected by creation, He is not ontologically affected in His essence.

The Israelites had just come out of Egypt, where they had been worshiping other ’elohim for a couple hundred years. In contrast, they had just witnessed this ’elohim of Moses deliver them with miraculous plagues of nature. The first major point (there are four discussed in this section) Yahweh is making about Himself is that this God (’elohim) has no origin and therefore is far superior to the finite gods. Since He has no origin, then He is supreme above all things and has no limits in His understanding and abilities. Therefore, He is capable of doing what no other gods can do—as demonstrated in the plagues of Egypt and the exodus. This sets the stage for His ability to bring creation into existence and rule supremely over it.

The verb for “create” (bara) is used in the Bible exclusively for the activity of Yahweh and describes His activity of creating something new, fresh, good, and perfect (Ps. 51:10; Isa. 43:15; 65:17). Only Yahweh can create something new and unique that no one has ever seen or thought about. The God of Israel is always the subject of bara in the Bible, and it is never used of the pagan gods. Contrary to common belief, the verb does not describe something created out of nothing, for when it is used, it never is mentioned what Yahweh created out of. See Gen. 1:27, where it refers to the creation of humanity, and Isa. 43:15, where it refers to Israel as a nation. Though the word does not communicate the idea of creating out of nothing, it is clear from the overall thrust of Gen. 1 that only Yahweh has this ability (John 1:3; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 11:3).

The phrase “heavens and earth” should be understood as “sky and land.” The Hebrew word used for “heaven” (shamayim) is the same word used for “sky” in Gen. 1:8. Like the word ’elohim, the word shamayim is also a grammatically plural noun. It can be singular or plural, determined by the word agreement of the words surrounding it. Most of the time when shamayim is in the singular form, it refers to heaven, and when it is in the plural, it refers to the sky. In both Gen. 1:1 and 1:8, it is in the plural form. This is why the English translations use the word heavens, plural. There are many places in the Bible where the word heavens is clearly being used of the sky (Gen. 7:11; 8:2; Deut. 11:17; 28:12; Judg. 5:4, 20; 2 Sam. 21:10; 22:10; 1 Kgs. 8:35; 2 Kgs. 7:2, 19; Job 22:14; Ps. 8:3; 18:9; 19:4-6; 33:6; 68:8; 77:17; 78:23, 26; Prov. 8:27; Isa. 13:13; 24:4, 18; 34:4; 40:22; 45:8; 51:13; Jer. 8:2; 10:13; 51:16; Ezek. 32:7-8; Dan. 12:3; Joel 2:10; Amos 9:2; Hab. 3:11; Zech. 8:12). Likewise, this instance of shamayim cannot refer to heaven where God lives because that already existed before He began to create, as He and the angels were already there (Job 38:7). The people of the ancient world did not have a concept of outer space or the universe since they did not have telescopes or spaceships. For them, the sun, moon, and stars were in the sky, for that is what it looks like to the human eye—like when a child draws a picture of the sky with the sun in it. So the Hebrew word shamayim is used in the Bible for sky, heaven, and universe.

The Hebrew word for “earth” (eretz) is the same word used for “land” in Gen. 1:10. The narrator assumes that heaven already exists with the opening phrase “In the beginning God…” Here he is more interested in giving an account of the material realm—not the spiritual. The phrase “sky and land” forms a merism, which is when two parts of a whole are mentioned to refer to the whole. A merism is like the phrase “flesh and bone;” here, the two parts, “flesh” and “bone,” are used together to refer to the whole body of a person, even though there is more to the human body than just these two parts. The two parts, heavens and earth, refer to the entire ordered universe (Jer. 33:25), including the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them (Gen. 2:1; 2:4; Ex. 20:11; Deut. 3:24; Isa. 65:17; Jer. 23:24). Thus “the heavens and the earth” is a phrase that refers to everything mentioned in the six-day creation account. Totality rather than organization is the main idea here.^[17]

The point is that, unlike the pagan gods, Yahweh as the pre-existent God created everything in all the sky, earth, and everything in-between. Therefore, He is not only the originator of all things, but He is sovereign over all things and all things answer to Him.

1:2a “Now the earth” signifies that the earth at this time in creation was not the earth as we know it and points to its state before the first command and act of Yahweh. The earth is described as being formless and empty, dark, and a watery deep. The word “formless” comes from the Hebrew word tohu, which has two senses, either “nothingness” (Isa. 29:21) or “chaos, disorder.” It is used most frequently of the desert, where a human can lose his way and die (Deut. 32:10; Job 6:18).^[18] The words formless and empty (tohu and bohu) are used together in two other places in Scripture, Jer. 4:23 and Isa. 34:11. This combination is used to refer to a barren wasteland that is lifeless and orderless.

“Darkness” is used in the Bible negatively to symbolize the wicked (Ex. 14:20; 1 Sam. 2:9; 22:29; Prov. 2:13), judgment (Ex. 10:21-22; Job 5:13-15; 15:30), and death (Job 10:21-22; Ps. 88:13). Salvation is described as bringing light to those who are in darkness (Isa. 9:1). It is also used in a somewhat positive sense when Yahweh is described as veiling Himself in darkness at moments of great revelation (Gen. 15:12; Ex. 20:21; Deut. 4:11; 5:23; 2 Sam. 22:12; Job 12:22; Ps. 18:12). Since there is no evil in creation yet, then here it is being used as the absence of life and could be a hint of the presence and creative work of Yahweh waiting to be revealed.^[19]

The “watery deep” (tehom) refers to the chaotic primeval seas that surround the earth and is the great deep under the earth (Gen. 7:11). In the ancient Near East, the ragging sea is symbolic of chaos and evil (along with the serpent/dragon/leviathan) and is used to describe that which is the opposite of life or opposes life. The idea of chaos in the Bible can either be neutral, as in disorder where everything is out of place like a trampled forest or a messy room, or bad, as in an invading army or wicked men hurting others. But it is never good, for it always refers to that which prevents the thriving of life.

Before we move on to 1:2b, there is a question of how Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2 should be seen in relation to each other.

The first view sees Gen. 1:1 as referring to Yahweh’s creating the world before the official events of the seven-day creation week and Gen. 1:2 as a description of what that creation looked like before He shaped it (in the verses that follow). In other words, in Gen. 1:1 God created a material mass, like a lump of clay, that contained everything that is in creation. Then, Gen. 1:2 describes what that material mass of creation looked like—a formless, empty, dark, and watery mass. Then Gen. 1:3-31 (the creation week) describes God’s shaping that shapeless mass of creation into what we now see.^[20] This is the traditional view that some scholars do take.

The second view, and the view of this commentary, sees Gen. 1:1 as a literary introduction to or summary of the events of the creation week, like the title of a story, and Gen. 1:2 as describing the void before He actually creates the world in the remaining verses. In other words, Gen. 1:1 is an opening summary statement stating that God created the sky and land and everything they contain in their totality and completion. Then Gen. 1:2 begins the account of how God created the world by describing the empty void and how he brought order. Finally, Gen. 1:3-31 describes God’s actually creating everything for the first time.^[21]

Reasons against the first view are, first, if this is an act of creation before the week began, then why not just call it “day one”? Second, this cannot be describing the creation of the heavens/sky and earth as a complete act separate from the creation week because Gen. 1:8 and 1:10 make it clear that those have not been created yet but were created on days two and three. This would assume that there were two creations of the heavens/sky and earth. Third, it is clear that formless and empty, darkness, and watery deep (chaos) are used in a negative way in the ancient world and all throughout the Bible. Why would Yahweh create a mass of chaos and then subdue it so that He could form it? This goes contrary to Yahweh’s character (order and goodness) and the rest of the Bible. Fourth, the creation account of the six days closes with “the heavens and earth were completed with everything that was in them” (Gen. 2:1). Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 2:1 are parallel statements that open and close the account. Just as Gen. 2:1 is not seen as a separate creative act, neither should Gen. 1:1. Thus Gen. 1:1 is a concise opening statement that Yahweh is the one true God because He has no origin and created all of creation. Gen. 1:2 then begins to tell the reader how He created the heavens and earth and everything in them.

Those who take the first view argue against the second view by stating that if Gen. 1:2 is describing the world before God created, then it must also be saying that a material mass of chaos existed before creation, meaning there was matter before God created, whereas the Bible makes it clear that He created everything. However, the descriptions of Gen. 1:2 do not have to describe a literal material mass; rather, they can be poetic metaphors describing an empty void that is disordered because there was nothing, as discussed above.

So why begin the creation account by describing the void, as Gen. 1:2 does, before God began to create the world? All the pagan creation accounts use some form of these three descriptions to describe the void that existed before creation. In the pagan creation accounts, the void is described as more of a material, chaotic state of water manifested as a chaos god or monster that must be tamed in order for creation to come into existence. In Yahweh’s creation account, however, it is more of a non-material state of a disorder void. Yahweh used the imagery of a watery deep because that was the vocabulary of the ancient world. However, He strips it of any life or godlikeness and reduces it to a mere concept of disorder and void. For, unlike the pagan accounts, Yahweh will not battle nor create out of the chaos but will subdue and transform it into a state of order and life, initiated by the Spirit of God in Gen. 1:2b.

1:2b It is the presence of the Spirit of God that is unique, and nothing like it appears in any other creation account. It is the Spirit of God that initiates the first true act of creation. The Hebrew word for “Spirit” comes from the Hebrew word ruach, which means “wind,” “breath,” or “spirit.” The wind of Yahweh is seen on several occasions in the First Testament as an instrument that Yahweh uses to subdue and control the chaotic waters (Gen. 8:1; Ex. 14:21; Dan. 7:2). It is also used of the divine Spirit of God that energizes and empowers Yahweh’s people to do His will (Gen. 41:38; Ex. 31:3; 35:31; Num. 24:2; 1 Sam. 10:10; 11:6; 19:20, 23; Ezek. 11:24; 2 Chr. 15:1; 24:20). Ezekiel uses it to compare the description of the chariot of Yahweh to “a stormy wind” guided by the Spirit (Ezek. 1:4, 12, 20) and the reference to wisdom watching over Yahweh’s creative work (Prov. 8; Job 38).^[22]

The word hovering comes from the Hebrew word rahaph and is used in two other places in the Bible. It is used for trembling (Jer. 23:9) and for the fluttering of a mother eagle as she hovers protectively over her young (Deut. 32:11); the second is used in the context of Yahweh’s redemption of Israel from Egypt (Ex. 19:4). The First Testament describes the Spirit as an extension of Yahweh (2 Kgs. 3:15; Ezek. 1:3; 3:14, 22, etc.), and the original audience would not have understood it as a member of the Trinity. It is not until the Second Testament that the Spirit is revealed as a part of the Trinity.

It was the nurturing Spirit of God hovering over the watery deep (void) that changed the state of the void to one of life. The Hebrew word used for “water” in Gen. 1:2b is mayim, and it refers to the life-giving waters for creation. This life-giving water (mayim) in Gen. 1:2b is contrasted with the negative connotation of the watery abyss (tehom) in Gen. 1:2a. It was the powerful wind/spirit of Yahweh that subdued the chaotic waters so that He could begin to bring order and life to His creation. For the Hebrews, especially the ones who just came out of Egypt, Yahweh was demonstrating that from the very beginning He was able to subjugate the sea/chaos, which would have been great news. Gen. 1:2b was Yahweh’s first redemptive act of undoing the negative nature of the earth seen in Gen. 1:2a.

With the opening of Gen. 1:1-2, the earth as we know it is described in three negative ways: as formless and empty, as darkness, and as a watery, chaotic abyss. Life cannot function in this state, so Yahweh had to undo it if He was to redeem creation. Isa. 45:18 states that Yahweh did not create the earth to be void but formed it to be inhabited. Thus Genesis introduces the need for Yahweh to undo these three negative states in Gen. 1:2a before it can function in an orderly way and sustain people. He undid these three negative states in the reverse order of how they are listed in Gen. 1:2b. In Gen. 1:2b Yahweh undid the chaotic watery deep by sending His Spirit to subdue and transform them into life-giving waters. In Gen. 1:3 He undid the darkness by speaking light into existence and separating the two. And in the six-day creation account of Gen. 1:3-31, He undid the formlessness and emptiness by forming on the first three days and filling what He formed on the second three days. All of this is finalized with His entering creation as sovereign ruler to rest in what He had created (to be discussed later). Even in the way that Yahweh organizes the creation week—three days of forming and three days of filling—there is structure and order, communicating intentionality and design that are not present in other creation accounts.

What is interesting is that the water already existed, as seen in Gen. 1:2a and Gen. 1:6, but nowhere in this creation account is it said to have been created. Why? In the other creation accounts of the ancient Near East, the universe is described as a dark, watery, chaotic void. This chaos is portrayed as chaotic body of water or a chaotic god that prevents life or tries to destroy the lesser gods. Out of this watery deep came the first gods. They are characterized by chaos since they came from the chaos. One of these gods ends up battling and overcoming or destroying the chaotic sea (sometimes seen as a great sea dragon) in order to establish kingship and create the world. The god usually creates the world out of this chaotic entity, thus using disorder and chaos as the foundation to creation.^[23]

This is the understanding of creation that the Israelites would have had when they came out of Egypt after worshiping the pagan gods for more than two hundred years. For this reason Yahweh used the language of their culture to explain to them how He was unlike the pagan gods. Just as the pagan accounts do, Gen. 1:1 also describes the world as we know it as a disordered, chaotic, dark, and formless mass. Yahweh started with the watery deep as a metaphor for disorder because this was how the people of the ancient world understood it. To communicate effectively He had to use words and concepts in the way they would understand them. However, in His creation account, there is no hint that the watery deep was a powerful godlike monster independent of or opposed to Yahweh, which He had to then fight and subdue. Here, it was merely a part of His creation that does His bidding (Ps. 104:6; Prov. 8:27-28).

The Bible makes it clear that Yahweh did create the waters (Ex. 20:11), that He is the originator of all matter, and that the world was made from nothing (Jn. 1:3; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 11:3). But here the waters are a metaphor for disorder and the lack of life, not a literal statement that water already existed. Genesis 1 is not interested in a scientific account of the existence of matter and of how the world was created; instead, it provides a theological account of the uniqueness of Yahweh as the creator of all things. In the ancient Near East, the greatest demonstration of the gods’ power was not in the creating of matter but in the fixing of destinies and regulating of order and the roles of physical matter.^[24] Yahweh shows His uniqueness to the pagan gods by His ability to subdue the chaos and organize the world in contrast to the chaotic world. This is seen by Psalms’ focus on the defeating or neutralizing of the forces of chaos, not on the creation of matter (Ps. 74:13-17; 89:9-10; 104:7-9). Genesis does not portray this battle but focuses on the forming, filling, subduing, and ordering of chaos. If the text was interested in the creation of matter, then the story would begin with nothing existing.

The second major point Yahweh is making about Himself in His creation account is that He existed before the watery deep, therefore He did not come from it and thus is not chaotic Himself, nor did he have to battle the chaos in order to establish His rule. He is the only absolute sovereign God of the universe, who has no beginning, no equal, and no competition. Yes, there is a formless and empty chaotic darkness, but that is all it is. And it is simply subdued by His redemptive and motherly Spirit and the mere spoken word of Yahweh in the verses that follow. The cosmos was chaotic and empty of purpose and function, and Yahweh ordered it, filled it, and gave it purpose and function.

1:3-31 When people of the ancient world described the world, they did not describe how it is scientifically but how they perceived it. They were not interested in the “how it came about” and “how it is” but in the “who (source or power) of what is” and the “what is now.” They viewed creation as a spherical, three-tiered system (Ex. 20:4; Prov. 8:27-28; Job 26:10; Phil. 2:8-11; Rev. 5:2-3).

The first tier was the primordial watery deep/abyss (Hebrew tehom) known as the sea. The sea was a fearsome, untamable body of chaos that the ancients feared and was home to Leviathans and sea monsters. There are drawings from the ancient world where people are stabbing the sea with spears—a metaphor for trying to subdue the chaos of the world. At the bottom of the sea was the grave or underworld (Job 26:5; Isa. 14:9). The sea was chaos and death.

The second tier was the land, and the shore was a boundary that kept the sea at bay. The land was the only place that produced and sustained life, humans, animals, and plants. The mountains were the pillars that held up the sky—a concept drawn from humans’ physical point of view.

The third and upper tier was the waters above, which originally was a part of the primordial deep but placed above in the heavens, known as the sky (Ps. 148:4). These waters were separated from the land and the waters below by a firmament that was a metal or glass dome (Ex. 39:3; Job. 37:18; Dan. 12:3; Ezek. 1:22; 6:11; Isa. 42:5). The gods above would open doors in this firmament to release the rain, snow, or hail from the waters above (Gen. 7:11; 8:2; Ps. 78:23). The sun, moon, and stars were in the sky (Job 26:11; 2 Sam. 22:8), where they appear to be when you look at them (and how children draw the sky and sun). It was not until telescopes were invented that we began to have a concept of outer space and a universe. Until then, the sky, firmament, outer space, and heaven were all seen as parts of the same thing.

They believed that the gods were enthroned in their temples on the tops of the mountains and above the sky (Job 22:13; 37:14-18; Amos 9:6). The ancient people did not view the material and spiritual realms as separate or distinct. They were one and the same and affected each other directly.

This is how the creation week is described and ordered in Gen. 1. On the first three days, Yahweh separated the primordial waters and formed creation into a three-tiered system of waters above, land, and waters below. On the second three days, He filled what He had formed with creatures suited for their tier. On the last day of creation, He established His throne over creation.

1:3-5 What is unique about the biblical creation account compared to all others is the fact that Yahweh created and ordered the creation merely by His spoken word. In Egyptian creation accounts, the gods also created by speaking, but they did so through magical utterances and phrases, whereas Yahweh spoke creation into existence simply, through clear commands. It is merely the divine word of Yahweh that brings into existence what is expressed. The word of Yahweh is both creative and effective. The repetition of “God said” for each day of the creation week also makes it clear that He is responsible for bringing all things into existence, through His own will (Ps. 33:6-9), unlike the other gods, who were responsible for creating only one or two things. Likewise, the verbal repetition ties the command with its fulfillment. There is a pattern in Genesis 1 that emphasizes the spoken decree of Yahweh. On days one and two, Yahweh speaks once, and on day three He speaks twice. On days four and five, Yahweh speaks once, and on day six He speaks twice. Ten times in this chapter the decree of Yahweh in creation is expressed.

On the first day, Yahweh brought forth the light in response to the darkness in order to put the darkness in its proper place. Even though the Hebrew word ’or simply means “light,” it is used throughout the Bible to symbolize life and blessing (Ps. 19:1-6; 27:1; 49:19; 97:11) and is often used metaphorically to describe life, salvation, righteousness, the commandments, and the presence of Yahweh (Ps. 56:14; Isa. 9:1; Prov. 6:23; Ex. 10:23; John 1:4-5; 1 John 1:5). Light is thus the antithesis of the darkness, and so the first thing Yahweh did was fix the darkness by bringing light and separating it from the darkness. There is no mention of where the darkness came from—only that it was not good, for without the light there is only chaos. It is the light, not the darkness, that Yahweh calls good.

The act of separating the light and darkness demonstrates Yahweh’s sovereignty and mastery over them and His ability to determine their place and function. The idea of separation is shown primarily with the light and darkness, the waters above and below, and the revealing of the land. This idea of separation is important to the Law with the separation of clean from unclean, holy from profane (Lev 10:10, 11:47; 20:24), and the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies (Ex. 26:33). Separation becomes almost synonymous with divine election (Lev. 20:24; Num. 8:14; Deut. 4:41; 10:8; 1 Kgs. 8:53).^[25]

Yahweh then named the light “day” and the darkness “night.” In the First Testament, to name something was to assert sovereignty over it (Gen. 2:20; 2 Kgs. 23:34; 24:17) and demonstrate the right to define roles. Though darkness was not said to be created by Yahweh nor said to be good, it was still named by Yahweh.^[26] It is the light that keeps the darkness from swallowing creation and snuffing out life.

John Walton makes the point that, since nothing was created here, yet Yahweh named the day and night, bringing about the first evening and morning, what Yahweh created here was time^[27]—the function Yahweh assigned to the light and darkness.

The word good has the idea that everything is orderly, is in its proper place, and functions the way it should. The only time good is connected to morality is in the sense that when humans are thinking, speaking, and acting in a morally right way, then they are functioning the way Yahweh designed them to function; they are “good” people. At the end of each day, Yahweh declared that the part of creation He had just finished ordering was now functioning the way He designed and created it to function. The repetition of “God saw that it was good” shows that Yahweh approved of all He had spoken into existence, that it was not chaotic. Thus, all that is chaotic and sinful in the world now is a result of humanity’s sin against Yahweh, described in Genesis 3.

“Perhaps nowhere else in the ancient world is such a positive evaluation placed on created matter and earthly life as here. Indeed, the Bible asserts unequivocally the goodness of all that God made and thus stands in sharp contrast to those religions, which regard the material world as evil and detrimental to the ‘spiritual’ nature of humans. As Walther Zimmerli puts it, ‘the whole thrust of the Old Testament proclamation guards against any flight in a beyond which is turned away from the world.’”^[28]

“There was evening, and there was morning” is in reverse order of what we in modern culture would expect. It is because of Genesis 1 that the Israelites viewed the day as beginning with the sunset in the evening and ending with the sunset of the next evening. By the Second Testament, with the influence of the western Greco-Roman world, the day began at midnight, but the evening and morning pattern remained with consideration to the Hebrew festivals [e.g., the Day of Atonement (Lev. 23:32) and the Sabbath]. So why the reverse order? Evening and night are associated with darkness, which communicates the idea of disorder, and morning and day are associated with light, which communicates order. Thus, each day began with the disorder of the formless and empty, dark, chaotic state of the creation (Gen. 1:2a), and Yahweh ended each day by bringing order and light to that specific part of creation. With each day Yahweh was communicating that He brings order to disorder. The emphasis, therefore, is not on the passing of time but on the ordering of creation. “There was disorder, and then there was order.”

The Hebrew word for “day” (yom) can mean a literal day or a period of time (e.g., “the day that Britain ruled the seas”). However, it is clear that a “day” here has the basic sense of a 24-hour period time—each day is numbered in sequential order, days are divided by evening and morning, and the divine rest on the seventh day brings the week to an end. It is clear that a week of divine activity is what is being described.

Despite this, there is no evidence that when the Bible speaks of a six-day creation that a literal 144-hour week is implied. The main idea here is not that of time but that of a pattern of Yahweh’s working six days and then resting on the seventh. This creates the basis for humanity’s working six days and then resting with Yahweh on the seventh, in the model of the Sabbath.

This text is not a scientific device meant to communicate a literal period of time that one can compute mathematically but rather one of many literary devices used to communicate the order and structure of how Yahweh created. Other devices include repetition, chiastic structures, inclusio, and the use of multiples of seven. There is no sense of a scientific account of creation in the way we think of it. And it is very lacking in scientific details, like the fact that the earth is described as formless and empty yet also as a watery abyss. Or that evening and morning appear three days before the creation of the sun, which was given for the ordering of days. Genesis 1 stands completely outside the historical accounts (toledots) of the rest of Scripture and therefore cannot be comprehended in the same way when it comes to time.

Yahweh created a universe that we cannot comprehend, let alone how He created it, especially when He spoke it into existence rather than building with His hands like we do. We create from something that exists; He creates something fresh and new. The only way the narrator can explain what Yahweh did is with human language; thus, Yahweh and His actions become analogical. The words used in the text are sorely lacking and cannot capture the meaning of what really happened. We must read the creation account of Genesis 1 with great wonder, mystery, and awe around what an unfathomable and awesome God did to order creation for life and blessing and not reduce it to our limited scientific understanding.

“The Bible-versus-science debate has, most regrettably, sidetracked readers of Gen. 1. Instead of reading the chapter as a triumphant affirmation of the power and wisdom of God and the wonder of his creation, we have been too often bogged down in attempting to squeeze Scripture into the mold of the latest scientific hypothesis or distorting scientific facts to fit a particular interpretation. When allowed to speak for itself, Gen. 1 looks beyond such minutiae. Its proclamation of the God of grace and power who undergirds the world and gives it purpose justifies the scientific approach to nature. Gen. 1, by further affirming the unique status of man, his place in the divine program, and God’s care for him, gives a hope to mankind that atheistic philosophies can never legitimately supply.”^[29]

1:6-8 On the second day, Yahweh separated the waters above from the waters below, creating a raqia‘—which is translated as “firmament” (KJV, RSV), “expanse” (ESV, NET), or “vault” (NIV)—between them. It is not the waters above that are named “sky” but rather the expanse. The waters above are where the rain, snow, and hail come from (Gen. 7:11; 8:2; Ps. 78:23). In poetic literature, this expanse is described as a metal or glass dome that has been hammered out over the earth, similar to a snow globe (Ex. 39:3; Job. 37:18; Dan. 12:3; Ezek. 1:22; 6:11; Isa. 42:5). It may be seen as a solid entity because, in the ancient Near East and in the Bible, it is upon the sky/expanse and above the clouds that the gods and, more importantly, Yahweh had built their temples and throne (Ps. 24; 29:3, 10; Isa. 40:22). The sky/expanse is the dome that holds the chaotic waters above to make space for the land to be revealed and keeps them from crashing down and wiping out life.

The waters above should not be seen as some kind of pre-flood body of water that was emptied during the flood and now no longer exists after the flood. Nowhere does the Bible say this, and the people of the ancient world, all throughout history and in every culture, viewed the creation as having a sea of water above them. They viewed it this way because the sky is blue like the sea and water comes from it. In a way they are right because that is what a cloud is—a giant floating lake. In the Bible, the clouds come from the ends of the earth (Ps. 135:7), and in the ancient Near Eastern way of thinking, the ends of the earth were the location of the gates of heaven. John Walton makes the point that since there has been no creation of the waters, then the separation of the waters above is the creation of weather; this is their function.^[30]

It is not clear how the First Testament sees the nature of this expanse. And since the word raqia‘ (“expanse”) is most often used in poetic text, it may be less scientific and more figurative. What is clear is that Gen. 1 is not interested in defining the nature of the expanse but in asserting the power of Yahweh over the waters. The separation of the waters above, the waters below, and the land is a common theme in the ancient Near East, but the control of the waters is peculiar to Genesis and the Enuma Elish (The Babylonian creation account). However, whereas in the Enuma Elish the separation of the waters is the separation of the dead body of the defeated Tiamat, goddess of chaos, here it is merely water, and Yahweh did not have to battle an opponent to gain mastery. The sea had already been subdued with ease in Gen. 1:2b.

Notice that Yahweh did not call the second day good. This is because there was no land yet, and without a land to dwell in, one could not say that the environment of creation for humanity was good. The light was good because it removed the darkness so that humanity could be in the light of Yahweh (1 John 1:5-7). However, nothing but water above and water below is not good, for it was not functional for humanity.

1:9-10 On the third day Yahweh separated the waters below to reveal the land. He did this by driving back the waters—symbolic of chaos—to reveal a land where there was life and blessing. It was Yahweh’s power that constrained the waters to certain areas (Ps. 104:6-9; Job. 38:8-11; Jer. 5:22). Yahweh’s naming of the waters below—“sea”—continues to show His mastery over the chaotic waters. Though the sea is neutral here, it is a foreshadowing of when Yahweh would later drive back the chaos at the Red Sea (Ex. 14-15; Ps. 77:13-20; Isa. 51:9-10), separating the waters to reveal the dry land. Just as Yahweh separated the waters at creation to provide land on which humanity could live, so in the exodus He would provide dry land in order for His people to be redeemed.

This day is unique in the fact that Yahweh spoke twice on this day, producing land and vegetation. From a literary standpoint, this creates parallelism with day six, on which Yahweh also spoke twice. This day is also emphasized in that the pronouncing of “it was good” was delayed from the second day to this day. The land being revealed on day three—with the number three being symbolic in the Bible of life and redemption—also points to its significance.

The revealing of the land was one of the most important acts in the creation week (not in order of importance but of chronology and function, which will be discussed on the sixth and seventh days). Land is a dominant feature throughout the Bible. It was out of the earth that humanity was created (Gen. 2:7); humanity was placed in the garden/land in order to dwell with Yahweh (Gen. 2:15); and humanity was given dominion over the earth (Gen. 1:28). It is the land of Canaan that will be promised to Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3) in the most important covenant (Gen. 15) in the First Testament. Promised land is the focus of Israel’s exodus out of Egypt and their entrance into and conquest of that Promised land, where Yahweh will give them rest. It is also from the land and its blessings that Israel will be removed when they rebel against Yahweh and His covenant throughout the First Testament. It is the land that becomes the prototype, beginning in the garden in Genesis, for the coming of the kingdom of Yahweh down to earth in Revelation. The idea of the land being tied to Yahweh’s blessings for humanity permeates every story in the Bible.

The fact that it is Yahweh who brought forth the land, named it, and drove back the waters of chaos so that there could be life and blessing demonstrates that He alone is sovereign over the land and therefore has the right to place or remove whomever He wills from the land and its life. This becomes the basis for Yahweh’s right to remove the Canaanites from the land as judgment for their sins, to place Israel in the land as His chosen people, to remove them from that land for their sins, and then to redeem them back to the land.

1:11-13 Yahweh then provided plants, vegetables, and fruit for humanity to enjoy. It is from the land that all plants grow, and they will be used throughout the Bible as symbols for life and blessing. Yahweh created different types of plants and gave them the ability to reproduce: “seed bearing, fruit bearing.” The different species of plants and animals point to the creativity of Yahweh.

1:14-19 On the fourth day Yahweh created the lights of the sky. Gen. 1:14 should be understood as “in the expanse of the sky” (NET, NIV) not “in the heavens” (NASB, KJV, ESV). The luminaries were placed in the “expanse of the sky,” not above the sky or in outer space. As mentioned above, this description is a pre-scientific view of the world and is a phenomenal (a philosophy known or derived through the senses rather than through the mind) description, describing what appears to be the case. The sun and the moon are not, scientifically, actually in the sky (below the clouds), but they appear that way from the viewpoint of a person standing on the earth. Even today we use similar phenomenological expressions, such as “the sun is rising” or “the stars in the sky.”^[31]

Other than the creation of humans, the creation of the sun, moon, and stars are discussed at a far greater length than any of the acts of Yahweh. This is because in the ancient Near East the sun and moon were seen as the most prominent and powerful gods of creation. Here, the narrator takes the time to strip the sun, moon, and stars of any godlike quality. First, unlike the Hittite gods, they are not from eternity but are created. Second, they are not given their usual Hebrew names, which might identify them with Shamash, the sun god, or Yarih, the moon god. Instead, they are merely called the greater and lesser lights. This is the only day on which Yahweh did not end by naming what He has created. Third, they were given the role of providing light and governing or ruling the day and night as surrogates of Yahweh. This is a very low and insignificant function in ancient Near Eastern thought compared to how they were normally seen. Fourth, the stars—which were seen as divine beings, worshiped, and thought to control the destiny of humanity (Num. 24:17; Deut. 4:19; 1 Kgs. 22:19-22; Job 1; 38:7, 33; Ps. 82; Isa. 6; 24:21; 40:26; Dan. 7:10; Rev. 4; Enoch 14:22-23)—are mentioned as almost an afterthought. The notion that the stars bring about the seasons of the year is replaced by the notion that they are merely “signs” or markers for the seasons.^[32]

Here, Yahweh is their creator, and He is the one who assigned them their function. The luminaries were given three functions: to separate the day from the night, to be signs for the seasons and days and years, and to serve as lights upon the earth. It must be seen that the first three days of alternating light were controlled by Yahweh, and He then gave the governing of the light and darkness over to the sun and moon. There is a chiastic parallel^[33] that emphasizes their role (the center—D, D’—points to the focal point of the fourth day) as governors of the day and night, not as divine beings.^[34]

God made two lights…

A to divide the day from the night (14a)

   B for signs, for fixed times, for days and years (14b)

      C to give light on the earth (15)

         D to rule the day (16a)

         D’ to rule the night (16b)

      C’ to give light on the earth (17)

   B’ To rule the day and the night (18a)

A’ to divide the light from the darkness (18b)

The Hebrew word used here for the sun is always used in the Torah to designate the sanctuary lamp used in the tabernacle. Only two other passages use this word of the heavenly lights (Ezek. 32:8; Ps. 74:16). This points to the fact that Yahweh is creating a sanctuary on earth for Himself, wherein He might dwell with humanity, which will be discussed in Genesis 2.

1:20-23 The fifth day was the first day on which Yahweh created life with intelligence. The birds of the air and fish of the sea would serve as a testimony to Yahweh’s creativity and diversity. These creatures would provide beauty, companionship, and food for humanity. In the Hebrew, the phrase “across the expanse of the sky” (NET) is literally “on the face of the firmament of the sky.” Here the birds of the air are seen as moving through the firmament that separated the waters above from the waters below.

The term “the great sea creatures” comes from the Hebrew word tanninim, which can mean snake (Ex. 7:9), crocodile (Ezek. 29:3), or other powerful animals (Jer. 51:34). In the pagan accounts, the great sea monster was a god or monster that must be defeated by the high god in order to demonstrate his right to rule over creation. In Hebrew poetry, it is used to describe Yahweh’s victory over his foes and chaos (Isa. 27:1; 51:9; Ps. 74:13; Job 7:12). However, here the sea monster is transformed into a frolicking sea creature and is included among the other created beings to make the point that it is just another one of Yahweh’s creations. There is no sea monster or rival that must be defeated to allow Yahweh to become sovereign and create.

Yahweh commanded these creatures to multiply and fill their domains. This foreshadows the same command He would give humans on the sixth day (Gen. 1:28).

1:24-25 On the sixth day Yahweh created animals for the land. Not only would animals serve the same purpose as the birds and fish, as mentioned on day five, but they would also later be separated into clean and unclean categories. These terms will become symbolic of the wicked and the righteous and will serve as an illustration that these two need to be separate, like light and dark (1 Jn. 5:1) or the sheep and the goats (Matt. 25:31-33). The animals were not blessed, most likely because the blessing on humanity covers everything that was created on day six. Yahweh commanded these creatures to multiply and fill their domains. This is the same command He would give humans on the sixth day (Gen. 1:28).

1:26-31 The creation of humanity is another important act in the creation week, for the creation of humanity is the whole point of the creation week. This importance is emphasized by the facts that four divine speeches are given, which is twice as many as any other day (Gen. 1:24, 26, 28, 29); that there is more space devoted to the creation of humanity; that the formula “it was so” is replaced by a threefold blessing (Gen. 1:26-28); and by the use of other literary devices that are unique to this creative act, which will be discussed below. As well, the fact that Yahweh speaks twice on the sixth day ties humanity to the land created on the third day, on which Yahweh also spoke twice. This connection between the land and humanity will be developed in more detail in Genesis 2.

The personal phrase “let us” in verse 26 has replaced the impersonal “let there be,” showing a more divine intent and personal nature in the creation of humanity. Most scholars see the use of the plural “let us” as not referring directly to the Trinity, for nothing in the text nor in all of the First Testament points to this interpretation. The Israelites had no concept of a trinity, and Yahweh would have never spoken in a way that would require later revelation to understand what He was saying. Most likely, the “let us” refers to the divine council of Yahweh. The divine council is the angelic host, and sometimes prophets, that surrounds Yahweh in heaven, and He allows them here to enter into His decision-making process (1 Kgs. 22:19-23; Job 1:6; Ps. 82:1; Isa. 6:1-8). This plural reference can also be seen in Isa. 6:8 when Yahweh asks, “Whom should we send?” Here He is referring, in the use of we, to the seraphim that surround Him. This does not mean, however, that the angelic host helped Him create, for the singular verb used for “create” makes it clear that God alone created. This should be seen instead as a divine announcement to the divine council, as in Job 38:4, 7, which states that at creation the angels shouted for joy. However, the “let us” most certainly includes the Trinity since Yahweh is the head of the divine council and is triune, but it is not exclusive to the Trinity. But this is an understanding that would have come with the revelation of the Second Testament.

The phrase in our image communicates the idea of rulership. Yahweh created humanity in order to represent Him and rule over all He had created. The term image (selem) is used in the First Testament for the physical forms of idols (1 Sam. 6:5, 11) and reliefs (Ezek. 23:14). The divine spirit of a god was seen as indwelling the idols as a representation of its rule, thus creating a close link and unity between the god and the image. Likewise, in the ancient Near East, when a king would conquer a nation and then move on, he would erect an image of himself in that conquered nation as a reminder that it was he who was the sovereign ruler, even though he was not present.^[35] The human kings of the ancient Near East could also be seen as being the image of one of the gods, described in both Egyptian and Assyrian texts.

The context of Gen. 1:26-28 also connects the image of God to headship and rulership over creation. When Yahweh stated that He would create humanity in His image, He stated that He was doing so that they may rule and subdue creation (Gen. 1:26). Immediately after He completed the act of creating humanity (Gen. 1:27), He blessed humanity with kingship and commanded them to rule and subdue creation (Gen. 1:28).

The term likeness (demut) is more abstract but further explains the meaning of “image.” It describes a similarity (“like a man” in Ezek. 1:10) and may communicate the idea of reflecting the character of Yahweh. Thus, ruling and subduing are not done in a forceful or domineering way, for that is not the character of Yahweh. Rather, humanity has been given charge over creation to maintain the order and goodness of creation that Yahweh already established. Anything that threatens this order and goodness is to be subdued and driven out.

“First, God’s deliberation shows that he has decided to create man differently from any of the other creatures—in his image and likeness. God and man share a likeness that is not shared by other creatures. This apparently means that a relationship of close fellowship can exist between God and man that is unlike the relationship of God with the rest of his creation. Secondly, in Gen 1, man, the image bearer, is the object of God’s blessing. According to the account of creation in Gen 1, the chief purpose of God in creating man is to bless him.”^[36]

As the image of God, humans were created to act as vice-regents over His creation, to be His representatives. We are not to act independently of His will, for as His image we are to represent Him. To go contrary to His will is to lose our status of vice-regent and to be removed from His presence because we are not promoting the healthy functioning of His creation. This means we have to know Him in order to represent Him and to be in His likeness. We are to reflect who Yahweh is in thought, words, and deeds and to make creation look like Him. The primary thing we see Yahweh doing in Genesis 1 is subduing chaos and bringing order to His environment in order to promote life. Like Him, each day we are to bring more order (morning/light) to the chaos (evening/darkness). At the end of the day, we should ask ourselves, “Is there a little less chaos in my environment and the lives of the people I encounter because of me, or is there more because of me?”

In Gen. 1:27 the word man (adam) is in Hebrew “the adam” and should be translated as “humanity” (NIV, NET), as opposed to “man” (ESV, KJV). Names are never preceded by the article “the”—the David, the Abraham. Man is not portrayed as an individual until Genesis 2. The narrator is making the point here that all of humanity has been made in the image of God. Gen. 1:27c states that both male and female were created in the image of God, thus there is equality between the female and the male. Gen. 1:26-28 declares that there is not just one king over creation or individual kings over nations, but every human, male and female, is vice-regent over creation. Psalm 8 speaks of man as being a little lower than the angels in order to rule over creation. This is unique, for none of the ancient Near Eastern texts ever speak of any other person as the image of the gods except for the king of a nation. Likewise, the animals are never said to be in God’s image nor are given the command to rule and subdue.

The Bible emphasizes important elements in a story in four major ways. One way is through repetition of a word, phrase, or event either multiple times in the same episode or throughout a book or the whole Bible. A second is by creating patterns through repetition of a word, phrase, or event and then breaking the pattern with a different word, phrase, or event. A third is through proportion—by spending more time on an idea, person, or event than on other things. A fourth way is by switching from prose to poetry. In Gen. 1:27 the narrator switches from prose to poetry to emphasize humanity as unique and as the apex of all creation as God’s image. There are three lines of poetry and each line in the Hebrew has seven syllables. Three is often used symbolically of redemption, and seven is used symbolically of completion. Thus, the creation of humanity as the image of God completes the redemption of creation. This is seen in the fact that the phrase it was good, mentioned on the previous days, is modified here to refer to all that Yahweh had created, and very is added to the phrase to give greater emphasis. Thus humanity brings completion to the ordering of creation and is to maintain this order.

“Man’s dignity rests in God who assigns an inestimable worth to every person. Man’s origin is not an accident, but a profoundly intelligent act by One who has eternal value; by One who stamps His own image on each person. God creates men and moves heaven and earth to redeem them when they fall. Our origin is in creation and our destiny is for redemption. Between these points every human heartbeat has value.”^[37]

In all the pagan creation accounts of the ancient Near East, humans were created by the gods as an afterthought and then only to serve them. Their primary purpose was to provide the gods with food. In contrast, Yahweh not only created humanity to be in His image, making them rulers over His creation, but He then provided food for all humans from the soil of the land He had created. Notice there is no specific forbidding of eating animals; nowhere has Yahweh forbidden the eating of meat. In fact, when He specifically states in Gen. 9:3 that humanity may eat the animals of creation, it does not mean they were not allowed to before that, for Yahweh made an animal sacrifice in Gen. 3:21 and had required animal sacrifices from humanity before the flood (Gen. 4:4).

The third major point Yahweh is making about Himself is that He did not create humans as slaves to Himself; rather, He created them in His image to represent Him over creation and to have meaning and purpose, which will be developed at greater length in Genesis 2. Humanity is the apex of creation, and everything in the creation week moves toward the creation of humanity. Everything was made for humanity: the land is to provide for them, plants are for their eating, and the animals belong to them. Humanity alone is made in the image of God. And Yahweh placed humanity in the garden, made for them, where He dwelt in order to have a loving relationship with Him.

The fourth major point Yahweh is making about Himself is that He is responsible for creating everything in creation. In the pagan creation accounts, the gods are responsible for the creation of one or two elements and sometimes none at all. Thus, they are limited in power and control to those one or two elements, and they are also portrayed as being limited in power over only certain regions/nations. In contrast, Yahweh is seen as creating all things in creation on every day of the creation week, making Him sovereign over all things in creation because He created all things. Yahweh is the sovereign king over the universe, and there are no rivals. The things of creation are His handiwork, not His rivals (Ps. 19:1; Jer. 10:11). The silent treatment toward the gods is a devastating dethronement of their authority and power over the creation. Genesis 1 offers a completely different option from all the others in the ancient Near East and today.

“On each day of creation another set of idols is smashed… On the first day the gods of light and darkness are dismissed; on the second day, the gods of sky and sea; on the third day, earth gods and gods of vegetation; on the fourth day, sun, moon, and star gods. The fifth and sixth days remove from the animal kingdom any associations with divinity, while at the same time all human beings, from the greatest to the least—not just Pharaohs, kings and heroes—are granted a divine likeness.”^[38]

“The story of the Hebrew Bible can be described as a struggle to destroy the heathen deities of the ancient world and to replace their worship by the belief in one God. The Bible as a whole can be regarded as a protest against paganism of every description.”^[39]

2:1-3 The seventh day closes this section by repeating—in reverse order from Gen. 1:1— “heaven and earth,” “God,” and “create.” The emphasis is put on the seventh day with the threefold repetition of the word seventh, each time in a sentence with seven Hebrew words. The seventh day breaks the “it was good” pattern and instead shows a ceasing, blessing, and sanctifying. The Hebrew word for “rested” actually means “cease,” which means that Yahweh is ceasing His actions because He is finished, and what He has done is complete and good. The seventh day is the first thing to be declared holy. Only here and in Neh. 8:9, 11 is a day called holy.

Even though Yahweh finished His creation in six days, it is still a seven-day week. The point of the seventh day is not that He did not do anything but that His work was complete, so now He can enter into His creation and dwell there. The purpose of the creation was not for Yahweh to create a place for humanity and then hang out in heaven for all eternity; rather, it was to create a place where He would dwell with humanity in a relationship. This is what makes Yahweh unique to all the other gods: He is the sovereign and transcendent God of the universe, yet He chose to enter into creation in space, time, and matter in order to have a relationship with humanity. Yahweh has created a tabernacle on earth for Himself and humanity to dwell together. This is the whole point of Genesis 2, which will be discussed below. In the ancient Near East, the people, after building a temple (a more permanent, stone version of a tabernacle), would have a six-day ceremony to sanctify the temple, and then, on the seventh day, they believed that the spirit of the god indwelt the temple. The garden/tabernacle in Genesis 2 becomes the whole basis for the tabernacle of Yahweh in Exodus and for the Kingdom of Yahweh coming down to earth from heaven in Revelation (Rev. 21). The idea of resting is enjoying what one has created—like working hard to build a house and then, when it is done, declaring it good and entering it with your family to enjoy it and them. This is what Yahweh does with creation and humanity, for what Yahweh desires more than anything is a relationship with humanity.

The significance of the seventh day as something more than just a day is highlighted by the fact that there were no evening and morning on the seventh day, which shows that the rest (Sabbath) has no end and that the garden was to be for humanity an eternal rest with Yahweh. However, sin ruined this rest, and humanity was exiled from the garden and from rest with Yahweh. Nonetheless, Yahweh still allows and desires for humans to participate in the Sabbath—a shadow of the true rest—throughout history (Ex. 31:17) and to look forward to the true eternal Sabbath (Heb. 4:3-11) that will be restored in Christ. The book of Hebrews demonstrates that the Sabbath was a symbol for the true eternal Sabbath, in which believers will participate for all eternity in Heaven with Yahweh, just as He has been since the creation of the world. Thus, the Sabbath rest is taking time to cease doing the things that keep us from rest and to enjoy Yahweh and His creation.

A scientific understanding of how creation came into existence is not what impacts our lives on a daily basis. It is also not what gives us meaning or value or the ability to face the trials of life. But an understanding of this unique God, who is responsible for all creation, and His purpose for creation and for us does give us meaning and hope in the midst of our daily struggles.

The emphasis of this section is that Yahweh is unique to all other gods because He has no origin and is the sovereign creator over all creation. Unlike all other creation accounts, Yahweh created a good and orderly creation so that life could flourish abundantly, and He chose to enter creation in order to dwell in and with it rather than be separated from it. And He created humans as the apex of His creation so that they would rule over creation in His image, on His behalf as vice-regents, and so that He could gift all the blessings of creation to them. This sets the stage for Yahweh to tell His account/story (toledot) of what it looks like for Him to have a relationship with humanity and to give them His authority and blessing.

“The Biblical concept of God is remarkably different. The God of Israel is not subject to nature; He is above it and controls it. He stands alone and there is no being on His level. He does not eat or drink or make love. Neither does He marry nor has He a wife or children. Biblical Hebrew possesses no term for goddess. Another unique feature, strikingly different to the rest of the ancient world is that God of the Bible prohibits the making of images. When the Bible employs human phrases to describe God, i.e. anthropomorphism, it aims to teach that God has a personal relation to history and to human society. The only image possible of Him is the mental one of a person with whom man can have personal relations.”^[40]

B. The Creation of Man and Woman (2:4-25)

This section begins the first toledot (“account”) of Genesis (Gen. 2:4–4:26). The toledot here does not describe the creation of the sky and land (covered in Gen. 1:1–2:3) but what is generated or produced by creation (sky and land as a merism)—specifically the garden and the humans that were formed out of the land/soil.^[41] This toledot covers the creation of humanity and Yahweh’s placing them in the garden, the fall of humanity, and the sin that permeates the first family. This is the toledot of what humanity was to be and what they became due to sin. The next three acts in this toledot (Gen. 2, 3, and 4) begin with a narrative story (Gen. 2:4-22a; 3:1-13; 4:1-22) and conclude with a poem (Gen. 2:22b-23; 3:14-19; 4:23-24), followed by a short epilogue (Gen. 2:24-25; 3:20-24; 4:25-26). This means Gen. 1:1–2:3 was an epilogue that set the stage for why Yahweh created in the first place. The first account (toledot) begins with Yahweh’s creating a garden filled with life and blessing and placing humans in that garden with Himself so that He could dwell with them in an intimate relationship. Humanity will corrupt this garden and break this relationship, but Yahweh will pursue them in redemption just as He redeemed the watery deep to establish creation.

In this section (Gen. 2:4-5), everything comes together—the dwelling of Yahweh and humanity in the land and the true significance of Genesis 1. Whereas Genesis 1 focused on Yahweh as a sovereign God who created all things and brought order and life to creation, Genesis 2 focuses on Yahweh as a relational God who created a garden of life so that He could dwell with humanity there. In Genesis 1 Yahweh made humanity rulers, and in Genesis 2 Yahweh made humanity priests.

Genesis 1 and 2 are parallel stories, or synoptic (like Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Whereas Genesis 1 covered all of what Yahweh created in the creation week, Genesis 2 will zoom in and retell the creation of humanity on day six in more detail. The fact that there are two creation accounts (Gen. 1 and 2), with such differences between Genesis 1 and 2, shows that the Hebrews had no problem with letting these two differing accounts stand side by side in the Torah.

2:4 In the pagan accounts, the sky and earth are seen as gods who bring forth other gods. Here, however, the sky and earth are merely matter created by Yahweh to bring forth provisions for the humans He created. This heading is a link back to the previous section and serves as the title to Gen. 2:5-4:26. Here, the words “heavens” and “earth” are mentioned twice but in reverse order. This creates a chiastic structure that emphasizes Yahweh as the creator of the heavens and earth (C, C’).

A The sky

   B and earth

      C when they were created

      C’ on the day Yahweh made

   B’ earth and

A’ sky

The narrator introduces the actual name for God—Yahweh—which is given to Moses in Ex. 3:14.^[42] Even though the narrator uses the name Yahweh here, this name is not officially given by God Himself until Ex. 3:14. The insertion of the name Yahweh is the narrator’s way of connecting the God of Moses, the Exodus, and the Mosaic Covenant to the God of creation and the covenants that God will make with humanity throughout Genesis. The narrator establishes the sovereignty and consistency of God by inserting the name Yahweh with God’s other names in the book of Genesis.

Here, both ’elohim and Yahweh are used together. The term ’elohim refers to the unique and sovereign creator of Genesis 1, while Yahweh refers to Him as a relational God who enters covenant relationships with humanity and directs their lives throughout history. By introducing the name Yahweh in Genesis 2, the narrator shows that God’s involvement in these events is far more relational and covenantal with the creation of humanity than the previous events of Genesis 1. The title “Yahweh God” appears twenty times in Gen. 2–3, one other time in the Torah in Ex. 9:30, and sixteen times in the rest of the First Testament. Yahweh is the sovereign creator and king as well as the covenant God of Israel (Ex. 9:30; 2 Sam. 7:25; Ps. 72:18; 84:12). What Yahweh desires more than anything is a relationship with humanity.

2:5-6 The first term, shrub (siakh), refers to the small, wild, bushy plants that grew on the border of the fertile crescent (Gen. 21:15; Job 30:4, 7). The second term, plant (‘esev), refers to the cultivated grains that came through humanity’s efforts in working the ground (Gen. 1:29, 30; 3:18). It is a way of saying, “back before anything was growing.” This is not a contradiction of Genesis 1, which states that vegetation came before humans. The idea is that wild plants of the barren wasteland had not yet come because the fall had not happened and that cultivated plants did not yet exist because there were no humans to grow them. These were two things that came about after humanity came into existence. There are two types of land or field: the open, uncultivated plain or field of the desert and the dusty land where agriculture is possible.^[43] Many scholars argue that the creation of Genesis 1 is presupposed and that this is a description of the land before humanity was created in order to work and till the land.

The reference to “no rain” in connection to the cultivation of the ground simply refers to a pre-human state of creation. This is the only time that the Bible mentions there being no rain. It does not mean that the flood during Noah’s time was the first time it rained (Gen. 7). Once humanity was created and they began to cultivate the ground, the rain could have come. Nowhere does the Bible even hint at there being no rain until the flood.

Fresh water, as in a spring, appears here only as coming from the ground, not from the sky, as Job 36:27 uses the word. The abundance of water in an arid land emphasizes the absence of humanity to make things grow. The point is that there was no rain to make the desert bloom, and there was no human to work the agricultural land. This is made clear by the creation of humanity in the next verse. Here is part of what it means to be the image of God.

2:7 Yahweh’s involvement in creation is seen in the Hebrew word yasar in Gen. 2:7, which is normally used of a potter forming clay into a pot (Jer. 18:2). Here, it is used of Yahweh’s forming the clay of the earth into a man with His own hands. Likewise, the Hebrew word banah in Gen. 2:18 means “to build or construct” and is used of Yahweh creating the woman. Yahweh is intimately involved, using intent, design, and His own hands in the creation of humanity.

The word for “man” is adam, and the word for “soil” is adama. There is an intentional play on words here that shows the direct connection that humanity has with the land. The adam is formed from the adama (Job 10:9; Isa. 29:16; Ps. 90:3; 104:29, etc.) and is placed in the adama to rule and subdue it. Adam is called to cultivate the adama (Gen. 2:5, 15), and when adam dies, he will return to the adama (Gen. 3:19). Humans are linked directly to the land that they will be called to take care of and will be dependent on for blessing. As seen in Genesis 1, wherein Yahweh is the creator of both the land and humanity and forms one out of the other, He has every right to place humans in the land, and He will have every right to take them out of the land. This becomes the justification for everything Yahweh does with humanity and the earth from this point on.

The breath of life is different from the Spirit of God, but they occur sometimes in parallel (Job 27:3; Isa. 42:5), which suggests they can be used synonymously. To have breath is to be human (Josh. 11:11; Isa. 2:22), though it can be used metaphorically of Yahweh (2 Sam. 22:16). However, it is not the breath that distinguishes humanity from animals, for animals are described in the same way. It is humanity as the image of God that distinguishes them from animals.

2:8-9 The word garden or orchard means “to be enclosed, fenced off, protected.” The garden denotes an enclosed, protected area with flourishing trees and plants. The word Eden could be derived from the Akkadian word edinu, which means a plain, but this etymology is difficult. It is better to associate it with its homonym, “pleasure, delight” (2 Sam. 1:24; Jer. 521:34; Ps. 36:9). Whenever Eden is mentioned, it is described as a well-watered oasis with large trees (Isa. 51:3; Ezek. 31:9, 16, 18; 36:35).^[44] Notice that the garden itself is not called Eden but that it was placed in the eastern part of the region called Eden. The garden’s being located in the “east” is significant because the sun, which represents light and life, rises in the east, as opposed to the west, which represents death and is where the sun “dies.”

Thus, the garden with its fence served as a garden/tabernacle, where Yahweh and humans could have fellowship. The term “walking” used of Yahweh’s presence in Gen. 3:8 is also used of Yahweh’s presence in the tabernacle (Lev. 26:12; Deut. 23:14; 2 Sam. 7:6-7). The Holy of Holies in the tabernacle will have the trees of the garden, and life is also protected by cherubim (Gen. 3:24; Ex. 26:1; 2 Chr. 3:7) so that sin and death are excluded (Gen. 3:23; Rev. 21:8). This garden paradise finds its fulfillment in Rev. 20–21.

The narrator makes the point that every tree, pleasing to look at and good for eating, was in the garden for humanity to enjoy. The point is that nothing was lacking; all that humanity would need or want was there. This will continue to be emphasized with the mention of the rivers in the following verses.

The narrator also mentions the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which become more prominent as the story continues. The tree of life is seen as symbolic of the life of Yahweh that is provided to them in the garden (Ps. 1:3; Jer. 17:8) and seems to have truly provided some kind of immortality, for Yahweh later says, after their sin, that they could not eat of it anymore or they would live forever (Gen. 3:22). Since eating of the tree of life would have led to immortality, we can say that eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would lead to wisdom, as seen by the fact that after they ate of it Yahweh said that they had now gained wisdom (Gen. 3:22). The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was provided to humanity as an alternative means to life and wisdom without Yahweh, which will be discussed below.

2:10-14 The narrator describes a river that flowed from Eden and into the garden. In the garden, the river divided into four rivers. No one has any idea what or where the first two rivers are. It is possible that they do not exist anymore. Satellite images over the Arabian desert show that there used to be a large river that has been dried up for a long time. The second two are the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, which flow along the north of the ancient Near East and into the Arabian Sea. The garden is thus portrayed as the source of water and life. These rivers bring fertility and blessing to the lands surrounding the garden. The regions of Havilah and Cush are unknown. Though Cush typically refers to Ethiopia, here it is clear that it was located in Mesopotamia. The gold and gemstones show that it is a place of great beauty and abundance. The language of the narrator, who lived long after Adam and Eve, tells the story as if the garden still existed during his day.

2:15 The word for “placed” has overtones of “rest,” meaning humanity was to find rest in the garden in the same way that Yahweh rested on the seventh day. As seen in Gen. 1:26-28, Adam and Eve were placed in the garden in order to maintain the garden. The description of the garden in the previous verses means humanity was to maintain the order and beauty of the garden that Yahweh had already established so that it would continue to be good and pleasing to Yahweh. The Hebrew word for “to serve, till” is used of cultivating the soil (Gen. 2:5; 3:23; 4:2, 12, etc.). The word is commonly used in the religious sense of serving God (Deut. 4:19) and the priests serving in the tabernacle (Num. 3:7-8; 4:23-24, 26, etc.). To “guard, keep” can mean guard (Gen. 4:9; 30:31) but is used more commonly of religious commands and duties (Gen. 17:9; Lev. 18:5) and the guarding of the tabernacle (Num. 1:53; 3:7-8). These are the root words for worship used throughout Scripture. Never does Scripture use the word worship for singing songs. This is called praise. Worship, as portrayed in the Bible, is dedicating one’s life to working in the garden/creation/kingdom of Yahweh in order to do His will (Rom. 12:1). Praise is what you do when you have already worshiped Yahweh throughout the week and seen Him at work in your life.

In the pagan accounts of creation, the first thing that appeared out of the chaotic waters was a cosmic mountain where the gods lived, above and separated from the humans. In the Biblical account, the cosmic mountain (land) was revealed by the separating of the subdued waters. It is not clear whether the Garden of Eden was on a mountain or plain. If it was a mountain, in parallel with the pagan accounts, then Yahweh was showing that He had placed humans on His mountain with Him. If it was a plain, then Yahweh was coming down to humanity to make His cosmic mountain level with where humans lived, which is seen throughout the Bible. Either way, what is clear is that this garden was meant to be seen as Yahweh’s cosmic mountain and that He had placed humans on this cosmic mountain so that they could dwell with Him in an intimate relationship, in contrast to the pagan accounts.

Genesis 1–2 has clearly established that the focus is on the fact that Yahweh had created a tabernacle on earth so that He could dwell with humanity. Genesis 1 made the point that humanity was to rule over the garden and creation, maintaining its order and goodness. Now Genesis 2 has made the point that humanity was to be priests serving in the garden/tabernacle of Yahweh. The purpose of a priest is to mediate between Yahweh and creation. This means they link Yahweh and creation together in a covenantal relationship.

Furthermore, it is clear that the garden was a limited space on earth, for it was a fenced-in garden (Gen. 2:8), and Adam and Eve, when they sinned, were removed from the garden (Gen. 3:23-24). Likewise, the point seems to be that without humanity, the land would not be a garden—if humanity does not make it so (Gen. 2:5)—thus what was outside the garden was not as plentiful. It is also clear that to be outside the garden was not good since Adam and Eve’s being exiled from the garden was not good (Gen. 3:23-24). Yet since Adam and Eve were to be fruitful and multiply and were also immortal, eating from the tree of life (Gen. 3:22), then eventually they would outgrow the garden. One can therefore interpret the command to work and till the garden as a command to expand the garden. And since the garden was the tabernacle/kingdom of Yahweh on earth, then humanity’s purpose was to expand that tabernacle/kingdom across creation so that everything would be a garden of Yahweh.

Thus heaven and earth were in some way the same thing, with humanity taken from the earth and made in the image of God as the link between the two. Their purpose was to expand the kingdom of Yahweh over all creation, ordering it and creating life as they worked and tilled the land and as they served in and guarded the tabernacle from disorder. This is incredible, for although Yahweh has clearly shown that He did not need humanity to create an orderly and good creation, He has chosen to invite humanity into a relationship with Him and has given them the power and the privilege in joining him in ruling and subduing the creation. In the same way that parents do not need their children’s help creating and ordering their lives, they take joy in their children joining them in this task because humans are relational beings like our Father in heaven.

2:16-17 Yahweh gave every tree in the garden to humanity to eat except for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The knowledge of good and evil is synonymous with wisdom. There was nothing wrong with the tree, and it was not evil in itself, for Yahweh had declared everything good in His creation (Gen. 1:24-25, 31). In fact, Yahweh urges humans to seek after wisdom (1 Kgs. 3:1-15; Prov. 9:10; Ps. 111:10; James 1:5), and when Adam and Eve ate from the tree, Yahweh said that they had become like Him, knowing good and evil (Gen. 3:22). “Knowledge” in the Bible is not just informational but also experiential. Knowledge is not just knowing facts about something but living out and experiencing the nature of the truth—like the difference between taking the written driver’s test and actually driving a car. This means that the experience of eating of the tree and the consequences of it gave them a greater wisdom of creation, causing them in some way to become more like Yahweh in their understanding of it.

So if the desire for and the gaining of wisdom and knowledge is good, why then did Yahweh forbid gaining it from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? All throughout the Bible it is clear that what Yahweh desires more than anything is having an intimate relationship with His creation. And He has given humans the gift of free choice as to whether they want a relationship with Him. In an authentic, intimate relationship of trust and love, all the people in the relationship must want it. If one is forced to love or does not have other options, then it is not true love. Free choice is essential if one is to experience true love. For without choice, humans would love and obey Yahweh because they had been programmed to do so, not because they love Him. The tree represents a choice between gaining wisdom through a relationship with Yahweh and gaining wisdom from an alternate source that is contrary to His will. Yahweh wanted them to gain wisdom through a relationship with Him as the ultimate source of wisdom (Prov. 30:1-6). But, because He desires to have a genuine relationship with humans, He chose to take the risk of sin entering His creation and give humans a choice.

In addition, the forbidding of the partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil confronts Adam and Eve with the law of Yahweh. Up to this point, Yahweh was the one who had defined what was good. With the tree in their midst, humanity now had the choice of whether they would accept and trust Yahweh’s definition of good and evil or choose autonomy. Autonomy, meaning self-law, is where one defines good and evil for themselves. Yahweh, as the designer and creator of our lives, designed how we were to function in order to best experience life, wholeness, and satisfaction. Autonomy is when we decide that He is wrong and that we will write our own law of how we should function in order to gain life, wholeness, and satisfaction. It is when we decide that our definitions of Yahweh, ourselves, others, and creation are superior to Yahweh’s definition. This is like a child going up to the original designer and builder of a car and telling them that they are doing it wrong. Yet that is what we do every time we sin. Nowhere in the Bible is autonomy ever portrayed as good. We are not capable of being self-reliant or managing life on our own. No human is an island unto himself. We are finite beings created to need and be in community for survival. The America culture, however, has pushed and celebrated individualism and self-reliance, and this mindset has led to relational brokenness and to its people being some of the most unhealthy and depressed in the world.

The test of the tree was whether Adam and Eve would gain wisdom under Yahweh’s teaching or by their own autonomous means. Their sin was in the act of violating Yahweh’s command and choosing to obtain wisdom through their own initiative, outside the will of Yahweh, rather than obtaining wisdom from Him in a dependent relationship. In its essence, the command to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is a statement that Yahweh is God and we are not.

James 1:13-15 says that one’s own evil desire (autonomy) leads to sin and that sin leads to death. Our choice to enact our autonomy leads to sin. Sin is going contrary to the will of Yahweh. We then think, speak, and act in a way that is contrary to the way Yahweh designed us and creation to operate. We are no longer good because we are living disobediently and in rebellion against Yahweh’s will and design. This leads to death in that when we are no longer functioning according to Yahweh’s design and are instead living for ourselves, then we are no longer loving Yahweh (Deut. 6:4) and others (Lev. 19:18), which leads to brokenness, hurt, and eventually death: the dysfunction or death of our relationships, careers, dreams, and, eventually, our lives.

Here in Genesis Yahweh declared that the consequence of eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was that they would die. The Hebrew literally says, “dying you will die.” This construction emphasizes the certainty of death if they disobeyed. Death in the Bible is not just physical death, for Adam and Eve did not die physically immediately after they ate of the tree. Death is separation. The immediate death that they experienced after they ate of the fruit was spiritual death. Their sin led to a separation from Yahweh, represented in their removal from the Garden of Eden, from being in the presence of Yahweh in an intimate relationship with Him. Because they were cut off from the ultimate Source of life, then their bodies could survive only so long before they too died, like a flower cut from its vine.

The warning that they would die means Adam and Eve had to know what death was in some way, or the threat of death as a consequence would have meant nothing to them. They had to understand the consequences of their disobedience if the warning was to be valid or carry any meaning or weight.

2:18-20 This is the first time Yahweh states that something is not good with His creation. Before sin came into the world, Yahweh saw that Adam was alone and said that it was not good. In response to this, He created a helper for Adam. The word helper is not a demeaning term, for it is also used of Yahweh as humanity’s helper in Psalm 10:14; 54:4 (Ex. 18:4; Deut. 33:7; 1 Sam. 7:12). Being alone is a negative concept in the Bible; a healthy life is found in the community (Ecc. 4:9-12; Jer. 16:1-9), so the word companion better communicates the idea the narrator intended. Likewise, the word suitable means “equal and adequate.”

Yahweh waited until Adam was prepared to appreciate the gift of woman. If one does not find contentment in Yahweh while they are alone, they will not find contentment when they are joined with another. Yahweh brought before Adam all the animals that He had made so that Adam could name them. Naming the animals shows Adam’s sovereignty over them and his right to rule and subdue them (Gen. 1:26-28; Num. 32:38; 2 Kg. 23:34; 24:17; 2 Chr. 36:4; Dan. 1:6-7). Note that this is something Adam did without Eve (discussed in the next set of verses). The other reason the animals were brought before Adam is that it shaped his concept of reality and showed him that he was alone and needed a companion like himself, just like each of the animals had. Adam needed a mate in order to fulfill the command to be fruitful and multiply.

2:21-25 To create woman, Yahweh put Adam into a deep sleep. The Hebrew word (tardēmâ) for “deep sleep” is often used of visions from Yahweh (Gen. 15:12; 1 Sam. 26:12; Job 4:13; Isa. 29:10). This was not a literal surgery but a vision of a metaphor that communicated an idea about who woman is in relation to man. The idea Yahweh was communicating is that man and woman are equals: a bone was not taken from his head or his heel—to rule or to be ruled over—nor from his front or back—to lead him or to follow him—but from his side, so she would stand by his side as his partner in fulfilling the mandates of Yahweh. Notice that she was not created from the dirt like Adam was; rather, she was taken from him. This suggests that though they were complete in themselves as image-bearers, they find an even greater completion in their union.

Adam showed that he understood the meaning of Yahweh’s vision with his poetic words. Once again, the switch from prose to poetry emphasizes the importance what was being said (see the Gen. 1:27 comments). Adam declared that they were the same by the fact that she was taken out of him and made of the same material as him, and thus they were equals united in the same mission. In the same way that humanity (adam) was taken from the land (adama) and thus connected, Adam made this connection between himself and the woman by saying that she was woman (‘ishah) taken out of man (‘ish).^[45]

Though all scholars see Adam and Eve as equals, there are some who see the headship of Adam being emphasized here as well. The fact that Adam was created first, that he named the animals without Eve, and that he named Eve demonstrate his headship over her. This does not make him superior, nor does he have the right to rule over her. This concept of headship within equality can be found in the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Son, and the Son is subordinate to the Father, yet they are all equal. However, there are others who think these arguments do not point so clearly to headship. John Walton makes the point that Adam did not name her Eve until after the fall. Instead, he is merely describing or categorizing her when he calls her woman.

However, what is clear and dominant in this passage is their compatibility and unity, emphasized by the narrator’s commentary in Gen. 2:24. The fact that woman was taken out of man and thus they are the same is why, when they get married, the man will leave his family and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. The phrase “they will become one flesh” finds its meaning in the praise of Adam in the preceding verse. Just as woman came from the same bone and flesh as Adam, so in their union they become like one person again. This suggests a union, not just of body but also of mind and spirit.

It is interesting that the man is said to leave his parents to unite with his wife, because in all the ancient Near East and in the Bible, it is the woman who leaves her family and joins the man’s family. For a young teenage girl, being uprooted from her family, married off to a man she does not know, and placed in an unknown family with different practices and family dynamics, along with homesickness, would be very challenging and maybe even traumatic. Yahweh is speaking into the traditions of the culture and emphasizing that the man is to consider his new bride above his family, to separate from them as she has from hers, and to make her and his new family the priority above his, though he still lives with them. Here we see one of the first signs of Yahweh going countercultural and looking out for the social outcast, minority, and overlooked.

The narrator continues to emphasize their oneness and unity by stating that they were naked before each other and felt no shame. Their nakedness has more to do with their psychological and emotional vulnerability, transparency, and oneness with each other than just being physically naked. Their naked condition shows that they had no reason to be ashamed in each other’s presence or in Yahweh’s presence because there was no sin creating a wall between them. Their relationship with each other was good and complete because their relationship with Yahweh was good and complete. This closing statement sets the reader up for what is to follow in Genesis 3.

Though there is no explicit mention of a covenant being made, it is clear that Yahweh made a covenant with humanity, which scholars have named the Adamic Covenant. By placing Adam and Eve in the garden, He bestowed upon them the right to dwell with Him and made them king and queen of His creation as His representatives (Gen. 1:26-31; 2:16-17; Ps. 8). The only requirement that He placed upon them was to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This covenant was conditional in that if they violated the command of Yahweh, then the blessings of the covenant would be lost. By making this covenant with Adam and Eve and entering into such an intimate relationship with them, Yahweh bound Himself to them in a way unlike any of the other gods. In so doing, He gave humanity great worth, elevating them to a position of authority and prominence that would ultimately be fulfilled in Christ. ^[46] However, in their disobedience they broke the covenant and lost their position and unity with Yahweh (Hos. 6:7). From the fall onward, every other covenant that follows will be the restoration of what was lost here and a portion of the foundation for the New Covenant in Christ that will restore to humanity what was lost in the Adamic Covenant.

“In essence, Adam and Eve are free to do anything except decide for themselves what is good and what is evil. Yahweh reserves the right (and the responsibility) to name those truths himself. This was Adam and Eve’s perfect world. Not just fruit and fig leaves, but an entire race of people stretching their cognitive and creative powers to the limit to build a society of balance and justice and joy. Here the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve would learn life at the feet of the Father, build their city in the shadow of the Almighty, create and design and expand within the protective confines of his kingdom. The blessing of this gift? A civilization without greed, malice or envy; progress without pollution, expansion without extinction. Can you imagine it? A world in which Adam and Eve’s ever-expanding family would be provided the guidance they needed to explore and develop their world such that the success of the strong did not involve the deprivation of the weak. Here government would be wise and just and kind, resources plentiful, war unnecessary, achievement unlimited and beauty and balance everywhere. This was God’s perfect plan: the people of God in the people God in the place of God dwelling in the presence of God. Yet, as with all covenants God’s perfect plan was dependent on the choice of the vassal. Humanity must willingly submit to the plan of God. The steward must choose this world; for in God’s perfect plan, the steward had been given the authority to reject it.”^[47]

Genesis 1–2 is foundational to the story of Yahweh’s redemption because it explains what Yahweh intended for creation and humanity. If we do not understand what we were intended to be, then we will not understand what we are meant to be redeemed back to. The imagery and meaning established here will become the dominant imagery and meaning throughout the rest of the Biblical story. Yahweh established a garden where we could dwell with Him, and we were given the purpose of expanding that garden and making sure the order, goodness, and life of creation were maintained. However, we lost that through our desire for autonomy (Gen. 3).

However, Yahweh planned to restore humanity back to Himself, beginning with Abraham’s calling to be a blessing to the whole world (Gen. 12:1-3), the promise of a land of blessing, and the establishment of the Mosaic Law and tabernacle—a re-creation of the idea of the garden, where Yahweh would dwell with Israel. This finds its fulfillment when Jesus comes as the embodiment of God and humanity dwelling together as both the God-man and the one who would make it possible for the Holy Spirit to indwell humanity. We are then called to expand the garden that was established in us by making disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:16-28) and joining Him in establishing His will on earth as it is in heaven (Matt. 6:9-10). We thus look forward to the day that the kingdom of Yahweh, in the embodiment of the heavenly tabernacle, and Yahweh Himself will come down to earth once again; here, we will dwell with Yahweh physically in heaven and earth in the orderly and good garden that He has re-established (Rev. 21–22). “It is important to understand that the hope for the future does not depend on the attempt to achieve something that has never been but to restore what has been lost.”^[48]

C. The Temptation and Fall of Humanity (3:1-24)

Genesis 3 records the fall of humanity, which led to the fall of creation since Adam and Eve were the rulers over the creation. The Bible never actually calls this event the fall. The closest idea to a “fall” is found in Rom. 5:12-21. A better understanding comes by referring to it as the disobedience, defection, or transgression of humanity. This chapter explains how Yahweh’s orderly and good creation became chaotic and wicked. It was not because Yahweh failed in creating the universe and humanity but because humanity failed in obeying and representing Yahweh. Genesis 4–11 displays humanity’s worsening state with their constant desire for autonomy, demonstrated in sin and rebellion.

The previous and current acts of Genesis form a chiastic parallelism, where the events of Gen. 2:5–3:5 parallel the events of Gen. 3:9-24 yet are antithetical to the top half of the structure. These two parallels pivot on the event of the sin of humanity (Gen. 3:6-8), which is the emphasis of the story. This also shows that the narrator sees Yahweh’s creation of the garden and humanity’s good relationship with it along with humanity’s sin and their expulsion from the garden as one story. The main idea, therefore, is how humanity lost their relationship with Yahweh due to sin.

A Narrative (Yahweh active, humanity passive): Creation of man and his good relationship with the land (2:5-17)

   B Narrative (Yahweh active, humanity passive): Man and woman’s good relationship with each other (2:18-25)

      C Dialogue: The serpent tempting the woman (3:1-5)

         X Narrative (humanity active, Yahweh passive): The sin of humanity (3:6-8)

      C’ Dialogue: Yahweh’s uncovering of the sin (3:9-13)

   B’ Narrative (Yahweh active, humanity passive) Man and woman’s spoiled relationship with each other (3:14-21)

A’ Narrative (Yahweh active, humanity passive): Punishment of humanity and their spoiled relationship with the land (3:22-24)

3:1a There is no hint in the First Testament that the serpent is to be seen as being Satan, possessed by Satan, or corrupted by Satan. Many have assumed that because the serpent acted in an evil way and was able to speak that the serpent was Satan or that Satan must have been the power behind the serpent. But this is just that—an assumption. The Bible never explains where the serpent came from, how the serpent became evil, how it was able to talk, and so on. Nor does the Bible explain the origins of evil in the universe, only how humanity transgressed Yahweh’s law in the garden. Genesis 3 is not interested in the origin of the serpent but in the conversation it had with Eve and in her response, as seen by the fact that this section spends all of its time on their conversation. The context makes it clear that the serpent is just another wild animal that Yahweh had created (Gen. 3:1). It is judged as an animal and condemned to crawl on its belly, which Satan does not do (Gen. 3:14). Genesis states that the serpent has offspring, which Satan does not have (Gen. 3:15). Therefore, the serpent could not have been Satan. It is not likely that Satan possessed the serpent because the serpent and its offspring, not Satan, were judged by Yahweh. Did Satan corrupt the serpent? It is possible, but the Bible never says. Some have pointed to Rev. 12:9, which connects the serpent with Satan, as evidence for the two being the same. But Revelation is not saying that Satan was the serpent in the garden or even that Satan was the power behind the serpent. It is just saying that one of the descriptors for Satan is “the serpent,” which is a symbol of chaos.

In the ancient world, the serpent was a universal symbol of wisdom, chaos, and evil. The Bible uses it as a symbol of only chaos and evil (Num. 21:6-7; Deut. 8:15). In the Bible serpents are often grouped with other dangerous animals with no supernatural connotation (Ps. 91:13). The nations of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon are often referred to as the serpent (Isa. 14:29; 27:1; Jer. 8:17; 46:22; 51:34; Amos 9:3). The serpent licking the dust is also used as a metaphor for judgment, just as it is here (Is. 65:25; Mic. 7:17).

“Unlike Christian theology, in Israel there was no inclination to embody all evil in a central figure or trace its cause to a single historical event, such as Satan’s fall. Therefore, the Israelites were quite willing to recognize the serpent as representing an evil influence without any attempt to associate it with a being who was the ultimate source or cause of evil. In fact, it would appear that the author of Genesis is intentionally underplaying the role or identification of the serpent.”^[49]

The Hebrew word ’arum means “shrewd, clever, crafty” and communicates the idea of being wise, not wicked. In a negative sense, it is understood as “cunning” (Job 5:12; 15:5), and in a positive sense as “prudent” (Prov. 12:16, 23; 13:16; 14:8, 15, 18; 22:3; 27:12). There is a word play between “naked” (Gen. 2:25) and “shrewd” (Gen. 3:1). Adam and Eve were seen as vulnerable and open to the serpent’s attack. At the beginning, they were naked and he was shrewd; afterward, they would be covered and he would be cursed. The serpent is portrayed as evil by the mere fact that he encourages them to go contrary to the will of Yahweh.

What is clear is that Adam and Eve, as the image of God, were meant to subdue the evil that had just entered the garden. Whether this meant redeeming the serpent or driving it out of creation, they had been made rulers over Yahweh’s creation in order to maintain the order and goodness of His creation. They were to guard the garden and not allow it to be infiltrated by the serpent nor to entertain its ideas.

3:1b-3 The first thing the serpent did was question whether the command of Yahweh was heard correctly or whether it was valid. The serpent made the command seem restrictive by incorrectly emphasizing that they were not allowed to eat the fruit of any tree, when Yahweh had stated the opposite—that they were allowed to eat from all the trees except one. The woman responds with her own altered understanding of the command. First, she left out the word all, which emphasized how great the blessing was because they could eat from all the trees of the garden. Second, she left out the word freely, which communicates the idea that they could eat from the other trees anytime they wanted and as much as they wanted. Third, she changed surely to lest, which means it might or might not happen. Fourth, she added to the command that they were not allowed even to touch the tree or they would die. These seem small until you realize that they change one’s understanding of the character of Yahweh. The serpent got her to focus on what she could not have and made the restriction sound like it was more than it was; with this twist, Yahweh ceased to be the God of abundant blessing that He is. She had allowed the serpent’s understanding to replace the truth of what Yahweh commanded.

“It is interesting that three times the Word of the Lord is quoted, but never appropriately: once it is questioned in a misleading way, once it is paraphrased with major changes, and once it is flatly denied.”^[50]

3:4-5 The second thing the serpent did was deny the consequences of eating from the tree (the penalty of death). Then it attacked the character of Yahweh by suggesting that He was keeping something good from the woman by raising doubts about Yahweh’s sincerity and motives. By casting doubts on Yahweh’s integrity, her disobedience seemed justified. Finally, it told her that she could do a better job of taking care of her life and achieving happiness on her own—in essence, that she could become her own god. This theme will show up over and over throughout the Bible. The irony is that the serpent offered Eve a means to become like God, but that is what they already were as ones made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26). She would become more like Yahweh if she chose to receive greater knowledge from Him. She would become less like Yahweh when she came to know sin and became separated from Yahweh.

Notice that the name Yahweh had been introduced in Genesis 2, when Yahweh created and placed the man and woman in the garden, but now neither the serpent nor Eve is using this relational and covenantal name of God.

“It is because ‘Yahweh Elohim’ expresses so strongly the basic OT convictions about God’s being both creator and Israel’s covenant partner that the serpent and the woman avoid the term in their discussion. The god they are talking about is malevolent, secretive, and concerned to restrict man: his character is so different from that of Yahweh Elohim that the narrative pointedly avoids the name in the dialogue of 3:1-5.”^[51]

“The timeless lesson of these verses is that victory over temptation to violate God’s good will depends on a thorough knowledge of God’s word and unwavering confidence in God’s goodness. As Israel faced temptations to depart from God’s revealed will from the pagans she encountered, this record would have provided a resource for remaining faithful, as it does for us today. Often these temptations attract because they promise superior knowledge, even divinity. Knowing God’s word is extremely important (cf. Deut. 6:5-9, 13-25; Ps. 119:9-16). Satan tempted Jesus similarly to the way he tempted Eve. However, Jesus overcame victoriously by accurately using the word of God to remain faithful to the will of God. True wisdom comes by obeying, not disobeying, God’s word.”^[52]

3:6-7 The woman’s first sin was not in her action of taking and eating of the tree but in her unbelief, when she did not believe what Yahweh had said (Rom. 14:23). The major mistake that the woman made, and then the man, was that they did not turn to Yahweh to sort out the conflict of information between what He had said and what the serpent was saying. Yahweh had already proven Himself and had given them so much, yet she took the word of the new creature that had just entered the garden and not proven himself. The heart of sin is found here, in that the woman saw, in her own eyes, that the tree was good and decided she was going to eat despite what Yahweh had commanded. In the woman’s eyes, the forbidden tree had become just like all the other trees; there was no more distinction. The woman decided that Yahweh’s definition of good and evil was false, and she seized autonomy. Whereas Yahweh had previously seen His creation as good, now she has seen what Yahweh had forbidden as good.

“Sin consists of an illicit reach of unbelief, an assertion of human autonomy to know morality apart for God. The creature must live by faith in God’s word, not by a professed self-sufficiency of knowledge (Deut. 8:3; Ps. 19:7-9; Ezek. 28:6, 15-17).”^[53]

The fact that she immediately gave the fruit to Adam suggests that Adam was there the entire time. He was passive during the whole conversation and merely followed the lead of the woman in eating of the fruit against Yahweh’s command. The serpent probably approached the woman, not because she was weaker and more prone to sin but because she was not with Adam when Yahweh gave Adam the command to not eat of the tree.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil did open their eyes to a greater knowledge, as the serpent had said it would. As mentioned above, they now had a personal experience of good and evil and now knew more than they had known before. However, they did not obtain wisdom in the way Yahweh wanted them to, so they now had the experiential knowledge of sin in a way that Yahweh as a loving father did not want for them.

As a result, they realized that they were naked, and they were filled with shame. Now they had sinful thoughts and desires, and as they stood transparent and vulnerable before each other, they were ashamed of who they were and what they had done. Adam and the woman responded by trying to cover themselves with fig leaves. As a result of sin, humans are confronted with their own dark desires and also experience a fear of rejection, so they create façades to keep others from knowing their true self and their sinful desires, thereby protecting themselves from possible rejection.

It is important to understand that Adam and Eve’s sin was not a sin against their neighbor but against Yahweh. It was not a social sin, which means, for all of history, that the core problem of sin cannot be fixed by social reform and humanitarian efforts. Even if we could make people better in this way, people and societies only seem “better” when compared to others; compared to Yahweh’s righteousness they are still wretched sinners. The only solution to sin is one that comes from Yahweh, since He is the offended, and not through humanitarian efforts.

As mentioned above, the heart of sin is autonomy, or self-law (see the comment for 2:16-17). Autonomy is the source of the river of sin that flows through our lives. This head water then divides into two different streams or manifestations of sin: pride and shame. Pride is defined as excessive self-esteem. This manifestation of sin is the obvious one. It is when we see ourselves, our way of thinking, or our skills as superior to others. This leads to selfishness and obsessive thinking about ourselves, which leads to our seeking power and control over others in order to enact our will. This is a violation of the Law that commands us to love Yahweh (Deut. 6:4) and love others (Lev. 19:18). The Law demands that we dethrone ourselves, give up our power and control, and submit to Yahweh’s will in order to love others.

The other manifestation of sin is shame, or inferiority, defined as being lower in status, quality, or worth than others. This is still autonomy because one is writing a new law about who they are, what they are worth, and what they are capable of—contrary to how Yahweh sees and defines them as His children made in His own image. This also leads to selfishness and thinking obsessively about ourselves because all we can focus on is ourselves; thus, we are not loving Yahweh and others in our thoughts, words, and deeds. Though guilt and shame are not bad in of themselves—they are useful in making us aware of our sin for repentance—when we do not repent and receive forgiveness, then we drown in shame and cannot return to a correct definition of ourselves.

Sin simultaneously produces pride and insecurity in our lives. These two streams of sin flow continually in our lives, sometimes separate from each other—like when we are prideful in our work abilities but are insecure in our relationships. But they also intertwine with each other, where one is the source for the other—like when we manifest pride in order to hide our insecurity. Both of these are a rejection of Yahweh’s definitions of us and lead us to live contrary to His will. As well, both streams always lead to death of some kind in our lives.

This is why Paul says, “For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you” (Rom. 12:3). This command does not allow for excess or low self-esteem and instead drives listeners to the grace of Yahweh and to placing their faith in His will and His way. The only way to combat autonomy is to turn back to Yahweh and His Word, submitting to His definitions and allowing them to replace our definitions of who we are and what we are capable of.

3:8-13 The narrator describes Yahweh as “walking in the garden in the cool of the day.” The phrase “in the cool” comes from the Hebrew word ruach, which literally means “wind” or “spirit,” and refers to the same Spirit/wind of God as Gen. 1:2. This line suggests that this was a common occurrence and that Adam and Eve had face-to-face communion with Yahweh. This relational intimacy is very different from the pagan creation views of humans as flawed, distant slaves of the gods. This is also what Adam and Eve lost due to their sin; rather than turning to Yahweh who had already proven Himself as more faithful and loving than the serpent they just obeyed, they hid from Yahweh out of fear (3:8, 10). They would now see Him as the god the serpent had described, instead of as how Yahweh had revealed Himself. Despite this, we see the unique character of Yahweh in the fact that He seeks them out after they run and hide.

So, why did Yahweh, if He knows all things, ask where Adam and Eve were? Yahweh is not to be seen as ignorant of His creation when He called out to them. Rather, Yahweh was drawing them out—wanting them to confess their sin in order to demonstrate their desire to be in a right relationship with Him. This is similar to a father who knows his son has been out drinking, and when the son returns home, the father asks, “Where have you been?” The father already knows the answer; he wants the son to respect and love him enough to tell him the truth on his own. Notice that it is Yahweh who sought out Adam and Eve. He took the initiative to reestablish a relationship with them.

When questioned by Yahweh, Adam and Eve immediately passed the blame and sought to justify themselves rather than confessing and seeking forgiveness. The fact that Adam viewed Yahweh’s gift to him (the woman) as the source of his trouble shows how far he had fallen. He basically accused Yahweh of causing him to fall because of Yahweh’s giving him Eve. Yahweh did not question the serpent because Adam and Eve, as the rulers over the serpent, should have questioned the animal that Adam named.

3:14-15 Once again the narrator switches from prose to poetry to emphasize the importance of Yahweh’s judgment on humanity (see the Gen. 1:27 comment). Only here and Gen. 4:11 does Yahweh personally use the phrase “cursed are you.” Elsewhere in Scripture, a human is the one who pronounces curses. In the Bible, to curse is not to cast some kind of magical hex but is to invoke Yahweh’s judgment on someone or remove His protection. Yahweh will no longer have a direct role in one’s life, of protecting them from harm or blessing them. The fact that Yahweh caused the serpent to crawl on his belly and eat dust is a symbol of total humiliation (Ps. 72:9; Isa. 49:23; 65:25; Mic. 7:17). The only parallel to “on your belly” is Lev. 11:42, which brands these creatures as unclean. The eating of dust is figurative of judgment of enemies (Ps. 72:9; Isa. 49:23; Mic. 7:17). How literally this can be taken and how directly it applies to the serpent is not clear.

The Hebrew word translated “offspring” is a collective singular. This does not refer to one specific offspring but to all the descendants of the woman and to all the descendants of the serpent (see Gen. 16:10; 22:17; 24:60 for other examples of singular verbs used in the collective sense). It has been understood that man’s offspring will “crush” the serpent’s head and that the serpent will “strike” or “bruise” the man’s heel. However, the Hebrew word sphuph is used for both of these translations, which is “attack” or “bruise” in both cases (see the NET, NASB, RSV). Both of these are fatal blows. For a man to attack a serpent’s head is fatal, and for a venomous serpent to attack a man’s heel, before hospitals or antibiotics, was fatal as well. The form of the verb used here communicates the idea of repeated attacks from both sides in order to kill the other. ^[54] There is no sense of victory of one party over the other in the grammatical structure or the context. Death will continually be dealt out and spread by both humanity and the serpent because of sin. The immediate seed of the woman is Cain, and then all humanity. Because humanity chose to obey the creation, over which they were meant to rule, they would now be be in constant conflict with creation. Later in the Bible, the serpent becomes a symbol of chaos, evil, and all those who resist and rebel against Yahweh (Jn. 8:44).

Gen. 3:15 has been commonly understood as the first prophecy of Jesus Christ, where Satan would strike Jesus on the cross and Jesus would defeat Satan in His resurrection. However, there is no evidence here or in the rest of Scripture to support this, nor did any Jew throughout history see messianic connections. First, it is clear that the serpent is an animal, not Satan. Second, the conflict is between the offspring of the woman and the offspring of the serpent. Even if we see Satan as the power behind the serpent, Satan does not have offspring. Additionally, it says the offspring of the serpent/Satan would strike the woman’s offspring, which means it would be Satan’s child who struck Christ at the cross, but he does not have a child. Third, this verse declares that humanity strikes first, not the serpent. Fourth, as already mentioned, there is no sense linguistically of one strike being greater than the other or of a sense of finality to the conflict. Fifth, the context of Gen. 3:14-19 is Yahweh’s judgment on humanity and creation, not one of hope or promises. Nowhere does Yahweh give promises of restoration in the midst of judging someone. Finally, if this were meant to be seen as messianic, then why does no Second Testament writer reference this passage in talking about Christ? The only passage that gets close to this language is Rom. 16:20. But it says that Satan will be crushed under the feet of Christians, not Christ. This idea of being crushed underfoot is common ancient language found throughout the Bible (Ps. 110:1) and is not an automatic connection to Gen. 3:15. Likewise, the context of Romans 16 is warning against false teachers and has nothing to do with Christ or His death and resurrection.

Not until the time of the early church fathers after Christ did this passage take on a messianic interpretation. The early church fathers incorrectly interpreted everything in the Bible as allegorical. Not only has this form of interpretation been rejected by every scholar from the late medieval period, most of the early church fathers’ allegorical interpretations would be seen as farfetched by modern, everyday Christians as well.

3:16 As for the woman, Yahweh stated that her pain in childbirth would be increased tremendously. The word for “pain” entails emotional as well as physical suffering (1 Pet. 3:7). Rather than new life coming easily, it would be introduced into the world through great distress. “Childbearing” could refer not just to the birthing but also the raising of the child, with all the turmoil that is involved. Eve was to be the mother of all life (Gen. 3:20), but now that blessing would bring with it suffering and conflict throughout her entire life.

The meaning of “your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (NIV, NASB, RSV) is unclear. There is one other parallel in the Bible to this phrase. The Hebrew word tÿshuqah (“desire”) is used later in Gen. 4:7: “Sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must overcome it.” The connection is the desire to dominate. The passage should thus be translated, “You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you.” Adam and Eve were created to be equal as co-regents over creation in a mutual relationship of self-sacrificing love and partnership. But now their self-declared autonomy would create a new desire for control that would transform them into two greedy and competitive people grappling for control of headship. “The woman at her worst would be a nemesis to the man, and the man at his worst would dominate the woman.”^[55] Not only had sin marred humanity’s relationship with Yahweh, but it had also created a rift between the two who should have become as one (Gen. 2:24).

3:17-19 As for the man, Yahweh cursed the ground so that it would no longer freely produce life; rather, man would now have to toil just to maintain his survival, let alone gain anything. Adam no longer had dominion over the land; rather, it would now resist him. Man would be in conflict with nature until he died and returned to dust (Job 10:9; 34:15; Ps. 103:14; Eccl. 12:7, etc.). The point is that although humanity was taken from the dust of the earth and given life in order to rule over the land, now, because he failed to rule over creation, the land would eventually rule over him by taking him back. The land no longer carries just the idea of life and blessing but also of death and the grave. The phrase “by the sweat of your brow” should not be understood as hard work but is a Hebrew idiom that refers to fear and anxiety.^[56] Providing food and shelter for the family would now involve all the worries and anxiety of whether there would be enough. Though it was Eve who sinned first, Adam was held responsible for both his and her actions (Hos. 6:7; Rom. 5:14; 1 Cor. 15:22).

3:20-21 Adam named his wife Eve, which means “the mother of all living.” The naming of his wife and her naming of her children (Gen. 4:1) shows an acceptance of the consequences, a renewed faith in Yahweh, and a hope for the future.

Before Yahweh expelled Adam and Eve from the garden, He made garments from animal skin. There is no indication of how this was done. Earlier, the man and woman’s attempt to cover their nakedness with leaves communicated that they were disconnected from Yahweh and each other (Gen. 3:7). By giving them more durable and long-lasting coverings, Yahweh communicated that their disconnection was greater than they realized. He was also preparing them for the more hostile land in which they would be living (Gen. 3:23). The garments would also be a reminder of their sin. At the same time, there is a positive note in that Yahweh has made provision for them.

Though many scholars do not see here any connection to animal sacrifice and blood atonement because they are not specifically mentioned, it is hard to completely rule this out. As Moses wrote this to the Hebrews who had just come out of Egypt and been given the Law, the sacrificial system, and the tabernacle, it would probably be hard not to see animal sacrifice in this act—especially when the only way they could get skins was through the death of an animal and when Yahweh was the one doing it. Similarly, Abel and Cain, portrayed later, already had a concept of animal and grain sacrifice in Gen. 4, even though the text does not explain where they learned this. Through the slaughter of the animal, Yahweh not only provided forgiveness—through the blood—He also provided safety and acceptance—through the animal’s skins. Though they would not have fully grasped its significance, this taught them that the only way back to Yahweh was through a blood sacrifice. This concept of atonement through blood sacrifice will become the major focus in the rest of the Torah after Genesis.

3:22-24 Yahweh acknowledged that Adam and Eve had become more like Him in that they had gained knowledge. Then Yahweh stated that they must be expelled from the garden so that they could not eat of the tree of life and live forever. The implication is that humanity was mortal but that by living in the garden they would have access to the tree of life and be able to live forever. Now, however, Yahweh would enforce the penalty of death for their eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil—the penalty of which He had warned them (Gen. 2:17)—by removing them from the tree of life.

Since the gate to the garden was in the east, Adam and Eve had to move eastward in order to leave the garden and the presence of Yahweh. Because of this, from this point on in the Bible moving east is a symbol of exile from the presence of Yahweh. This comes through either a judgment of Yahweh or the choice of the people to move away from Yahweh.

The final judgment was that Adam and Eve were removed from the garden, the symbol of their intimate relationship with Yahweh. The real consequence, of which the serpent never spoke, was that they were now cut off from the full presence, life, and light of Yahweh. Their sense of significance, acceptance, and safety had been lost. Ironically, the fact that humans would die is both a judgment and a hope for humanity, who would not have to live in the state of sin forever—death would be a release. With the death of the corrupted spirit and body comes the potential for rebirth, which will be developed later in the Bible.

“God’s response to human grasping is exile from paradise, which is at the same time a merciful act that prevents His deluded creatures from obtaining eternal life in sin and thus joining the ranks of the devils, condemned forever. By placing the cherubim, celestial guardians, at the gate of Eden, the author makes clear that the way back to paradise is not through the heavens or the ‘sons of God’ but by the dust of the earth and the reproduction of offspring as an inheritance.”^[57]

Yahweh placed two cherubim in front of the entrance of the garden to guard it and prevent humanity’s access. Cherubim in the Bible are composite heavenly beings of lion, ox, eagle, and man (Ezek. 1:4-14; 10:1-5). Huge, intimidating, composite divine creatures with wings appear frequently in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Canaan. Their composite nature communicates a union of the material and spiritual realms. They appear at the entrance of temples, throne rooms, and sacred places. Their size and abnormality were meant to repel evil and intimidate visitors. They served as guardians to emphasize the holiness of the place one was entering and to destroy those who were not worthy to enter or who defiled the sacred place. Images of the cherubim were later stitched into the gate of the tabernacle (Ex. 26:1, 31) and placed on the Ark of the Covenant in the tabernacle (Ex. 25:18-22); cherubim pulled the chariot of Yahweh in the temple (Ezek. 1; 10) and surround the throne of Yahweh in heaven (Rev. 4:6-8). This adds to imagery of the garden as a tabernacle. The cherubim guarded the gate to the garden with flaming, whirling swords. The whirling nature of the sword makes the point that none will be able to get through. Fire is a regular symbol of the presence of Yahweh, especially in judgment (Ex. 19:18; Ps. 104:4; Dan. 7:9-10). They paint the picture that Adam and Eve were no longer worthy to be in the palace/tabernacle of Yahweh. Humanity could no longer enter through this gate, and Yahweh would have to provide another gate for humanity to be restored to the garden (Jn. 10:7-10).

Adam and Eve were created in the image of God to represent Him as vice-regents over the creation, yet in their submitting to the serpent, they surrendered that authority and power. No longer would humanity have dominion and power over the creation; rather, conflict with Yahweh, each other, and creation would ensue. As the result, the creation suffered a curse and began to deteriorate. Having been thrice blessed by Yahweh (Gen. 1:22, 28; 2:3), the creation now experienced a triple curse (Gen. 3:14, 17; 4:11). Because there was no longer a good ruler exercising dominion over the earth, creation would now exist in chaos. The Adamic Covenant had been broken because humanity had failed to obey. The rest of the Bible will be the story of how Yahweh pursued and worked out His plan to redeem humanity back to the garden and into a face-to-face relationship with Himself.

Though humanity’s image of God was corrupted and marred by sin, and though they had lost their dominion over the earth, they did not lose completely the image as God. Certain biblical texts suggest that all persons still exist in the image of God, while other texts treat the image as something that needs to be restored through salvation. Gen. 9:6 and James 3:9 show that the image is still present even in humanity’s fallen state. Second Testament texts treat the image of God as something that is exemplified in Christ (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15) and that needs to be restored in people (Rom. 8:2; 2 Cor. 3:18). The need for renewal implies that the image was not lost but was defaced or damaged in some way through the fall.

In all of the pagan accounts, the chaos in the creation is never fully dealt with by the gods, and they themselves were chaotic and created out of chaos. Yet it is the humans that they constantly enslaved, tormented, and punished. In the Biblical creation account, Yahweh created an orderly and good creation that was without sin, yet it was humans who sinned and plummeted creation into chaos and evil. Thus, Yahweh justly punishes humans for their sin, yet ultimately He would send His Son, Jesus Christ, to die for the sins of humanity and the chaos that humans brought into His creation.

This is the point of the rest of the biblical story of redemption. The narrator has established the beauty and blessings of an intimate relationship with Yahweh in the garden and how that was lost by humans declaring themselves as autonomous. Gen. 4–11 will unpack all the wickedness, devastation, and death to humans, their relationships, and creation that come with our autonomy, a narrative that leads Paul to declare, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Gen. 3:23). In Gen. 12 Yahweh will come to Abraham and plant the seeds of His redemption story that will restore the garden/heaven on earth and humanity to the garden. The story will end with the garden/kingdom of Yahweh coming down to earth and Yahweh and Jesus coming down and dwelling with humanity in a world without sin, devastation, or death (Rev. 21–22).

D. The Story of Cain and Civilization (4:1-26)

The major theme of Genesis 4 is the spread of sin from the family to society. This is not how sin spread literally but is developed in the narrative this way to show its effects. Through Cain’s rebellion and then his establishment of a city, which later led to the development of the nations, we can see that sin was not exclusive to just one family line or a few people but affected all humanity.

There are several parallels between the story of Cain and Abel (Gen. 4:1-16) and the story of the Garden and Eden (Gen. 2–3).^[58] The first is chiastic parallelism of alternating scenes of narrative and dialogue that emphasizes the sin of Cain, as seen in the previous story.

A Narrative (Cain and Abel active, Yahweh passive): Cain and Abel as a family (4:1-5)

   B Dialogue: Yahweh questioning Cain’s desires (4:6-7)

      X Narrative and dialogue: Cain murdering his brother (4:8)

   B’ Dialogue: Yahweh uncovering Cain’s murder (4:9-15a)

A’ Narrative (Yahweh active, Cain passive): Yahweh expelling Cain from his family (4:15b-16)

The second parallel is found in that the central scene in each story is a terse description of the sin committed (Gen. 3:6-8; 4:8), which contrasts with the long dialogues before and after. The third is in the scene that follows after the sin, wherein Yahweh investigates and condemns the sin. They are very similar, with the phrases “Where are you?” (Gen. 3:9; 4:9), “What have you done?” (Gen. 3:13; 4:10), and “You are cursed” (Gen. 3:14, 17; 4:11, 12), along with the marking of Cain (Gen. 4:15) being similar to the covering of Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:21). In the fourth parallel, both stories end with the sinners being expelled from the presence of Yahweh and going east to live (Gen. 3:24; 4:16).

The point of the parallel of the two stories is that sin is the new nature of humanity; sin is more firmly entrenched in humanity, and humanity becomes further alienated. Humanity is not getting better.

4:1-2 Following Yahweh’s command to be fruitful and multiply, Eve gave birth to Cain. The meaning of Cain’s name (qayin) is unknown. Eve gave it a poetic meaning based on a phonetic connection by saying she had “created” or “acquired” (qaniti) a man. The connection between these two words is totally poetic, for there is no etymological connection between them. It is very difficult to translate and understand what is meant when Eve says that she has “created a man with Yahweh’s help.” Some have said that she was making herself equal with Yahweh when she claims she has created. But most likely she was expressing praise that Yahweh was with her and had helped her give birth to a child, especially in light of the previous events. Abel’s name 'hevel means “vapor” or “breath” and is foreboding. Though the text reads as if Cain and Abel are the first children, it does not specifically state this as it does with the children in later stories in Genesis.

Abel was a shepherd, an occupation that is in line with man’s original purpose of having dominion over the animals (Gen. 1:28). Cain was one who toiled the land, an occupation that resulted from the fall (Gen. 3:23). This is not to say that one occupation is good and the other evil; rather, the narrator uses it as a literary device to contrast the two sons. Abel is seen as going out of his way to worship Yahweh, whereas Cain seems to only be carrying out a required duty. In both cases, the person is mentioned before the offering, which suggests that the offering is not as important as the attitude of the person.

4:3-5 Abel’s sacrifice was accepted by Yahweh, but Cain’s was not. How Cain and Abel recognized divine approval is not clear. It could have been through divine fire from heaven burning up the sacrifice (Lev. 9:24; Judg. 6:21; 1 Kgs. 18:38). However, Genesis is more interested in the fact of divine approval than in how it was shown. Most likely, the acceptance of Abel’s sacrifice has nothing to do with the fact that it was a blood sacrifice while Cain’s was not. If an animal sacrifice were necessary for this act of worship, then the narrator would have used one of the many terms that refers to an animal sacrifice. Instead, the word minha is used, which means “to give” and is used in Leviticus to refer to the grain offering—for gaining favor, not for making a blood atonement.^[59] What the text does mention is that “Abel brought some of his firstborn flock, even the fattest of them.” Cain merely did what was required of him as if it was a duty, while Abel went out of his way to please Yahweh with the first and best of what he had. The point is not what they offered but their heart desire to worship and please Yahweh.

4:6-8 As with Adam and Eve, it was Yahweh who initiated a relationship with Cain in hopes of restoring Cain to Himself (Gen. 4:6-7). Yahweh approached Cain because He knew what Cain was planning and did not want Cain to make that mistake. These verses show that Yahweh was involved in Cain’s life even if Cain had chosen not to follow Him. While Eve had to be talked into her sin, even Yahweh could not talk Cain out of his intended sin, which shows the true heart of Cain and the depth of corruption with which sin had infected humanity so early in its growth. The absence of Cain’s response to Yahweh shows his disregard of the warning and his lack of faith in Yahweh.

The statement “sin is crouching at the door” is an allusion to the seed of the woman and the serpent (Gen. 3:15) being in conflict. The participle “crouching” is a cognate to an Akkadian term used of a type of demon, as in “sin is the demon at your door.” Here Yahweh reminds Cain of the fatal outcome of the earlier conflict between the serpent and Eve and that he must subdue it, whereas Eve did not. Cain’s self-focus and his refusal to heed Yahweh’s warning before his murder of Abel shows that he viewed himself as a higher authority than Yahweh over his life. Cain autonomously decided that it was he who knew better and would thus take matters into his own hands.

4:9-12 Despite Cain’s horrific sin, Yahweh showed His desire for a relationship in that He sought Cain out to prompt a confession, just as He had done with Adam and Eve. Yet Cain showed no remorse for his brother’s life when he proclaimed that he was not his brother’s keeper. Everything in the Bible, however, from the law code of “love your neighbor” (Lev. 19:18) to the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), says he most certainly was his “brother’s keeper” and that he was expected to look out for him and avenge him (Num. 36:12-28). Seven times the word “brother” is used in order to communicate that Cain’s sin was a breach of family loyalty. Family loyalty was considered one of the most important virtues in the ancient Near East. Likewise, the image of God is a sign of Yahweh’s sovereignty (“rule and subdue”), so murder is an attack against His sovereignty.

However, Yahweh is also a God of justice and would not allow Cain to go unpunished. In Gen. 4:10, the phrase “your brother’s blood is crying out to me” shows that the victims of the world matter to Yahweh; He was aware, whether or not anyone else was. Because Cain did not value his family, his punishment consisted of his being unable to enjoy his family’s company and the fruitfulness of the land; instead, he was condemned to wander from place to place seeking food. Whereas the land would resist Adam for his sin, Cain was now completely cut off from it as a result of his sin.

“Cain is not being condemned to a Bedouin-like existence; the terminology is too extreme to describe such a life-style. Rather it seems likely that the curse on Cain reflects the expulsion from the family that was the fate in tribal societies of those who murdered close relatives… ‘To be driven away from the land’ (Gen. 4:14) is to have all relationships, particularly with the family, broken. Moreover, it is to have one’s relationship with the LORD broken…”^[60]

“Cain had tilled the land. He had offered the fruit of the land, and given the land his brother’s blood to drink: but from the land the blood cries against him, for which the land refuses him its fruit, so he is banned from the land.”^[61]

4:13-15 Cain responded with self-pity rather than repentance. Never did he admit his guilt or express any regret for the wrong he had done. He was more afraid of physical and social exposure than of the almighty Yahweh, against whom he had rebelled. Again, whereas Eve had to be persuaded by the serpent to sin, Cain would not be dissuaded by Yahweh. Adam admitted to the sin, whereas Cain denied it in a sarcastic way. Adam and Eve accepted judgment, but Cain complained against Yahweh.

Though Cain would suffer the consequences of his sin, Yahweh made provisions for him to be protected by marking him as untouchable (Gen. 4:15). What Cain did to Abel, Yahweh prevented from happening to Cain. The reference to “seven-fold” is not to be seen as a measure but as a metaphor that communicates complete and full divine retribution (Ps. 79:12; Prov. 6:31). It is not clear what the mark was, but in some way the sign was simply his name (qayin), which sounds similar to yuqqam, meaning “shall be punished.” However, this mark was also a constant reminder of Cain’s sin, to himself and to all those who would later encounter him. The protection against death can also be seen as a punishment, for a premature death would have cut short his punishment as a wanderer.

4:16-18 Cain moved east of Eden, thus walking away from Yahweh’s presence and into self-imposed exile. It is interesting that the narrative begins with Eve’s saying at Cain’s birth, “I have created a man with Yahweh,” but ends with the statement of Cain’s departure, “Cain went away from Yahweh.” There is an ironic word play here, as “Nod” means “fugitive.” He then married a woman, had a child, built a city, and then named the city after his son rather than after Yahweh. Cain’s building of the city is seen as a defiant act against Yahweh since he was condemned to be a wanderer. Likewise, in Cain’s naming of the city after his son, he was honoring humanity rather than Yahweh, for in most places in the Bible, places and people are named in some way after Yahweh or His blessings. This is the first city in the Bible where, rather than filling and subduing the earth—their purpose as the image of God (Gen. 1:28)—humans gather together in one place to build something for their own glory. In the Bible, the city/nation is always viewed as bad, a place where humans become a mob, community breaks down, sin and rebellion increase against Yahweh, and technology is developed in order to gain power over creation and others. This is the beginning of humanity becoming a civilization that is corrupt.

There are many questions that the story does not care to answer. Where was Nod? Where did Cain get his wife? Where did all the people for a city come from? It is important to not make assumptions or come up with answers that are not given. Although everything in the stories is historically accurate, the authors of the Bible are not interested in giving a complete historical account of events, rather in communicating the character of Yahweh, the nature of humanity, and Yahweh’s intervention in history to redeem humanity.

4:19-22 The listing of the genealogy of Cain pauses on Lamech, at which the narrator expounds in order to demonstrate the character of humanity. Lamech had two wives, which made him a polygamist. The name Adah means “pretty” or “ornament,” and the name Zillah means “tinkle,” as in the sound of a sweet voice. Probably the narrator wanted to communicate that Lamech was not marrying for the union of the image of God but rather had succumbed to the sensuality of women.^[62] Though the Bible never specifically forbids or condemns polygamy, it is clearly against Yahweh’s design for marriage (Gen. 1:27; 2:24), and all throughout the Bible it is shown to never produce any good results. Yahweh often shows the consequences of sin more than He specifically states that they are sins.

“[Polygamy is] the symptom of an unbalanced view of marriage, which regards it as an institution in which the wife’s ultimate raison d’etre [reason for being] is the production of children. Where Yahweh had created the woman first and foremost for partnership, society made her in effect a means to an end, even if a noble end, and wrote its view into its marriage contracts.”^[63]

Jabal was the first to keep livestock. This is different from Abel, who took care of sheep for his own livelihood. Instead, Jabal owned several different kinds of animals in order to make a profit. This was the beginning of business. His brother developed stringed instruments and flutes for the sake of music. And Tubal-Cain began to forge farm tools out of metal. Unlike the pagan mythologies, where technology was a gift of the gods, here it was a human achievement. Because this is described in the middle of the Lamech story, it makes the point that technology and human culture were tainted in some way by humanity’s sin. The point is not that these things are sinful in themselves but were development for the sake of humanity’s glory and for overcoming the curse, outside of a relationship with Yahweh. This is shown by Lamech’s using music to brag about his murder, a contrast to Seth, who began to lead people in worship of Yahweh. Technology is not evil in itself, but most of it has been developed not for the kingdom of Yahweh, and most of the time it distracts us from a relationship with Yahweh. This is the point being made—that humanity is corrupt, so they will use creation and creativity in corrupt ways.

4:23-24 The switch from prose to poetry of Lamech’s bragging makes this part of the narrative stand out, emphasizing his pride and the true heart of humanity. In this poetic speech, many of the words end with or include “I,” “my,” or “me,” emphasizing Lamech’s cruel egotism.^[64] Lamech’s reasoning was that if Cain, who murdered out of selfishness, was to be avenged seven times (Gen. 4:15) for killing another person out of spite, then how much more would Lamech be avenged for killing another person who had unjustly wronged him. Lamech misunderstood the point of Yahweh’s treatment of Cain. Yahweh was not establishing a principle of justice that looked more like vengeance; rather, He was limiting the shedding of blood. Lamech’s comment stands in contrast to the law against retaliation (Ex. 21:25), which is about justice for a crime, not about vengeance. By placing Lamech’s comments at the end of the Cain story, the narrator suggests that all his descendants thought and acted like this and were under Yahweh’s judgment, hinting at the disaster to come.

4:25-26 Eve had another son and saw him as a replacement after the death of Abel. Eve gave him the name Seth (sheth), meaning “placed” (shat). There is no etymological connection here; rather, the meaning is based on a play on words or a pun. In contrast to the life of most humans at this time, Seth’s life led to people calling on the name of Yahweh. Calling on the name of Yahweh is later used of the patriarchs (Gen. 12:8; 13:4; 21:33; 26:25) and carries the idea of worship, prayer, and sacrifice. Remember that worship has more to do with a life dedicated to Yahweh, as His image bearer in service to the expansion of his kingdom, rather than just singing praises. The point is not that people began to use the name Yahweh (which was not given until Ex. 3:14) but that this was the beginning of people turning back to Yahweh in devotion and obedience. It is important to understand that this does not mean that everyone in Seth’s line was godly while everyone in Cain’s was ungodly. The people who began to call upon Yahweh’s name could have been people from Cain’s line as well. But by the flood of Genesis 6, all people from all lines, including Seth’s, were so corrupt that everyone had to be wiped off the face of the earth (Gen. 6:5).

This story is about the corruption of humanity and the beginning of civilization and cities. From this point on in Scripture, the cities and nations are seen as places where humanity gathers for their own purposes and in rebellion against Yahweh. This is epitomized at the Tower of Babylon. The city is not where people are fruitful, filling the earth, and expanding the garden, but where they multiply and crowd into one place for their own purposes. Ironically, although so many people are in the city, they become isolated by their technology and the need to accomplish more. This was not the intention for humanity when Yahweh said, “Be fruitful and multiply.” Cain’s lineage is symbolic of human culture with great civilization but without Yahweh. Humanity uses technology and overcrowding to fill the vacuum of their rejection of Yahweh.

The biblical ideal for populating the earth is a slow and balanced growth of families in a relationship with Yahweh, as seen in Seth’s line (Gen. 5) and Abraham, who remained in the countryside. The warrior society founded by Cain’s son destabilizes the ideal for familial structure and represents a threat to the society, especially for the daughters. The “city/nation” is where humanity amasses in such numbers that the idea of family and community is lost, as seen with Lot, who moves toward Sodom and Gomorrah. Building great cities is more memorable, however, than the quiet life of building godly families.

E. From Adam to Noah (5:1–6:8)

This section contains the second toledot in Genesis. The narrator is not concerned with Adam as much as he is with the sons of Adam, making it an account of Adam’s descendants. This genealogy makes two major points. First, that the line of humanity continues in the likeness of God shows the blessings of Yahweh on humanity. Second, the repetition of the phrase “and then he died” emphasizes the fact that humanity would certainly die as a result of sin. Though death would reign in the line of Adam, his genealogy ends with Noah, whom Yahweh would use to save humanity.

The toledot ends with the total corruption of all humanity, a corruption so thorough that Yahweh had to wipe them out. This continues to emphasize the negative and total effects of the sin of humanity in Genesis 3 and the inevitable pattern “and then he died.” However, the fact that this section ends with Noah’s finding favor in Yahweh’s sight emphasizes Yahweh’s grace and desire to redeem humanity despite their sin and their deserving judgment.

The genealogical account of Genesis 5 is a linear or vertical genealogy meant to establish the legitimacy of the line by developing continuity over long stretches of time and to transition from one narrative to the next.

5:1-2 In these verses is a chiastic parallelism that emphasizes Yahweh’s making humanity, male and female, in His likeness. This parallels Gen. 2:4 and reproduces the subject matter of Gen. 1:26-28 with some abbreviation. The whole genealogy of Genesis 5 illustrates the fulfillment of Yahweh’s blessing of fruitfulness despite the sin of humanity.

A On the day God created

   B Adam

      C In the likeness of God He made him

      C’ Male and female He created them (He blessed them and called their name)

   B’ Adam

A’ On the day they were created

5:3-20 After reminding the reader that humanity was made in the likeness of God (Gen. 5:1-2), the narrative makes the point that Adam fathered Seth in his likeness and image. Even though the image of God has been damaged due to sin, it has not been lost, and this is seen with Adam passing it on to Seth.

The chapter lists Adam’s descendants, and after each name it repeatedly states, “and then he died.” As mentioned previously (see the Gen. 1:27 comments), this repetition emphasizes a point the narrator is making. Other than Gen. 9:28-29, this phrase is not seen in a genealogy anywhere else in scripture. It emphasizes here the consequences of the fall on Adam’s descendants and the fact that Yahweh had spoken truthfully. The main point is that despite human achievements, death reigned from Adam on through the generations. Genesis 5 displays the reign of death in contrast to the desire of Yahweh. It also shows that though the serpent seemed to have been telling the truth when it said that Eve would not die, Genesis 5 states that humanity does die, just as Yahweh had said they would. “And then he died” is not repeated in any genealogy after this point because by then everyone knows that everyone dies.

Notice that each person in the genealogy is said to have fathered other sons and daughters. This shows that the narrator is interested only in the line that takes the reader from Adam to Noah. This is not meant to be a complete genealogy nor a history of the line of Adam. It is meant to get to Noah.

5:21-24 Enoch is the seventh (symbolic of completion) person in the genealogy, and his life breaks the pattern of “and then he died.” As mentioned previously (see the Gen. 1:27 comment), the break in a pattern also emphasizes a point the narrator is making. What marks Enoch as unique is that he walked with God. This is a direct connection to the text that tells us Yahweh walked in the garden (Gen. 3:8). The patriarchs are said to have walked with Yahweh (Gen. 17:1; 24:40; 48:15); the priests (Mal. 2:6) and all the people of Israel (Micah 6:8) were expected to walk with Yahweh; and 1 John 1:7 commands Christians to walk with God. This phrase communicates a special intimacy with Yahweh and a life of piety. The fact that Enoch is twice said to have walked with Yahweh shows that Enoch’s relationship with Yahweh was exceptional.

As a result of Enoch’s walking with Yahweh, he disappeared because Yahweh took him away. The Hebrew literally says, “he was not,” which is sometimes a euphemism for death (Ps. 39:13; 103:16; Job 7:21; 8:22). However, here it stands in contrast to the repeating phrase “and then he died.” This shows that Enoch did not experience a normal death. No one has any idea what this means, but we know some things it does not mean. First, it does not mean that he was taken up to heaven. The Hebrew wording does not mean or hint at this, and nowhere in the Bible is this even suggested. It is impossible for him to be taken to heaven because Jesus had not yet died for the sins of the world, an act that would make it possible for humans to get into heaven. To say he went to heaven would be to say he was perfect, or that Christ’s death was not necessary for him to go to heaven. Second, it does not mean he did not die. The Hebrew does not say he did not die; it says, “he was not,” which is true if you have died. It is interesting that this phrase can be used to say someone has died; the context suggests something different, but it does not say what that difference is. This is one of the most mysterious passages in the Bible and has led to great speculation throughout history. All that can be known for sure is that he did not die a normal death.

5:25-27 Methuselah is the longest-living person in this genealogy, and according to the Masoretic Hebrew text (MT), he died the same year that the flood came. This means he was included among those who were so wicked they had to be wiped out in the flood. If Noah alone found favor in Yahweh’s sight one hundred and twenty years (Gen. 6:3) before the flood, that would make many of the people in this genealogy, including Methuselah, wicked.

5:28-32 Though Lamech does not technically break the pattern “and then he died,” he does break the pattern in the sense that the narrator adds extra information about him and his son Noah. Noah is said to bring comfort to people from the hard labor that came as a result of the curse. Noah’s name is a word play with “rest, comfort.” The sound of Noah is similar to the sound of comfort (naham). Life was very painful for those under the curse, and Lamech saw Noah as a relief to that. Noah also would bring relief by being spared from the flood because of his righteousness.

The reader encounters many problems when trying to understand the genealogy of Genesis 5. First, it must be understood that neither this genealogy nor any other genealogies in the Bible were meant to be a comprehensive, detailed list of all the people born to one another in a family line. We know from comparing the genealogies in the Bible that the lists of names do not match up. Their purpose seems instead to be about grouping people into categories and getting from one point to another in order to make a theological point that connects to their narrative. Most scholars have concluded that there are gaps in the genealogy, some names being left out, in order to have ten generations from Adam to Noah. They make the point that the Hebrew word “son” (ben) can mean “grandson” (Gen. 31:28, 55) or “descendant,” as in the “sons of Israel.” The division of humanity between Adam and Abraham into ten equal divisions of ten generations (Gen. 5:1-32 and 10:10-26) makes it more artistic and functionary rather than a complete numeric account.^[65] For example, Ex. 6:14-25 presents four generations from Levi to Moses, but 1 Chron. 7:23-27 presents a more realistic ten generations for the same period, and Ezra 7:1-5 omits six names from the account of 1 Chron. 6. This does not make the Bible unreliable in its information; rather, each account has a different purpose.

The genealogy of Jesus in Matt. 1:2-17 does not match up with Jesus’ genealogy in Luke 3:23-38. Matthew lists the ancestors of Jesus in three blocks of fourteen names each—from Abraham to David, from David to exile, and from exile to Jesus, for a total of forty-two names. Luke lists seventy-seven names from Jesus to Adam. Matthew has twenty-seven names from David to Joseph, whereas Luke lists forty-two. Matthew has fourteen names from Jesus to exile, whereas Luke lists twenty-one. There is also almost no overlap of names between the two genealogies or with other known genealogies in the Bible.

Therefore, one cannot add up all the years of the people’s ages in Genesis 5 and date them to a specific year on the calendar or determine how old the earth is. The ages of the men in Gen. 5 imply that the creation of Adam was 4004 BC, a year difficult to correlate with archeological discoveries around the origins of humans and civilizations going back as far as 10,000 BC. With these gaps in the genealogy, one cannot truly be sure how much time has passed from Adam to Noah. There are many challenges when trying to relate this genealogy to history.

The genealogy of Genesis 5 presents two major problems. First is that the three oldest textual manuscripts, the Masoretic text (MT), the Samaritan Pentateuch (SamPent), and the Greek Septuagint (LXX) disagree at many points on the ages of many of people in the genealogy.^[66] The MT puts the flood at 1656 BC; everyone died before the flood except Methuselah, who died the year of the flood. The SamPent puts the flood at 1307 BC; everyone died before the flood except Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech, who all die in the year of the flood. The LXX puts the flood at 2242 BC; here, Methuselah died fourteen years after the flood, which does not fit the historical details of the flood story. Also in the MT, the ages are multiples of five, with a few that add seven or fourteen years. In the SamPent, the ages are multiples of five with a few that add or subtract seven. In the SamPent, the ages of each generation drops steadily, whereas there are several hiccups in the MT account. Which of the chronologies is closest to the original? It appears that the Greek Septuagint is secondary, but different scholars favor different accounts for very good reasons.

Second, all the males in the genealogy age very slowly and live to be very old. All were at least sixty-five years old when they had their first child, and most were approaching one thousand years when they died. It is very unlikely that, with a command to be fruitful and multiply and the importance of children to the people of the ancient world, that they were this old when they had their first child. The ages of these men are unheard of in modern times. How are these long lifespans to be explained? There have been numerous attempts to recalculate the ages based on sexagesimal notations or astronomical periods.^[67] All attempts to explain the numbers thus far have many problems and fail to be satisfactory.

The appearance of these “inaccuracies” of the genealogy may bother the modern reader, but that does not make the narrator wrong or the Bible inaccurate. They did not think the same way or value the same things as the modern Western reader. Nor does everyone today think and value the same things as the modern Westerner. To expect everyone to think and act “our way” is cultural arrogance. These stories use literary devices and are more interested in communicating theology than in providing scientific or legal details. Even today, when most people report what is happening in their lives, they do not communicate information on the same level of legality as one expects from the Bible in order to be considered accurate or trustworthy. Yet these biblical events are continually validated with each new archeological discovery, and the Bible is still to this day the most accurate guide for where to dig and for what will be found.

“The aim of such genealogies was to establish the general line of descent from given ancestors, and this objective was in no way impaired by the omission of certain generations as long as the line was being traced properly… all members of a particular line were not necessarily equal in importance, and because of that principle, as well as for the other reasons, certain names and generations could be omitted from the family lists without prejudice to either the intent or accuracy of the content of the genealogy.”^[68]

One needs to also understand that people in the ancient world were not as precise as those in the modern world. The everyday person did not have clocks or even calendars, as are so common today. They most likely did not know on what day or year they were born or exactly how old they were. This would make it easier to think that the pre-flood patriarchs lived a long time.

What is interesting is that the Sumerian list of kings has many kings living for thousands of years, eight of which each lived to be 241,200 years old. What is clear is that the people during the narrator’s lifetime did not understand the pre-flood world any better than modern scholars do. The narrator obviously thought that people lived for a long time before the flood, as is also seen in other cultures’ genealogies, but he also knew that these unrealistic lifespans could communicate an eternal life concept that went against the point of the repetition of everyone dying.

A possible understanding of these long lifespans is that the narrator shortened the numbers to make a point about humanity’s mortality—that even though they lived for a long time, they still fell short of immortality and died. But the numbers are also recorded in such a way to make the point that these men were real historical figures. As discussed above, the narrator also likely skipped generations to have an even ten generations. The main points the narrator is trying to make are, first, that humanity was being fruitful and multiplying as Yahweh commanded in the garden, despite their sin and the curse of rebellion. Second, despite this fruitfulness, everyone died as Yahweh said they would. The penalty for sin is death no matter how long it may take to die. Third, the narrator is not interested in recording every name but in developing a line from Adam to Noah.

“To date, then, no writer has offered an adequate explanation of these figures. If they are symbolic, it is not clear what they symbolize. If they are to be taken literally, we are left with the historical problems with which we began. The majority of commentators therefore just offer some general observations of a more theological nature. This genealogy is designed to show how the divine image in which Adam was created was passed on from generation to generation, and that divine command to be fruitful and multiply (1:28) was fulfilled. Many ancient peoples have held that that in primitive antiquity men lived much longer than at present: the Sumerians believed the pre-flood kings reigned for thousands of years, and according to the Lagash king list, babies were kept in diapers for a hundred years! (Jacobsen, JBL 100 [1981] 520-21). It may be that Gen. 5 is reflecting such ideas and suggesting that the history of mankind stretches back into an inconceivably distant past. Cassuto, though, sees in the ages of the patriarchs, relatively low when contrasted with the enormous reigns of Sumerian kings, another aspect of anti-Mesopotamian polemic. The Hebrew writer was intent on scaling down the alleged ages of man’s earliest forebears. Though they lived a long time, none reached a thousand years, which in God’s sight is but an evening gone (cf. Ps. 90:4). Gispen suggests that these figures are designed to show that though the narrative is dealing with very distant times, it is a sort of history, and that however long men lived, they were mortal.

These seem better approaches to these great ages than the attempts to find symbolic or historical truths in the precise ages of the patriarchs. Could it be that the precision of the figures conveys the notion that these patriarchs were real people, while their magnitude represents their remoteness from the author of Genesis? Even if we know that twenty centuries is really too short for the period from the creation of man to the call of Abraham, it still feels a very long time to anyone who tries to think himself back through such a period, as anyone who tries to do this for the years from the present to the time of Christ will quickly discover.”^[69]

It is also possible that people of the pre-flood world truly lived this long. It is clear from writings that the people of the ancient world knew very little of what the pre-flood world was like, but when they do write about it, they saw it as a “golden age” of people superior in intelligence, strength, and technology, who built prosperous and stable empires, and of kings who ruled for tens of thousands of years. The flood was a major epoch change in every way for the people of the world. Yet what is clear from Gen. 6:1-8 is that Yahweh did not see it this way. This was a time where “Yahweh saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time” (Gen. 6:5). And no matter how eternal the ancients thought these pre-flood people were, in the end they still died because of their sin (Gen. 5). All of their autonomy still ended in judgment and death. If someone lived for thousands of years, they would most certainly be able to learn a lot, perfect their skills, and accomplish wondrous things. Even then, no matter what grand and wondrous things they had created, it was nothing compared to the devastation of their wickedness. Therefore, the judgment of the flood was to cleanse the earth of all they had learned and accomplished in order to reset humanity. With shorter life spans, humans would not be able to accomplish as much in empire building and oppression, and it would take humanity longer to reach the same point of technological hubris, oppression, exploitation, and dehumanization.

6:1-2 Gen. 6:1-8 serves as a transition from the genealogy of Genesis 5 and the flood story. The statement that humanity began to multiply on the earth (Gen. 6:1) shows the ongoing multiplication of humanity by tying into the divine command of Gen. 1:28 and the genealogy of Genesis 5. Whereas the male descendants were the focus in Genesis 5, here the daughters are highlighted. However, humanity is multiplying not to duplicate the image of God and expand the garden but to establish their own dominion over the earth.

A close relationship between humanity and the land is created in Genesis 1–2. This is echoed here with the mention of the “earth.” However, the relationship was destroyed, as seen in the judgment mentioned in Gen. 6:3, 7. It is clear that the wickedness of humanity highlighted in Gen. 6:5 was the marital union between the sons of God and the daughters of men in Gen. 6:2. This can be seen in Yahweh’s pronouncement of judgment on the earth (Gen. 6:3) immediately after the reference to the sons of God taking the daughters of men (Gen. 6:2). The general wickedness of humanity is not mentioned until Gen. 6:5, yet Yahweh already pronounced His judgment on the earth. Therefore, this unholy union shows the wickedness of humanity and the reason Yahweh had to send the flood. While humanity was following the divine decree to multiply and fill the earth, so evil was also abounding. The central theme of this passage is the wickedness of humanity. This is seen in the phrase “the Sons of God saw the daughters of men,” which parallels the statement “the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food” (Gen. 3:6).

The first thing one needs to understand is that there is a distinction between “sons” and “daughters” in each category. The phrasing is not the “daughters of God” and the “sons of men.” The distinction here imposes a contrast between the types of groups: those “of God” and those “of men.” This seems to be the focus—those who belong in the category of the divine (elohim) and those who belong among humans (humanity).

The second thing that one needs to understand is that in Gen. 6:2 the taking of wives refers to the mutual consent of both groups in the unholy union. This was not a kidnapping and raping of women; rather, humanity was a willing participant.

The third thing that one needs to understand is that that this union between the sons of God and the daughters of men was such a wicked abomination that Yahweh determined that the world had to be completely wiped out in a flood. That means that this sin has not happened again since then because He has not called for a massive destruction of humanity since then.

The question then is who these “sons of God” were, that their taking the daughters of men was evil enough to result in Yahweh’s wiping out all of humanity.

One view that people have presented is the Sethite view, where the “sons of God” refers to the godly line of Seth, and “daughters of men” refers to the ungodly line of Cain. In Genesis 4, a contrast is made between Cain as an ungodly son, who begets an ungodly line, and Seth as a godly son, who came at a time when people began to call upon Yahweh. Those who take this view see that contrast being continued into Genesis 6 and believe that one of the reasons for the flood was the mixing of the godly and ungodly lines in marriage.

Unfortunately, nowhere in Genesis is there any hint that the “sons of God” are to be seen as Seth’s line and the “daughters of men” as Cain’s line. In fact, the Hebrew word for “men” is not talking about a specific group within humanity but about humanity as a whole. It would also be unnatural to restrict the title “daughters of men” to just Cain’s line and ungodly women; it is better to see it instead as a designation for “womankind.” It also does not seem natural to see godly men having sexual relations with ungodly women, for would that not make those men ungodly? There is nothing in the text that states Seth’s line was godly—only a few in his line were said to be godly. In fact, the text makes the opposite point: that all of humanity was evil and that Noah was the only righteous one Yahweh found on the whole earth (Gen. 6:5-8). Also, many godly people have married ungodly people throughout history, and Yahweh has neither emphasized His judgment of this throughout history nor wiped out humanity since Genesis 6.

Another view that people have presented is the polygamous kings view, where the “sons of God” refers to tyrant kings who seized the “daughters of men” in its basic meaning. The sin here is the polygamy of the kings in order to gain power. This is based on the fact that many kings in the ancient world saw themselves as divine rulers and referred to themselves as the son of god.

However, there is no precedent for a group of kings being referred to as “sons of God.” There is no hint in the text to any idea of kings or political alliances. In fact, there is no mention of nations until Genesis 10, after the flood. The mention of kings does not appear until the story of Abraham. The sin of polygamy and marriage for political alliances was a common thing after the flood, even with David, a man after Yahweh’s own heart. The First Testament does not condemn polygamy, and it was a common practice among many Biblical characters. However, the text makes it clear that the evil of Genesis 6 was so exceptionally great that it deserved the earth being wiped out.

Some moved away from the idea of polygamy and refer to this as “the right of the first night,” which is when kings would force a newly married woman to sleep with him before going to her husband. However, there is no real evidence for this as a practice in the ancient Near East. Genesis 6 gives no hint of forced rape or marriage. There is no mention of the objections of the fathers. The fault in Genesis 6 is that the daughters consent to the sons of God and marry them. Also, the fact that the father would have consented to this implicated them as well.

The best understanding of the title “sons of God” is that they were angels—specifically fallen angels—since Yahweh declared in the narrative that their actions were wicked. The major reason for this is that the phrase “sons of God” is used in the Bible to refer always to angels—bene elim (Ps. 29:1; 89:6; 103:20) and bene elohim (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7).^[70] This is true of extra-biblical material as well (1 Enoch 6–7). In Hebrew, whenever you have the phrase “sons of x,” then the nature of the sons is whatever the “x” is. Like the television show the “Sons of Anarchy,” which is not saying that the men are the biological children of anarchy but that they are anarchists.

This makes sense of the distinction between “sons” and “daughters” as separate categories, which this contrast is lost with the first two views of who the sons of Gods are. This would explain the need to wipe out the world and cleanse the human race and land of this unholy union and perversion of the blood line. The sin that Yahweh condemned in Genesis 6 was so grievous that it warranted wiping out all of humanity. As well, the fact that He has not wiped out humanity since says that this sin has not happened again or as universally since then. The First Testament strongly condemns crossbreeding (Lev. 19:19; 20:16; Deut. 22:9-11) and states that everything should breed according to its kind (Gen. 1:11-12, 21, 24-25).

This understanding of Genesis 6 is supported by 2 Pet. 2:4-5 and Jude 6–7. These passages describe the punishment of a certain group of angels due to a sexual sin during the time of Noah and the flood. 2 Pet. 2:4-5 puts the event in the time of Noah and the flood, and 2 Pet. 2:6 and Jude 7 show that it preceded Sodom and Gomorrah. In the context here, Peter is talking about the immoral lifestyle of the false prophets (2 Pet. 2:2, 13-14, 18). His point is that these false prophets will be judged for their misdeeds just as the demonic angels and Sodom and Gomorrah were. The implication is that these two were judged for their sexual perversions. Jude 7 says explicitly that the sin of the angels was a sexual perversion just like those of Sodom and Gomorrah. Their sin is also said in 2 Peter and Jude to be sexual, where it is compared to the sexual perversion of an unholy union as in Sodom and Gomorrah (2 Pet. 2:1-3, 12-15, 18; Jude 7). The time sequence connects it to the time of the flood.

The event in 2 Peter and Jude cannot be referring to the original fall of the angels because then all the demonic angels would be imprisoned, according to 2 Pet. 2:4 and Jude 6. Jude 6 also states that the angels did not keep to their own domain (archen, a place of assigned authority and activity) but abandoned their proper abode (idion oiketerion, “peculiar place of residence”). The implication is that they took on a state that they were not supposed to take. This also cannot mean that they were on earth and not in heaven because this is true of all demons—yet they have not experienced the same fate as these particular demons have. These are the angels that await the great judgment of the lake of fire (Matt. 25:41; 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6; Rev. 20:10). Gen. 6:1-4 presents the angelic cause for the flood that led to their imprisonment in the abyss, whereas Gen. 6:5-6 presents the human cause that led to their being wiped out on the flood.

Those who disagree with this view often quote Matt. 22:29-30 as a rebuttal to the idea that angels, in Genesis 6, were able to have sex. The first problem is that this is not even the point of Matt. 22:29-30 (the point is resurrection). Second, in mentioning the angels, Jesus never said that angels were sexless; he said only that they are not given in marriage. We all know that one does not have to be married in order to have sex. Additionally, Jesus said that holy angels were not given in marriage in heaven; He never mentioned what fallen angels are capable of doing on earth outside the will of Yahweh. Some say that this is physically impossible since angels are viewed as spiritual beings. No statements in the Bible make a distinction between the material substance of humans and angels. Genesis 18–19 and 32 give every indication that angels are corporeal in nature. It is not until Matt. 22:30 that sociological distinctions are made between humans and angels in that angels are not given in marriage.^[71] Beyond this we do not know enough about angels to say of what they are and are not physically capable. We are the first in history to see the material and spiritual realms as disconnected.

The phrase “the sons of God” was universally understood in Judaism as referring to angels until the mid-second century AD (1 Enoch 6–19; 21; 86–88; 106:13-15; Jub. 4:15, 22; 5:1). The earliest written interpretation seeing the sons of God as angels is a second century BC book of 1 Enoch. 1 Enoch 6–12 tells the whole story of the angels taking women as wives and of the flood that followed. Other Jewish writings during this time also favored this view. Several Septuagint manuscripts translate the phrase as “angels of God.” In Christianity, this understanding was not questioned until the late third century and lost support in the fifth century. It was not until the early third century AD that the work of Julius Africanus came up with the Sethite theory (see below). This was not based on biblical evidence but mostly because the angel view sounded mythological and impossible. In the mid-fifth century AD, Augustine promoted a variation of this view. Later, the kings theory (see below) was developed because the Sethite view was seen as not fitting the Biblical context. In the nineteenth century, the angels view (described already) made a comeback as a lot of ancient Near Eastern texts became available. The vast majority of scholars today take the angels view based on the use of the “sons of God” title in other places in the Bible and a better understanding of the ancient Near Eastern worldview.

Seeing the sons of God as angels fits the context of Genesis far better than the other views, especially with the parallels with Genesis 3. The divine-human intercourse was like Adam and Eve’s eating the fruit of the forbidden tree—humanity’s attempt to gain eternal life through their own efforts. Once again, humanity was trying to become like God through their autonomy and partaking of that which was forbidden.

If the interpretation of the “sons of God” being fallen angels seems too far-fetched or even impossible to you, ask yourself, “Why?” Do you have a legitimate reason or factual knowledge to discount this view? We live in a culture that has made science the absolute authority on all things; i.e., if it cannot be measured, it is not true or valid. This way of thinking is really only found in America and Europe and only in the last couple hundred years. Compared to most of history and most of the world, the spiritual realm is very much real and is actively involved in the material realm, and most cultures have no problem accepting that spiritual beings could have done this with human beings. To say that they are wrong because it is not “scientific” or what we “civilized” people believe is arrogant and intellectual snobbery. We tend to believe that our (limited perspective, minority) beliefs are superior to most of the people in the world just because we are more technologically advanced. Science and technology are indeed very beneficial and can help make people’s lives safer or better, but science cannot speak to or answer many of the most important questions about life: Why are we here? Who are we? What is our purpose? Is there a spiritual realm, and what is it capable of doing? Deep down inside, we believe there is a spiritual realm and that something like what we see in Genesis 6 is very much possible. This can be seen in the overwhelming number of movies that are all about the spiritual realm and the supernatural. The popularity of these movies shows that we as humans have a longing to connect to the spiritual realm that has for so long been denied to us by an obsession with science. Again, science is very good, and when the Bible touches on the scientific, it is true and accurate. But the Bible is a theological book that is interested in answering the questions that science cannot and we have not for a long time. The Bible and science are not opposed to each other; they are compatible.

6:3 The judgment for the sin of the unholy union between the sons of God and the daughters of men was that Yahweh would remain with humanity for only another 120 years. This does not refer to the age limit of individuals because that would contradict the ages recorded in Gen. 11 after the flood. It refers instead to the amount of time before the judgment of the flood. This is supported by the fact that 120 years after this time the flood did indeed come (Gen. 5:3; 7:6). This would have given humanity plenty of time to repent of their sin through the preaching of Noah (1 Pet. 3:20). “My spirit” denotes the life-giving power of God connected to the breath of life (Gen. 2:7) or the spirit of life (Gen. 6:17; 7:15); this phrase is used again in Ezek. 37:14.^[72]

6:4 Though it is not entirely clear, the context of Genesis 6 seems to indicate that the nephilim and the “mighty heroes of old” are the offspring of the unholy union. The meaning of the Hebrew word nephilim is uncertain, though the context suggests an understanding of great and mighty warriors who were famous throughout the world. The Greek equivalent in the LXX gigantes does not refer to monstrous size; rather, it means “fallen ones” and refers to the unusual offspring of an unholy union. This word was also used of the Titans, who were the offspring of male gods and human women.^[73]

The difficulty is with Gen. 6:4, which states that the nephilim were on the earth after this event as well. If all humanity (except for Noah and his family) died in the flood, it is difficult to understand how the post-flood nephilim could be related to the pre-flood nephilim or how the Anakites of Canaan could be their descendants (Num. 13:33). This is a problem no matter which view one holds. A possible understanding is that it is not the narrator in Num. 13:33 who connects the Anakites to the nephilim but a misconception or an urban legend circulated by the people of Israel. Just because the people believed the Anakites to be nephilim does not mean they were actual nephilim. We should not trust the opinions of those who are not divinely inspired. However, the text does not specifically mention that the nephilim are the offspring. It could be that the narrator is simply saying that they were also there. At this point we do not fully understand who these nephilim were.

6:5-7 The passage follows two parallel developments that are indicated by “the sons of God saw” in Gen. 6:2 and “Yahweh saw” in Gen. 6:5. The sons of God saw that the daughters of men were good, and they took. The wording also reflects back to Yahweh’s creating the world and how He saw that it was good. Now upon looking at His creation, He saw only wickedness due to autonomy of humanity’s hearts. Yahweh saw that humanity was evil, and He grieved and decided to blot them out. Humans had become so evil that there was literally nothing good about them, and they could not even comprehend a righteous thought or deed. The phrasing of “every inclination” is the same used to describe the end of history before the coming of Christ (Luke 17:26-27; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; Rev. 20:7-10). The heart refers to the center of all thought, volition, will, desire, and morality.

The phrase “Yahweh regretted” (NET) or “Yahweh was grieved/sorry” (NIV, NASB) does not mean Yahweh felt like He had made a mistake; instead, what His creation had become caused Him great emotional pain. The word “pain” (NIV) or “grieved” (NASB, ESV) that follows this carries the idea of an offense that leads to anger and feelings of regret and alludes to the judgment oracles in Gen. 3:16-19. The word is used of God’s feelings in only two other passages (Ps. 78:40; Isa. 63:10).

The judgment for humanity was complete annihilation and is a more detailed account of what was mentioned in Gen. 6:3. The repetition emphasizes the gravity and surety of the judgment. Yahweh was so horrified by their evil that He was willing to rid the earth of them all. This shows how great their evil was, for other than the judgment found in Revelation, Yahweh has never brought such a judgment on the earth since the flood. Yahweh would bury humanity under the sea just as He buried Adam under the dust.

6:8 Despite the wickedness of the world, there was one who was righteous in his thoughts and deeds. “Found favor” here suggests grace, which carries the idea that Yahweh would have been justified in including Noah and his family in the punishment. The righteousness of Noah was not found in his works, earning his reprieve, but in his heart for Yahweh and in his faith. The narrator leaves it to the reader to realize that it was not Noah’s own righteousness but was a gift from Yahweh.

“It is not that Noah’s works of righteousness gains him salvation, for none is cited. Rather, his upright character is noted to condemn his generation, which merits death.”^[74]

What is clear from trying to understand the ages and timeline of Gen. 5 and the people and events of Gen. 6 is that everything—accomplishments, knowledge, and artifacts—from the pre-flood world was completely wiped away, so the people of the ancient world and those of the modern world have no idea what the world was like before the flood. There is a real sense that Yahweh was truly wiping the slate clean and starting over with humanity.

F. Noah and the Flood (6:9–9:29)

This section is the third toledot of Genesis and includes the account of both Noah and his family. The point of these chapters is that humanity had become so wicked that everything they did violated the good and just nature of Yahweh. Yahweh’s justice would not allow the sin of humanity to go unpunished. However, Yahweh’s goodness caused him to choose Noah and his family in order to save humanity from themselves. Gen. 6:9–9:19 forms a chiastic parallel with Yahweh’s remembering Noah (Gen. 8:1a) as the emphasis in the story.

A Transitional introduction (6:9a)

   B Noah and his world at the time of the flood (6:9b-12)

      C Provision for the flood with a divine monologue establishing Yahweh’s covenant to preserve Noah, with reflections on Noah and human behavior (6:12-22)

         D Embarkation (7:1-5)

            E Beginning of the flood with Noah and the animals (7:6-16)

               F The triumphant flood (7:17-24)

                  X Yahweh remembers Noah (8:1a)

               F’ The waning Flood (8:1b-5)

            E’ Ending of the flood with Noah and the birds (8:6-14)

         D’ Disembarkation (8:15-19)

      C’ Provision for the post-flood world with a divine monologue to preserve the earth, with reflections on human behavior (8:20-22)

   B’ Noah and the world conditions after the flood (9:1-17)

A’ Transitional introduction (9:18-19)

Likewise, there is an alternating parallel formed by Genesis 6-9.

A Genealogical introduction (6:9-10)

   B Setting (6:11)

      C Narrative (6:12-8:21)

         D Poem (8:22)

            E Epilogue (9:1-17)

A Genealogical introduction (9:18-19)

   B Setting (9:20)

      C Narrative (9:20-24)

         D Poem (9:25-27)

            E Epilogue (9:28-29)

Due to so many scientific questions left unanswered in this account, it is clear that the narrator is more interested in the moral aspects of the flood than in its physical details.

6:9-10 This is the first time the words righteousness and blameless are used in the Bible. Righteousness is one’s rightness before and in the eyes of Yahweh—one who is innocent and acquitted (Ex. 23:7-8; Deut. 25:1). The righteous person keeps the moral law (Ezek. 18:5-9). The righteous are characterized by their lack of selfishness and by their willingness to disadvantage themselves for the advantage of others. Blameless means “whole, complete,” signifying a wholehearted commitment to and wholeness of relationship with Yahweh. Blameless is rarely applied to people and most frequently describes blemish-free sacrificial animals (Lev. 1:3, 10, etc.). The blameless abstain from iniquity (2 Sam. 22:24; Ezek. 28:15) and walk in the law of Yahweh (Ps.119:1).^[75] It does not mean one is perfect but that he seeks to not sin against Yahweh; when he does sin, he deals with his sin quickly. The phrase “walked with God” links Noah to Enoch (Gen. 5:22, 24). Just as Enoch was spared a natural death, so Noah was saved from the judgment of Yahweh. That Noah had three sons links him with Adam and Terah (Gen. 4:1-2, 25; 11:27). These three descriptions presented together emphasize how unique Noah was in the dark, bleak world that surrounded him. The sons of Noah are presumed to be righteous as well since they are mentioned before the corruption of the world. This may be the understanding for Ezek. 14:14-20, which emphasizes that the righteousness of an individual cannot save those in his family who are not righteous.

“The same explanation for Enoch’s rescue from death (‘he walked with God’) is made the basis for Noah’s rescue from death in the Flood: ‘he walked with God’ (6:9). Thus in the story of Noah and the Flood, the author is able to repeat the lesson of Enoch: life comes through ‘walking with God.’”^[76]

6:11-13 Notice that the earth and the animals suffered because of human sin (Gen. 3:17-19; Rom. 8:20-21). Since moral corruption is in view here, most modern Western interpreters understand the referent to be humanity. However, the phrase “all flesh” is used consistently of humanity and the animals in Gen. 6–9 (Gen. 6:17, 19; 7:15-16, 21; 8:17; 9:11, 15-17), suggesting that the narrator intends to picture all living creatures—humanity and animals—as guilty of moral failure. This would explain why the animals, not just humanity, are victims of the ensuing divine judgment. The First Testament sometimes views animals as morally culpable (Gen. 9:5; Ex. 21:28-29; Jonah 3:7-8), like the serpent that became corrupt (Gen. 3:1-5, 14-15). The First Testament also teaches that a person’s sin can contaminate other people and animals in the sinful person’s sphere. So, the animals could be viewed here as morally contaminated because of their association with sinful humanity. The repeated actions of humanity around or on animals does change their nature. Also, Yahweh made a covenant with humans and animals (Gen. 9:9-16). If the entire earth had been ruined, then the entire earth must be cleansed. The punishment must fit the crime (Gen. 9:6; Ex. 21:23-25), for sin is awful and so is judgment.

Since Yahweh is the Creator of the land, humanity, and all creatures, He has absolute authority over them. He has the authority and right to place humanity and creatures in the land, and He has the right to remove them from the land. This is one of the major points that the First Testament makes as it deals with humanity on earth and, later, with the Canaanites and Israel in the Promised Land. As humans who owe their existence to this absolute and divine Authority, they cannot question His righteousness in His judgments over sin, especially since the very moral reasoning they would use comes from Him. Likewise, as sinners, they can never appreciate the vileness of sin and the need for justice in the way that Yahweh as a righteous and holy God does.

6:14-16 Yahweh commanded Noah to build the ark for a couple of reasons. First, it was Yahweh who initiated the plan of redemption and seeks out humanity for its redemption. Second, this was Yahweh’s plan—not humanity’s plan—for redemption, thus all the specifications come from Yahweh and must be followed exactly for it to work. “God must be obeyed in all his instructions if his people expect to enjoy the fruit of life and blessing (e.g., Deut. 26:16-19; 28:1-14).”^[77]

The word ark is used again later in Ex. 2:3, 5 of the basket made for Moses as a baby. As the chaotic waters threatened to kill all of humanity, and later Moses, Yahweh used an ark to deliver these chosen servants. Most translations use the word cypress to describe the wood for the ark. A transliteration of the Hebrew word is “gopher wood;” however, the exact nature of the wood is uncertain. The Hebrew word kafar means “to cover, to smear.” The Piel form of the word in Hebrew (kipper) has the metaphorical meaning “to atone, to expiate, to pacify,” and it is used in Leviticus of the animal sacrifices for atonement. Notice that there is no rudder on this boat, signifying that it will be steered by the hand or wind of Yahweh. In the pagan accounts of the flood, the boat is steered by the hero of the story, who overcomes the flood through his own ingenuity. Likewise, that boat is unstable, being four times longer and heavier than the ark of Yahweh.

The dimensions of the ark are multiples of ten or sixty—the same as the ages of the patriarchs. The dimensions are given according to the standard construction formula found in Ex. 25:10, 17, 23, etc. The ark and the tabernacle are the only structures described in the Torah. There were three decks—like the three divisions of the creation (sky, earth, and water). If each deck were divided into three sections, each one would be the height of the tabernacle and the size of the tabernacle courtyard.

“The place where God allows his glory to appear is the place whence the life of the people is preserved. The ark corresponds to this in the primeval event where the concern is for the preservation of humanity… Such is the significance of the construction of the ark because by means of it God preserved humanity from destruction. The parallel between the ark and the tabernacle has a profound meaning. The people of Israel, which alone has in its midst the place where God reveals his glory, is part of the human race which exists now because it has been preserved by this same God.”^[78]

6:17-18 In the pagan accounts of the flood, the gods are seen as keeping from humanity their decision to flood the earth so that all would be killed. Their reason for destroying the world was humanity was multiplying too much and making too much noise. In the Sumerian Gilgamesh myth, Ea and Enki (two lesser gods) warned the hero because they were sympathetic to him. And Enlil, the high god who commanded the flood, was surprised to find survivors afterward. In contrast, Yahweh destroyed the world for the great sin of humanity and for what they were doing to creation. Noah was saved not because Yahweh was sympathetic and felt bad for him but because of Noah’s righteousness. And Yahweh shared His plans with Noah so that he and all who repented could be saved.

The contrast here is that Yahweh in His justice would wipe out humanity, but, out of the same justice that requires Him to punish the sin of the world, He would save Noah and establish a covenant with him. To confirm a covenant means to ratify an already existing covenant (Deut. 9:5). The only other covenant that existed at this point was the Adamic Covenant in the garden. Though humanity lost its right to rule and subdue and to dwell with Yahweh, He still promised to bless them with life, and He commanded humanity to be fruitful and multiply. Here we see that Yahweh shows great grace and love for humanity along with His justice, in contrast to the pagan gods.

6:19-21 The use of the phrase “every kind” is an echo of Gen. 1:20-23 and shows Yahweh’s desire to preserve His creation despite His devastating judgment that was to come. Yahweh stated that two of every kind of animal would come to Noah. “Two of every kind” ensured that the population of the animals would continue after the flood. The list of animals begins generally and becomes more specific, just like the creation account. The list of animals is also in the same sequence (Gen. 1:20-24). The fact that Yahweh would bring the animals to Noah puts the emphasis on His salvific work and not on Noah’s efforts.

6:22 The statement “and Noah did all that Yahweh commanded him” in Gen. 6:22 and in Gen. 7:5 makes the point that Noah’s righteousness was found in his obedience to Yahweh. This was an incredible act of persevering faith, for if Yahweh did not send the rains, Noah would have wasted 120 years of his life and been the joke of history. Note that 120 years (Gen. 6:3) is a multiple of three, a number symbolic of redemption. Not only was this time a countdown to judgment, but it was also a time during which the world could seek redemption through the preaching of Noah (1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 2:5).

In the Gilgamesh flood myth, Utnapishtim, the hero of the story, is the story’s focus. Utnapishtim means “finder of eternal life,” and there is great space and detail given to the active and skillful efforts of Utnapishtim—his building a ship and gathering everything he needed and the fact that he shut the door himself. Utnapishtim was a king, and after the flood, he joined the ranks of the gods by becoming immortal. In contrast, the building of the ark in Genesis 6 was not as important as Yahweh’s actions after the ark was sealed. Noah’s efforts are downplayed, and only his obedience is mentioned.

“Human greatness is to be found neither in heroic feats nor in an exalted social station but in faithfully obeying God’s word.”^[79]

7:1-5 Now Yahweh added to His original command of two of every kind and told Noah to take seven pairs of every clean animal—the male and its mate (fourteen of each kind)—and two of every unclean. Though Yahweh did not reveal the basis for His distinction between clean and unclean animals here, this concept was not unknown in the ancient Near East. Pagan cultures also observed clean and unclean distinctions among animals, though they varied from nation to nation. In the Mosaic Law, Yahweh further distinguished between clean and unclean animals (Lev. 11). The clean animals were the only animals allowed to be sacrificed and, later, eaten (Gen. 9:3; Lev. 11). Yahweh probably required more of the clean animals to board the ark since they would be needed for both sacrificing and eating and also for repopulating the earth. The idea of taking seven pairs of clean animals also shows that His salvation for the animal world was complete. And once again, the faithfulness of Noah is affirmed.

7:6-16 Exactly 120 years after Yahweh pronounced His judgment on the earth and gave Noah the command to build the ark, the flood came, just as He had said it would. And just as Yahweh had promised, He brought all the animals onto the ark and preserved them along with Noah’s family before the floodgates burst forth onto the earth.

The word for “great deep” is the same Hebrew word used in Gen. 1:2 to describe the watery deep that covered the earth before the Spirit of God hovered over it and changed it. In Gen. 7:11 the “floodgates of the heavens” (NIV, ESV) should be translated “floodgates of the sky” (NASB) since it is the plural form of shamayim, which denotes the sky, as in Gen. 1:8. This prescientific view of the sky refers to the celestial waters above the sky, which we now know as the rain clouds. The water bursting forth from the great deep are poetic phases used in the prophets to refer to the judgment of Yahweh (Amos 7:4; Ps. 78:15; Isa. 24:18; Mal. 3:10).

Yahweh unleashed the chaotic waters of the watery deep so that they would no longer be separated but would swallow the land. He opened the sky/expanse, which was created to keep the waters above from rejoining the waters below (Gen. 1:6-8), so that the waters above and below were no longer separated. With all the clouds, the luminaries and light would no longer be visible, and the waters destroyed all the creatures of the sky, water, and land. This was, as a judgment against sin, a de‑creation of the earth, returning it to a state of formlessness and emptiness, darkness, and chaotic watery deep. Because of the sin of humanity, there would no longer be land, so there could be no life or blessing. The Spirit of Yahweh was no longer contending with humanity and was removed from the surface of creation. Everything returned to a state of disorder and lifelessness (Gen. 6:3; 1:2b).

The repetitious nature of Gen. 7:13-16 emphasizes that Yahweh was in control and faithful, just as He had promised, to punish humanity and purge the world of its sin and wickedness. In the Babylonian account, the flood got out of control and frightened the gods who “cowered like dogs” because they could not stop it.

7:17-24 Several times the waters are said to have “engulfed the earth” and “completely overwhelmed the earth,” so that “everything” was covered. The “earth” and “waters” are mentioned six times, connecting back to the creation account. The waters multiplied, putting creation into reverse. They “triumph” (Gen. 7:17, 18, 19, 24), a military word for triumphing in battle (Ex. 17:11). The repetition shows that this was a flood that wiped everything out and spared nothing. The narrator also points out that every living thing died. Here, the narrator shows that Yahweh’s judgment was complete and thorough, not lacking or failing in any way. The number forty can be used to communicate a long period of time (previously Gen. 7:17), is symbolic of testing and trials, and represents the introduction to a new age. The number 150 is a multiple of three, which is symbolic of redemption. Yahweh used the waters to cleanse the earth of its corruption and thus redeem it.

8:1-5 “God remembered” does not mean Yahweh had forgotten Noah and his family; rather, the Hebrew term means to act upon a previous commitment to a covenant promise (Gen. 9:14-15; 19:29; 30:22; Ex. 2:24; 6:5; 32:13; 1 Sam. 1:19; Judg. 16:28; Ps. 8:4; 9:12; 74:1-3; 98:3; 105:8; 106:45; 111:5; Jer. 15:15). We are also called to remember the future (Isa. 47:7; Eccl. 11:8), a usage that shows remembering to be more than just recall. Yahweh’s remembering always implies His movement toward the object or person. By Yahweh’s acting upon his promises to Noah, He shows Himself trustworthy in His word.

The word wind comes from the Hebrew word ruach, which means “wind, spirit.” Once again, Yahweh sent His Spirit to subdue the chaotic waters and bring order to His creation (Gen. 1:2b). This is the turning point of the story, wherein Yahweh caused the waters to retreat, revealing the land again so that He could place Noah, the new Adam, in the land to be fruitful and multiply. The retreating of the waters is the exact description seen later of the waters of the Red Sea and of the Jordan returning to their places (Ex. 14:26, 28; Josh. 4:18). Thus, the creation, the flood, and the exodus out of Egypt are all tied together as great acts of redemption. Yahweh used waters of chaos to eliminate social chaos and then overcame the cosmic chaos of the flood waters to bring a new creation out of them. The waters returned to their boundaries, and Yahweh brought equilibrium and a new permanence to the creation (Gen. 8:22).

The day the ark came to rest on dry land in the “new” creation was the seventeenth of day of the seventh month (Nisan)—the same day as the festival of firstfruits, which Yahweh would later command the Jews to celebrate (Lev. 23:9-14). This festival foreshadowed the resurrection of Jesus Christ on the same day, which made the believers into a “new” creation.

The ark’s coming to rest upon Ararat does not mean it landed on a mountain called Ararat but on the mountains in the area of Ararat. Ararat is the Hebrew term for Urartu, a kingdom north of Assyria (2 Kgs. 19:37; Isa. 37:38; Jer. 51:27) Later called Armenia, it is now a part of eastern Turkey, southern Russia, and northwestern Iraq.^[80]

8:6-12 The sending out of the raven before the dove shows the accuracy of the Biblical account. Ravens are stronger than doves and can fly longer—even through storms—and they feed off carrion.^[81] The dove needs trees and ground because it cannot fly as long. Literally, the dove found no manoah (“resting place”). The dove looked for “another Noah” outside the ark, but when it did not find one, it returned to the Noah it knew. The statement “he put out his hand, took it, and brought it into him” is without parallel in the writings of the ancient Near East. “The description of the return and admission of the dove is unsurpassed even in the Yahwistic document for the tenderness and beauty of imagination.”^[82] This piece of the story shows the kind of relationship that should be between a human and animal (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:19-20; Ex. 23:4-5; Deut. 25:4; Prov. 12:10). The olive tree is a symbol of beauty and fertility and symbolized Israel (Jer. 11:16). At the end of the forty days, Yahweh was ready to reveal His “new” and redeemed creation.

The number of days within the flood account reveals concentric parallelism. The 150 days of the water covering the earth are viewed from two different perspectives and show that the focus of the story is Yahweh’s controlling the waters with their triumph and waning.

A 7 days of waiting for the flood (7:4)

   B 7 days of waiting for the flood (7:10)

      C 40 days of flooding (7:17a)

         D 150 days of water triumphing (7:24)

         D’ 150 days of water waning (8:12)

      C’ 40 days of waiting (8:6)

   B’ 7 days of waiting (8:10)

A 7 days of waiting (8:12)

8:13-19 Even though the ground was dry enough for Noah to leave the ark, he still waited almost two months before he left because he was waiting for the word of Yahweh. Noah’s first response after he got off the ark was to build an altar and worship Yahweh.

Notice that the patterns of the receding floodwaters are parallel to the creation account in relation to the forming and filling of the earth. Now that the world was a watery mass, Yahweh must “re‑create” His creation, redeeming it to its original state. The rain stopping and the water drying up are symbolic of the vertical and horizontal separations of the water (Gen. 1:6-10). The dove’s finding the olive branch is like the creation of vegetation (Gen. 1:11-12), and the clearing of the storm clouds is the revealing of the sky and the sun, moon, and stars (Gen. 1:6-8, 14-17). The opening of the ark reveals the animals and humanity upon the earth (Gen. 1:20-26). Thus, Yahweh is seen as redeeming His creation for a new Adam found in Noah.

8:20-22 Noah built an altar and sacrificed to Yahweh, which was a pleasing aroma to Him. Gen. 8:20-22 explains Yahweh’s change of heart. This is the only time recorded in the Bible that Yahweh smelled (accepted) the sacrifice. David prayed that Yahweh would (1 Sam. 26:19). Later in the Bible, Yahweh says He will not smell the sacrifice of the disobedient (Lev. 26:31; Amos 5:21-22). Here, Yahweh is satisfied, the slate is cleaned, and the covenant at creation is renewed. Yahweh did not need the sacrifice for food; rather, humanity needed it to show dependency on Yahweh. Yahweh’s smelling the aroma is contrasted with the pagan gods, who in their mythologies crowded greedily around the sacrifice of the humans after the flood like flies desperate for food.

Yahweh promised to never again destroy the earth even though the hearts (wills) of humanity were still as evil as they had been before the flood and would continue to deserve His judgment. Note that Yahweh was not lifting the curse of Gen. 3:17. The flood had not altered the condition of humanity, but it and Noah’s sacrifice had pacified Yahweh’s righteous anger against the sin. Yahweh’s promise switches from prose to poetry to emphasize the force of His promise. The phrase “as long as the earth endures” qualifies the phrase “never again.” Yahweh would preserve humanity and earth until the final judgment (1 Pet. 3:20-21; 2 Pet. 2:5-12). Yahweh was not lifting the curse on the land (Gen. 3:17) but was promising to not add to it.

“The striking similarity between the flood and Sinai, between Noah and Moses, is of great theological significance for the interpretation of each story… The world, while still in its infancy, has sinned and brought upon itself Yahweh’s wrath and judgment. Israel has only just been constituted a people, God’s chosen people, yet directly it has sinned and incurred Yahweh’s wrath and judgment. Each time the same question is raised. How, before God, can a sinful world (in general) or a sinful people, even God’s chosen people (in particular), exist without being destroyed? Each time the answer is given that if the sin is answered solely by the judgment it deserves, then there is no hope. But in addition to the judgment there is also mercy, a mercy which depends entirely on the character of God and is given to an unchangingly sinful people.”^[83]

9:1-7 Yahweh’s blessing here is almost identical to His blessing at creation (Gen. 1:28), modifying the food laws and reasserting the sanctity of life. This is the third time He has blessed humanity (Gen. 1:28; 5:2; 9:1). Three different times Yahweh repeated the command to be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 8:17; 9:1, 7). It was still His desire for humanity to fill the earth and spread His glory throughout it. The command to “swarm, be fruitful and multiply,” originally given to the birds and fish (Gen. 1:20, 22), is now given to all animals, showing that this was truly a new creation. Yahweh’s desire to have life abundantly stands in stark contrast to the pagan gods. After the flood in the Babylonian Atrahasis myth, the gods, fearing overpopulation, decreed that certain women be celibate, that others be infertile, and that some infants should die at birth in order to keep the population under control.

Yahweh stated that humanity was allowed to eat all plants and animals, whereas before only plants had been specifically mentioned. Once again, the allowance to eat animals may not have been a new thing here. That Yahweh provided Adam and Eve with garments from animal skins (Gen. 3:21), that Abel sacrificed animals (Gen. 4:2-4), and that Noah could distinguish clean from unclean animals (Gen. 7:2) suggest that the command in Gen. 9:2 is ratifying post-fall eating of meat rather than inaugurating it.^[84] This allowance to eat animals implies that humanity has the power of life and death over the animals (Deut. 19:12; 20:13). It is interesting that there is no threat attached to eating unclean animals.

The only criteria given for eating animals is that one is not allowed to consume the blood; the blood should be drained out of the animals before they are eaten (Lev. 3:17; 7:26-27; 19:26; Deut. 12:16-24; 1 Sam. 14:32-34). This restriction is given for a few reasons. First, blood can carry a lot of diseases, and so it is not safe. Second, the life of the animal is in the blood and is given for the atonement of sin (Lev. 17:11). Blood is symbolic of life because it is the most essential substance for life and is the most physically visual representation of life. It was used for the atonement of sins in that an innocent life was offered in place of a sinful life to cancel the debt of sin that leads to death. Thus, the blood is sacred and should not be used for something common because the powerful meaning of blood as atonement is lost when it is mixed with what is common. Third, because blood was associated with life, many tribes would drink the blood to gain the power or life of the animal. This self-oriented desire to be in control and to gain life and blessing outside the will of Yahweh is the reason all humans need atonement. In consuming the blood, one would be using what is meant for atonement to instead gain more power outside the will of Yahweh.

There is a chiastic parallelism in the covenant that Yahweh made with Noah that shows the importance of the blood.

A Yahweh’s resolution to never again destroy the earth or humanity (8:20-22)

   B Command to be fruitful (9:1)

      X Legislation regarding blood (9:2-6)

   B’ Command to be fruitful (9:7)

A’ Yahweh’s covenant and sign to never again destroy all flesh (9:8-17)

The next command is the prohibition against murder because humanity is made in the image of God. The switch from prose to poetry emphasizes the value of human life because of the image of God. As the sovereign creator and author of life, only Yahweh has the right to place humanity in the land or to remove them. To murder someone is to put oneself in the place of Yahweh. Also, to murder someone is to attack the image of God, which is meant to expand the kingdom of Yahweh. The death of Yahweh’s image demands divine retribution on humans or animals that kill humans. The fact that Yahweh would command the death penalty for murder shows how much He values human life and humanity’s purpose on this earth.

“A community is only justified in executing the death penalty in so far as it respects the unique right of God over life and death and in so far it respects the inviolability of human life that follows therefrom. Every single violation of this limit, be it based on national, racial, or ideological grounds is here condemned.”^[85]

Notice that the command to rule and subdue is not repeated. The animals are still subject to humanity but now out of fear rather than respect. The phrase “fear of you” is a military term of hostility, suggesting there will not be peace between the two; Gen. 9:6 suggests the same for humans.

9:8-11 Yahweh stated that He was making a covenant with all humanity. The Noahic Covenant was the second covenant Yahweh made with humanity. The blessing of Yahweh was that He would never again destroy the earth, but there were no requirements for humanity in order to keep the covenant alive (the ones listed above pertained to His moral will, not to the covenant itself). Yahweh stated in Gen. 9:12 that the covenant was to be unconditional for “all successive generations.”

“This covenant does not depend on human obedience to the laws given to Noah; rather, men’s and women’s compliance with the laws allow them to live and enjoy this covenant.”^[86]

9:12-17 The sign of this covenant was the rainbow. In Gen. 9:13 the Hebrew word for “rainbow” is simply “bow” and refers to a battle bow used in hunting or battles. Yahweh hung His battle bow in the sky, pointed away from the earth as a sign of His peace with humanity.

A “confirm the covenant” (9:9-11)

   B “sign of the covenant” (9:12a)

      C covenant “for farthest generations” (9:12b)

         X “my bow” (9:13-16)

      C’ “eternal covenant” (9:16)

   B’ “sign of the covenant” (9:17a)

A’ “confirm” the covenant (9:17b)

9:18-19 The main purpose here is to portray the characteristics of the three main branches of the human race in relation to the blessing and cursing of Noah. The most significant element in this section is the blessing and cursing motif that will occur repeatedly throughout Genesis. The narrator reveals the spiritual degradation of the Canaanites by exposing the character of the father (Ham). Noah is portrayed as the second Adam in that he was blessed as Yahweh’s image bearer (Gen. 9:6) and was given the same commandments that were given to Adam (Gen. 9:1). This passage alludes to the covenant in the Garden of Eden with the words “be fruitful,” “multiply,” and “fill the earth.”

“Noah is depicted as Adam redivivus (revived). He is the sole survivor and successor to Adam; both ‘walk’ with God; both are the recipients of the promissory blessing; both are caretakers of the lower creatures; both father three sons; both are workers of the soil; both sin through the fruit of a tree; and both father a wicked son who is under a curse.”^[87]

9:20-21 Noah is described as a “man of the soil,” which shows not only that he was a part of the soil due to the curse but also that he was a subduer of the soil through his creation of wine. In the Hebrew, Gen. 9:20 carries the idea that Noah was the inventor of wine, which cheers, gladdens, and comforts the heart (Judg. 9:13; Ps. 104:15). Wine was a gift from Yahweh to humanity (Ps. 104:15). Every burnt or peace offering was to be accompanied with a wine offering (Num. 15:5-10), and wine was the symbol of Israel (Isa. 5:1-7; Mark 12:1-11). However, there is also the warning against the dangers of wine. Priests were not allowed to drink before entering the sanctuary (Lev. 10:9), and the nation was warned against drinking too much (Isa. 5:22; Prov. 21:17; 23:20-21, 29-35). Excessive wine confuses (Isa. 28:7) and leads to self-exposure (Hab. 2:15; Lam. 4:21). Wine was also used as a metaphor of the judgment of Yahweh (Isa. 63:6; Jer. 51:57). The brevity of the narrator’s description of a character’s actions is common, when Scripture disapproves of a behavior, as in Noah getting drunk. To uncover oneself was not just publicly demeaning (2 Sam. 6:14-16, 20) but was incompatible with living in the presence of Yahweh (Ex. 20:26; Deut. 23:12-14).

Though alcohol is not forbidden by Yahweh, Noah’s nakedness in combination with his drunkenness suggest that the narrator is condemning his actions. It is not clear why Noah got drunk or why man of such great faith would fall so hard. Perhaps after the intense and lengthy stress he experienced, and now that resolution had finally come, he lowered his defenses and crashed. Or, perhaps being the first to drink wine, he had newly discovered the pitfalls of alcohol. Noah’s nakedness is seen as a second fall with a curse.

9:22-23 Ham’s sin was not that he saw his father naked but that he gazed upon him searchingly. This is amplified in that he invaded his father’s privacy by entering his tent and then dishonored him through his outspoken delight over his father’s condition, rather than honoring him. Honoring one’s parents was a most sacred duty (Ex. 21:15, 17; Deut. 21:18-21; Mark 7:10). His sin was even more emphasized by the contrasting actions of his brothers. Some have suggested that Ham somehow violated his father sexually. However, if the covering of Noah was all that was needed to remedy the situation, then this suggests the offense was merely in Ham seeing Noah naked and mocking him. It also shows that all Ham would have had to do was cover his father and walk away.

9:24-29 The switch from prose to poetry emphasizes the importance of the cursing of Ham and the blessing of Shem. The seriousness of Ham’s sin is emphasized by Noah’s cursing him when he awoke. Ham and Canaan are cursed because they did not show family loyalty—one of the most important relationships in the Bible. This is the first record of a human pronouncing a curse. A later generation may be judged for the sin of their ancestors if they are like-minded in their deeds. Otherwise, they may bear the fruit of their ancestors’ sins (Josh. 9:27). By the nature of Noah’s cursing, Noah may have anticipated evil traits that would mark his descendants. The Canaanite people are in view here, so this becomes an explanation for the debauchery of the people as a whole and Yahweh’s reason behind the later extermination of the nation. These people were not cursed because of what Ham did but because they acted as their ancestor had. The repeated reference to “nakedness” and “uncovering” carried out in the sin of Ham gives way to the Canaanites being a people enslaved sexually.

Noah then blessed Shem and Japheth with a focus on Shem being the head of the other two brothers. This blessing sets the stage for the choosing of Abram, a descendant of Shem, and his descendants taking the land of Canaan and dispossessing the Canaanites, the descendants of Ham.

Unlike Utnapishtim of the Sumerian Gilgamesh myth, who was granted eternal life, Noah died like his ancestors before him. In the flood generation and in the righteous life of Noah, humanity is always portrayed as sinful and doomed to die under the curse. Only Yahweh is the true righteous character who is worthy of honor and glory.

G. The Tower of Babylon and the Scattered Nations (10:1–11:26)

This is the final section that emphasizes the wickedness of humanity before the narrator introduces Yahweh’s choosing of Abraham. The point is to show that the true heart of humanity is one of uniting in rebellion against Yahweh.

Genesis 11 happens chronologically before the events of Genesis 10. In Genesis 10, the narrator reveals the nations had been scattered and separated, shown by the fact that they spoke different languages. Humanity is portrayed as lost and with no sense of connection to a land, and so they established their own cultures rather than the kingdom of Yahweh. In Genesis 11, the narrator explains how the world’s nations became scattered and confused. This scattering was the consequence of their unified rebellion against Yahweh in attempt to establish their own kingdom and become like gods. The point is to show that despite the judgment of the flood, not only did humanity still become wicked, but they also wanted to unite in rebellion against Yahweh’s nature and desire for their lives. This then sets the reader up to see why Yahweh needed to choose Abraham and form a new nation that would bear Yahweh’s name and bring all the scattered nations into this new nation—to reconnect them to Yahweh, the land, and blessings.

The genealogy of Genesis 10 is interested primarily in two things. First, it moves quickly through the first two brothers to get to Shem. Notice that Israel is not mentioned specifically because from Shem would come Abraham, who would become the father of Israel. Abraham’s lines growing into Israel is developed in the rest of the Torah. Second, the genealogy focuses on Canaan, who would become a great obstacle to Israel’s finding blessing in the land Yahweh provides them. The end of the Noah story and this genealogy explain why Canaan had to be removed from the land.

The genealogy of Genesis 10 is different from the previous genealogy in several ways. First, no ages are mentioned. Second, although some names are personal—like Japhet and Nimrod—most are the name of the nation, like Cush and Mizaim. Third, the terms to describe the relationship between those listed is more flexible. “The sons of…were…” alternates with “X fathered…” Fourth, sonship and brotherhood could be used in the ancient Near East to refer to a treaty as well as blood relationships. However, the terms “son of” and “fathered” do express the idea that all of humanity descended from a common ancestor. All people are children of Noah and Adam.^[88] This points to the fact that the “one people” (am) of Gen. 11:6 are actually the nations (goyim) of the earth (Gen. 10:5, 20, 31, 32). The human family has become the competing nations of the world.

The genealogy here is a selective account in that it is interested in presenting only the nations known to Israel. Ten is symbolic of nations, and seven is symbolic of completeness. Thus, seventy communicates the idea that the foundation for the nations of the world is complete.

“Evidently 70 nations descended from Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Seventy became a traditional round number for a large group of descendants. Jacob’s family also comprised 70 people (Gen. 46:27), which may indicate that Moses viewed Israel as a microcosm of humanity as he presented it here.”^[89]

10:1-5 Japheth’s descendants settled north, east, and west of Ararat. They settled the northern areas and the northern Mediterranean coastlands on the European shore from Turkey to Spain. From Japheth came nations like Gomer and Magog, which would become distant and future enemies of Israel.

10:6-21 Ham’s family moved east and south into Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Africa. From Ham came mostly the nations that would become Israel’s enemies, like Egypt (Mirzraim), Canaan, the Philistines, Assyria, and Babylon (Shinar). However, these nations influenced Israel more than any of the other nations. Gen. 10:15-20 gives more attention to those living in the land of Canaan in order to communicate which people groups would have to be removed by Israel when they were ready to enter the Promised Land.

10:8-12 Nimrod means “we shall rebel,” and he is described as a “warrior in the earth,” meaning “tyrant,” linking him to the tyrants of Gen. 6:4. He is also described as a hunter rather than a shepherd. The kings of the ancient Near East prided themselves in being hunters and warriors, not attached to anyone—contrasted with the shepherd kings that Yahweh will desire of His people. Nimrod was the founder of Babylon and was responsible for the first organized rebellion against Yahweh in Genesis 11. Scholars have struggled to determine, with no success, which king in human history matches the Nimrod of the Bible. It may be that Nimrod was not a single person but an archetype of the Mesopotamian ideals of kingship. In this case, it was not a specific person Yahweh was condemning but the idea of what a king was to humanity.

10:22-32 From Shem came mostly nomadic tribes that would be lost in the other nations and the historical records. Continuing the theme that gathering together and living in the city leads to overcrowding, corruption, and ultimately isolation, the narrator shows that the other brothers gave birth to the nations, whereas Shem’s descendants lived outside of the city. Terah, a descendant of Shem, was a nomad who lived in the countryside. This is not to say they were expanding the garden, but they were outside the center of corruption.

11:1-9 These verses appear to be a testimony to the divine commission to fill the earth (Gen. 9:1), but the account tells how the nations were dispersed after the Tower of Babylon. This section ends with the people scattered across the earth, divided from one another and from Yahweh. It is the climax of the primeval events and transitions into the patriarchal narratives. It is also the explanation for the development of the nations in Genesis 10, since this event precedes Genesis 10 chronologically. Gen. 10:1-32 and Gen. 11:1-9 are linked by several key words: “scatter,” “spread out,” “country of Shinar,” and “build.” These phrases show that the two events are directly connected and that the former was a result of the latter. The Tower of Babylon becomes the ultimate example of humanity’s gathering in the city to build a monument to themselves with the newest technological advancement.

There is a chiastic parallel in these verses, which reveals the theme of reversal around the pivot, “Yahweh came down.” The plot moves the story from the unified construction of a city to Yahweh’s destruction of their unified rebellion.

A All the earth one language

   B People settle together there

      C Said to each other

         D Come let us make bricks

            E A city and tower

               X And Yahweh came down

            E’ The city and tower

         D’ Come now… let us confuse

      C’ Not understanding each other

   B’ People disperse from there

A’ Language of the whole earth

11:1-2 The story begins with the reminder that everyone spoke the same language and had come from the same place—where the ark had settled after the flood. The people’s moving eastward shows that they were walking even farther away from the Garden and the presence of Yahweh, into deeper self-imposed exile. The plain of Shinar is at the top of the Persian Gulf, into which the Tigris and Euphrates rivers flow.

11:3-4 The people’s desire to be like the gods (Gen. 3:5) is reflected in the statement of Gen. 11:3, “Come, let us make bricks,” which is an allusion to Yahweh’s statement “let us make man” (Gen. 1:26). Through this act of building, they desired to make a name for themselves and ascend to the position of the gods by their own resources and skills. It is Yahweh alone who makes a name for Himself (Isa. 63:12, 14; Jer. 32:20; Neh. 9:10). Notice that they wanted to build a city along with a tower.

In the ancient Near East, people built ziggurats as temples that linked heaven with earth. They believed that this would not only get them closer to the gods but also give them the ability to ascend to the heavens and possibly become gods themselves. The people of Mesopotamia often portrayed in their art their temples as having roots in the underworld and tops that reached the heavens.

The fact that they did not want to be scattered across the earth is a second sin they were committing since that was exactly what Yahweh had commanded humanity to do (Gen. 1:28; 9:1). Not only did they desire to elevate themselves to a position of deity, but they were also directly disobeying the foremost command of Yahweh. In their expression of autonomy, they chose to redefine the essence and purpose of the image of God.

11:5-8 Yahweh’s having to come down demonstrates the irony in their futility to reach heaven on their own, for Yahweh is so far above them (Isa. 40:22). Yahweh’s coming to see the city also demonstrates His interest and involvement in human history. It also implies prior knowledge. In calling them “sons of man,” He showed them to be mere humans.

Their major errors were in trying to unite and live in one place and in trying to gain access to Yahweh through their own ingenuity, in opposition to the kingdom of Yahweh, rather than filling the earth in obedience to Yahweh. This is what had potential for the greatest evil. The judgment was on the fact that they used the city to rebel against Yahweh. The development of nations isolated from each other can thus be seen as a restraint on sin. Yahweh is the only one who can unify the nations (Zep. 3:9-11). The irony is that this was exactly the judgment Yahweh brought upon them: Yahweh altered their language and scattered them so that they could not unite and accomplish such a task again. What they feared the most, being scattered, came to fruition because they had tried to resolve their fear through their own evil desires and resources rather than through a dependence on Yahweh. The language barrier brought sudden fear and prevented unification.

Gen. 11:6 does not mean there is nothing humanity cannot accomplish; rather, it implies that humans had never before built anything for their own glory and that this was evidence of their disobedience. The idea is that there was no limit to what they could accomplish in their disobedience and rebellion against Yahweh.

11:9 The narrator explains that this is why the city is called Babel, which according to Yahweh and the narrator means “confusion” or “mixed up.” The irony here is that the Babylonian word for Babel means “gate of the gods.” The word they chose to portray their intended achievement now identifies their utter failure. The Hebrew word babel appears 262 other times in the First Testament, and every single time, except for Gen. 10:10 and Gen. 11:9, it is translated as Babylon. The narrator is telling the reader that this city is the origin of Babylon, the city that is used throughout the Bible to refer symbolically to the embodiment of humanity’s autonomous opposition to Yahweh in the nations, institutions, and philosophies that humans developed. It is this idea that Jesus will eventually come back to destroy, and then He will set up His kingdom on earth (Rev. 18–19).

Ancient Mesopotamia saw humanity as improving and praised the achievements and development of the Sumerian culture. The Bible, on the other hand, saw the condition of humanity deteriorating. Unlike the previous judgments, there was no gracious provision from Yahweh in the midst of the judgment. From here on, the nations would develop in utter futility and confusion until Yahweh made a great nation through a man who himself would be scattered. Abraham thus becomes the hope in the midst of the judgment. Throughout history, humanity will continue trying to recreate the Tower of Babylon. Each new empire will become bigger and encompass more people than the previous, but all will bring destruction on humanity. Yet Acts 2 shows humanity being united with one language through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Joel 2:28; Zeph. 3:9)—this time to build the kingdom of Yahweh, not their own kingdom.

At this point Yahweh disinherited the nations because they had continually shown themselves to be in rebellion against functioning as His image bearers and expanding His kingdom. This does not mean He was abandoning them or that they could never repent, come back to Him, and be redeemed. Rather, it meant that humanity as a whole would no longer be His chosen people whom He would use to expand His kingdom and redeem the world. Nor would He manifest Himself to them in visions, speak to them, or guide them directly. As a result of this disinheritance, Yahweh assigned the sons of God (angels) to rule over each of the different nations (Deut. 32:8-9). However, over time these sons of God went rogue and rebelled against Yahweh (Ps. 82; Dan. 10:12-13, 20), set themselves up as false gods (Deut. 32:16-17; 1 Cor. 10:19-20), and began to further mislead the nations.^[90] Yahweh then chose Abraham, through whom He would directly rule over and develop Abraham’s descendants into the chosen people of Yahweh so that He could use them to bless the world (Gen. 12:1-3). This is seen in the fact that Israel is not listed in the table of nations in Gen. 10 and that Abraham is called by Yahweh to leave his people and nation immediately after the Tower of Babylon story. Yahweh made Israel His inheritance so that they could draw the people of the world out of their disinherited nations and into the Abrahamic Covenant blessings and Israel. In this way, they could be inherited into the kingdom of Yahweh once again.

11:10-26 The genealogy of Shem forms the fifth toledot and stresses the movement from death (Gen. 5), confusion, and scattering (Gen. 10; 11:1-9) to life through the realization of the promises of Yahweh found in the line of Shem, which leads to Abraham.

II. The Life of Abraham (11:27–25:18)

This division begins the sixth toledot. Although it says it is “the account of Terah,” it is really the narrative of Abraham’s life and faith in Yahweh. The story of Abraham focuses on Yahweh’s covenantal promises to Abraham to make him into a great nation, yet Abraham has no son. This covenant builds on the one Yahweh made with Noah in Gen. 9:1-17, but whereas the Noahic Covenant focused on universal benefits for all, this covenant focuses on the blessings for the family of Abraham, who would then bless the rest of the world. It is through the life of Abraham that Yahweh will undo the rebellion and the judgment of the scattering at the Tower of Babylon.

However, there are many obstacles to the promises of Yahweh, like Sarai’s barrenness, Abraham’s repeated lack of obedience, the Canaanites in the land, and even Abraham’s death, slowing the fulfillment of the promises. Despite this, Yahweh faithfully continued to walk with and honor His promises to Abraham.

The two main focuses of the story are the faithfulness of Yahweh to His covenant promises and the faith of Abraham. The narrator will develop the idea of Abraham as a man of faith even though he was not obedient at the time. The point is that he was considered righteous because of his faith and not because of his obedience to the law, which he violated. This point is introduced in Genesis and is developed more in the rest of the Torah.

The story reaches its climax when Abraham finally fathered Isaac, but then Yahweh told him to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22). The resolution comes when Yahweh stopped Abraham from completing the sacrifice and provided a substitutionary sacrifice.

Even though the death of Abraham—the judgment that all humans face for their sin—slows the fulfillment of the promises in Abraham’s life, Yahweh overcame all these obstacles by providing descendants in order to fulfill the promises. The conclusion is seen when Isaac married Rebekah and had children of his own.

Gen. 11:27-22:24 forms a concentric parallel, emphasizing the fact that Yahweh honored His covenant promises with both Isaac, the chosen son, and Ishmael, the result of a lack of faith on Abram’s part. The point is that Yahweh is true to His promises and gracious in that both sons receive the blessing as descendants under the Abrahamic Covenant. The tension between the two sons as heirs of the promises is a major part of the story.

A Genealogy of Terah (11:27-32)

   B Promise of a son and start of Abraham’s spiritual journey (12:1-9)

      C Abraham lies about Sarah; Yahweh protects her in a foreign palace (12:10-20)

         D Lot settles in Sodom (13:1-18)

            E Abraham intercedes for Sodom and Lot militarily (14:1-24)

               F Covenant with Abraham; annunciation of Ishmael (15:1-16:16)

               F’ Covenant with Abraham; annunciation of Isaac (17:1-18:15)

            E’ Abraham intercedes for Sodom and Lot in prayer (18:16-33)

         D’ Lot flees doomed Sodom and settles in Moab (19:1-38)

      C’ Abraham lies about Sarah; Yahweh protects her in foreign palace (20:1-18)

   B’ Birth of son and climax of Abraham’s spiritual journey (21:1-22:19)

A’ Genealogy of Nahor (22:20-24)

A. The Promises to Abram (11:27–12:20)

The first part of this section (Gen. 11:27–12:9) begins with Yahweh’s self-revelation to Abram and His promises to give him land, make him into a great nation, and bless him personally, all so that the whole world would be blessed. Though Abram responded in faith by going, there were immediate threats to the promises. First was the barrenness of his wife Sarai, which is emphasized in a chiastic parallelism.

A Terah and his family (11:17)

   B The family lives in Ur; Haran dies (11:28)

      C Abram takes Sarai; Nahor takes Milcah (son of Haran) (11:29)

         X Sarai is barren; she has no children (11:30)

      C’ Terah takes Abram, Sarai, and Lot (son of Haran) (11:31a)

   B’ The family leaves Ur and settles in Haran (11:31b)

A’ Summary of Terah’s life; he dies (11:32)

Second was that the land was already occupied by a larger and morally corrupt Canaanite culture. Third, which is the focus of the second part of this section (Gen. 12:10-20), was the fact that Abram’s own lack of trust in Yahweh during the famine in Canaan and in Egypt caused the loss of his wife Sarai to Pharaoh. It was only through the intervention of Yahweh and His faithfulness to His promises that Abram and Sarai were saved, restored, and brought back to the land of Canaan.

11:27-30 The name Terah may be related to the Hebrew word yerah meaning “moon,” which would connect him to the Mesopotamian moon god Sin, the principal deity of Ur. The name Abram means “exalted father,” most likely referring to his father. Abram was born around 2100 BC. The name Sarai means “princess” (or “lady”). Sarai was the daughter of Terah by a different woman. The law did not prohibit the marrying of one’s half-sister. The meaning of the names of the others in the family are unknown. Though we are not told much about this family, we do know that according to Josh. 24:2, 14, before Yahweh came to Abram, he and his family were worshiping the pagan gods of their ancestors.

Ur was an important city state in the land of Sumer, which reached its height of influence under the kings of the third dynasty of Ur (2060–1950 BC) and revived for the last time the ancient cultural traditions of the Sumerians. The phrase “of the Chaldeans” is a later editorial addition for later readers to designate the location of Ur. The Chaldeans were the ruling class in the neo‑Babylonian empire in the first millennium BC.

The narrator states that Sarai was barren, communicating the bitterness that comes with childlessness along with the lack of personal significance in the culture (Jud. 13:2-3; 1 Sam. 1:2-8; Isa. 54:1), especially for the woman who had no alternate career than motherhood. Without children, a couple had no purpose, no one to continue the man’s name and line, no one to take care of them in their old age, and no one to bury them. In a culture that worshiped the fertility gods of children, crops, and rain, there would also be a sense that the couple was cursed by the gods with barrenness. It was Sarai’s barrenness that would test Abram’s faith, be the greatest obstacle to the promises of Yahweh, and drive the whole story.

11:31-32 The fact that Terah was the one who moved the family up the Euphrates River from Ur to Haran shows that, even at Abram’s old age, his father was the patriarch in the family. Abram, Sarai, and Lot are the only ones mentioned with Terah, showing that these are the main characters in the story and perhaps also that Nahor and Haran did not go with Terah. The death of Terah brings an end to the genealogy account and transitions into the story of Abram.

12:1-3 The switch from prose to poetry emphasizes the importance of Yahweh’s promises to Abram. Yahweh told Abram to leave his father’s house and go to a completely different land. Yahweh was calling Abram out of his pagan family and into a new life (Gen. 2:24). As a nomad in a patriarchal society, Abram, having walked away from his family and settled in a new land where he was not born, would have no land rights. He would not support the local king, so the king would not care about his rights. The only thing that would have protected his civil rights was his family, but Abram had just been told to leave them. As the firstborn in the family, Abram was giving up becoming the head of the tribe and receiving the inheritance at his father’s death. Yahweh was asking Abram to give up everything and follow Him into the unknown.

As a result of Abram’s trusting Yahweh, Yahweh promised him four things. First, Yahweh promised to take him to a new land, which would become Abram’s inheritance. The subjugation of the earth motif seen in Genesis 1–11 is transformed here into the promise of land possession. Yahweh did not immediately tell Abram where he was going; rather, it would be after he got to the land of Canaan that he would be told this was the land Yahweh was giving him. As seen in Genesis 1–2, land is the source of life and blessing and becomes the place where one can walk with Yahweh. Land is also an inheritance to one’s descendants, but at Abram’s age, with no children to whom he could leave it, land meant very little.

Second, Yahweh promised Abram that he would become a great nation and be given a great name. The multiplication motif seen in Genesis 1–11 is transformed here into the promise of nationhood. The only way Abram could become a great nation was if he were to have children and descendants. Thus, Yahweh was promising him a child and a great number of descendants, something the pagan gods never provided him. The contrast is that whereas the people at the Tower of Babylon tried to make their own name great (Gen. 11:4), Yahweh said He would make Abram’s name great. “Make your name great” has its closest parallel in the promise to David in 2 Sam. 7:9. Other than that, only the name of Yahweh is described as “great” (Josh. 7:9; 1 Sam. 12:22; Ps. 76:1; Mal. 1:11). The implication, therefore, is that Abram’s name would be great only as he obeyed Yahweh and lived as His image. Yahweh would do this so that Abram would become an example of divine blessing. In light of Isa. 19:24 and Zech. 8:13 (the only other two times this phrase is used), Israel would be transformed into a prime example of a blessed people. Yahweh would bless Abram so greatly that the other nations would hear of his fame and hold him up as the ultimate idea of divine blessing.

Third, Yahweh promised to bless those who blessed Abram and curse those who disdained him. Just as He did for Abram, Yahweh would pour out His blessings on those who treated Abram well. “Disdain” refers to illegitimate verbal assaults on Yahweh or one’s superiors (Ex. 21:17; Lev. 24:11; 2 Sam. 16:5-13). “Curse” is a judicial judgment pronounced on evildoers (Gen. 3:14, 17; 9:25; Deut. 27:15-26) and a withdrawal of Yahweh’s blessing and protection. To be cursed is graver than to be disdained. Normally with Yahweh, the punishment would fit the crime (Ex. 21:24; Lev. 24:20), but here the punishment was heightened for those who disdained His people. The idea is that justice was not left to fate or chance; rather, Yahweh would intervene directly. The pronouns in “those who bless” and “he who disdains” communicate the idea that those who disdained would be fewer than those who blessed. Yahweh would bless the family of Abram to such an extent that few would fail to recognize that Yahweh was on their side.

Fourth, Yahweh promised to make Abram a blessing to all the other nations. “So that” communicates that Yahweh’s whole purpose for blessing Abram was to show that he could do the same for all the other nations. Abram and Israel would become the chosen people of Yahweh not because they were special or His favorites but so that Yahweh could use Israel to bless all the nations. As Israel obeyed Yahweh, they would come to know Him better and become His image and be blessed like no other nation. All the other nations would then see Israel as the greatest nation and want to become a part of Israel and serve their God. Through Israel, Yahweh would then de-scatter the world, undoing the judgment at the Tower of Babylon, and gather them together as one people group who bore His name and not their own. Thus they would once again be able to walk in the presence of Yahweh and receive the blessing of life from the land that Yahweh would give to Israel. Through their faith in the promises Yahweh gave to Abram and his descendants, they would regain their inheritance that they lost at the Tower of Babylon. These promises become foundational to the book of Genesis and the rest of the Bible; they link together the sin and rebellion of the primeval history and the growth of the family of Abraham, which will become the plan of redemption throughout the rest of Scripture. It was here that Yahweh began to reestablish the garden/tabernacle of Yahweh on earth so that humanity could once again walk with Him. This is the first record of Yahweh’s appearing to a patriarch, which foreshadows His appearances at Sinai and the tabernacle. The text gives the impression that Yahweh’s calling of Abram was the first time He spoke to Abram and was the beginning of their relationship.

12:4-5 These verses make it sound like Abram did not leave Haran until after his father died (Gen. 11:31-32). However, Terah was seventy years old when he had Abram (Gen. 11:26), and Abram was seventy-five when Yahweh called him to leave his family in Haran (Gen. 12:4). Terah was 145 years old when Abram left Haran. That means that Abram obeyed Yahweh and left his father’s household sixty years before Terah died, at the age of 205. This shows that He put Yahweh before family loyalty and sacrificed everything to follow Him. Perhaps the reason Abram was so willing to leave everything behind and follow this new God was because the pagan gods had never spoken to him or made promises to him. In fact, he would have been seen as cursed by the gods since he had no children. The gods were selfish, immoral gods who used people for their own gain. The humans worshiped them because their lives depended on the blessing of the gods, and they hoped that their worship and sacrifices would win the approval of the gods. The gods blessed the humans because they needed the food that the humans provided them in the sacrifices. In contrast, Yahweh spoke and promised blessing with only the command to follow Him. No other god had spoken before.

Perhaps Lot joined Abram because his father was dead and/or because he believed in the testimony of Abram about this new God. Abram took Lot with him probably because he saw Lot as his heir to the promises of Yahweh. Lot would have been the most obvious recipient since Sarai was barren and Lot was a blood relative (nephew). Notice that though Yahweh had promised Abram biological descendants, He had not specifically mentioned working through Sarai. This shows that Abram did not yet understand how Yahweh was going to overcome Sarai’s barrenness.

12:6-9 Yahweh led Abram to the land of Canaan, which would have been a people with a similar culture, gods, and worldview as Mesopotamia but far more immoral. Canaan was the ancient region lying between the Jordan, the Dead Sea, and the Mediterranean and was known as the Levant. During the Early Bronze Age III (2700–2300 BC), Canaan was made up of flourishing city-states or many different people groups (Gen. 15:19-21). Around 2300 BC (about 200 years before Abraham), the cultures of Canaan, as well as Mesopotamia and Egypt, collapsed for unknown reasons. During the Early Bronze Age IV (2300–2000 BC), few sites in Canaan show permanent occupation, and some of the city states of Mesopotamia seemed to have a great influence in this regain (Gen. 14:1-12). It was during the middle of the Late Bronze Age IV that Abram entered into Canaan. The term Canaanites refers to a small group of people living in the northern part of Canaan and also refers to all the groups of people living there. The Canaanites worshiped a pantheon of fertility gods with Baal as the head deity.

Abram traveled all the way into the center of Canaan. Moreh means “teacher,” and Shechem was a city that lay in the heart of Canaan. Yahweh appeared to Abram a second time to specifically promise him the land of Canaan and linked the promise of descendants and land in a succinct promise: the promise of seed and land. In the garden, seed (be fruitful and multiply) and land (the garden) were both present. However, in Genesis 3–11 the land was lost; still, the seed through the genealogies continues to develop. Here, the seed and land were brought back together, except now it was only for a specific people group.

In building an altar separate from the pagan ones, Abram separated himself from them and dedicated the land to Yahweh. As the creator of both land and humanity, Yahweh had every right to transfer the land rights from the Canaanites to Abram. The land was now legally his, but he did not obtain it yet. The parenthetical comment about the Canaanites living in the land reveals them as a third obstacle to Yahweh’s promises. They were stronger and far more numerous than Abram and his small group, and they had been occupying the land longer. Also, their immorality presented a threat and temptation to compromise of the family of Abram as the image of God.

Next, Abram moved farther south to set up camp between Bethel and Ai. Notice he stayed out of the cities—first, because they were already occupied and, second, because the city is a place of moral compromise, rebellion, and the breakdown of the family. Abram built another altar to Yahweh and worshiped Him. The deliberate mention of calling on the name of Yahweh implies more than prayer. It suggests that Abram worshiped Yahweh in a formal way on a regular basis (Gen. 4:26; 21:33; 26:25; Zeph. 3:9). Abram continued to the Negev, the most southern part of Canaan. Abram’s journey from the northern tip to the southern tip was his claiming the land.

“These words of promise and acts of faith set the tone for the whole Abraham story… that is, they reveal, the divine plan for Abraham. He is to father children, inherit a land, enjoy, divine protection, and be a source of blessing to the world. This story is typological in that it is the first in a series of episodes in which God speaks and the patriarch usually responds in faithful obedience, a pattern repeated many times in Genesis, not just in the Abraham cycle but also in the Isaac and Jacob cycles as well.”^[91]

“This narrative thus looks forward to the conquest of the land, and beyond that, to the establishment of the Davidic empire. David himself was promised “a great name” (2 Sam 7:9), and he made Israel “a great nation.” But that did not exhaust the scope of these promises. Ps 47:9 encourages all the princes of the peoples to acknowledge the God of Abraham. The prophets, of course, look forward to a day when all men will recognize God’s presence in Israel (e.g., Isa 2:2-4), when the curse of Babel will be reversed so that “all of them may call upon the name of the LORD” (Zeph. 3:9). But most interesting are the specific allusions to Gen 12 in Isa 19:24, where Israel is going to be a blessing in the midst of the earth alongside her archenemies Egypt and Assyria. Jer. 4:2 also makes reference to these promises. If Israel repents, he says, “then nations shall bless themselves in him, and in him shall they glory.” The NT looks on the advent of Christ as ushering in the age in which all the nations will be blessed through Abraham (Acts 3:25; Gal 3:8). And his faith is held up as a model of God’s dealings with all men (Rom 4; Gal 3); in particular his willingness to forsake his homeland is an example to us who should look for “the city… whose builder and maker is God” (Heb. 11:8-10).”^[92]

So, why choose Canaan (later renamed Israel) when other lands seemed superior? First, the hydrography of Canaan would make Israel completely dependent on Yahweh for their rain, fertility, and life. Yahweh told Israel that if they were obedient, He would send the rains; if they were not, He would shut off the rains (Deut. 11:13-17). When it did rain in Canaan, the soil produced an incredible abundance of life and fruit that was more than enough to sustain a nation (Num. 13:23, 26-27).

Second, Canaan was the center or hub of all trade in the world. All trade between Europe, the Middle East, and China had to go through the Mediterranean Sea and port in Canaan. As well, because of the region’s geography, all trade between East Asia and Egypt had to go through Canaan. That means all the other resources of the world would come through Canaan, who could control and partake of those resources.

Third, this would allow them to be a greater witness to the world. Traders were among the very few people who traveled and saw the world, so when they traveled from town to town, they brought not only goods but also news of other parts of the world. If Israel was faithful to Yahweh, then He would bless them with incredible resources, prosperity, peace, and social health. When traders saw how unique Israel was in this way, they would tell all the peoples of the world, as in the case of the queen of Sheba (1 Kgs. 10). And since the people of the ancient world believed the gods were responsible for everything, this would lead the traders (and the people they shared information with) to want to know about this God Yahweh, and so knowledge of Yahweh would spread. It was more efficient to spread this news through traders, who visited Israel and then went back to their own cultures, than to send into the world a small population of Israelites who did not understand the many different cultures. It was not until Israel became a culturally diverse nation with lots of travel (due to the Greco-Roman empire and more roads) that Jesus then commanded a culturally diverse disciple to go out into all the world (Acts 1:8; 2:1-12). In this way Yahweh would bless and use His people as a blessing to the world.

12:10-16 Unlike Egypt, which had the ever-flowing Nile as a source of water, the land of Canaan was very hilly and dependent upon rain for life. A famine could be devastating to Abram’s herds; however, he was never told to leave Canaan. This could have been an opportunity for Yahweh to demonstrate His power and provision, but because Abram lacked faith, he sought Egypt instead of Yahweh for refuge.

Most likely, Abram did not yet see Yahweh as an eternal, omnipresent, all-powerful being since he had come out of a pagan worldview (Josh. 24:2, 14). His understanding of the gods was that they were limited in their power to certain regions and elements. Yahweh had promised him children, so he may have not understood that Yahweh was also able to control the weather and crops; thus he feared the famine. Also, after entering Egypt—controlled by Pharoah, who viewed himself as a god and a military power—Abram may have not seen Yahweh as having jurisdiction in Egypt or thus able to care for him. It is the absolute sovereignty and power over all creation that Yahweh would demonstrate to Abram in this episode.

Sarai at the age of sixty-five (Gen. 12:4; 17:17) was considered so beautiful that Abram feared he, as her husband, would be killed and she would be taken. Her beauty and his fears were affirmed by the fact that Pharaoh did take her. Abram’s fear suggests that Pharaoh was known for taking whatever women he chose and probably killing the husband to remove any threat of competition. Abram might have felt secure in Canaan but felt threatened in Egypt because of the different language and culture; indeed, the Egyptians would have accepted him less than those in Canaan would have. And without a tribal family, no one could protect his civil rights. Rather than trusting Yahweh to take care of him, Abram chose to handle the situation himself.

By claiming he was Sarai’s brother—and he was technically her half-brother—Abram would not be seen as a threat. There has been much discussion that this wife-sister marriage, according to the Nuzi tablets,^[93] would have afforded their marriage greater protection. However, recently many scholars have rejected that this status can be found in the Nuzi tablets. Regardless of whether there is truth of whether Sari was Abram’s sister, perhaps Abram’s actions were not as selfish as they seem. Abram thought he could protect his wife better as her brother, with promises of suitors, than as her husband (Gen. 24:55; 34:13-17). He presumed, as was the cultural custom, that there would be negotiations (as Laban does later for his sister Rebekah; Gen. 24:29-33, 50-60), giving him time to react and get away with her. The fact that Sarai was silent (as Adam was with Eve while being tempted by the serpent; Gen. 3:6) shows she was a willing participant in the plan.

However, the plan backfired when Pharaoh did not think he had to negotiate and simply took her to be his own wife. The Hebrew word for taken can be used to describe all aspects of marriage (Gen. 25:1; 34:9, 16: Lev. 21:7, 13; Deut. 20:7). Both Sarai and the trees of the garden are described as beautiful and pleasant in appearance (Gen. 2:9; 12:11). Thus there is a repeat of seeing and taking the desirable object (Gen. 3:6-7; 12:15-16). Pharaoh set his own price by providing Abram with a lot of livestock and servants.

12:17-20 The fact that Yahweh sent plagues suggests Pharaoh might have slept with Sarai. This was a serious threat to the promises of Yahweh, for now Abram would have had no wife to provide him with children. She would have been defiled, and if she became pregnant, Pharaoh could lay claim to the child and Yahweh’s promises. The Hebrew word nega often refers to “skin diseases” (Lev. 13-14; 2 Kgs. 15:5), seen as the consequence of serious sin; note that a healed leper had to offer a guilt offering (Lev. 14:2). This sacrifice was also required after adultery with a slave girl (Lev. 19:20-22). Yahweh honored His promise of cursing those who disdained Abram, and His striking of Pharaoh’s household with a disease showed His disapproval of Pharaoh’s reputation and actions as well.

Pharaoh was extremely upset with Abram because of his dishonesty. Pharaoh may have committed adultery. Adultery was considered a great sin, regardless of social status, deserving of the death penalty all throughout the ancient Near East. “What have you done?” was asked by Yahweh of Eve (Gen. 3:13) and of Cain (Gen. 4:10). Pharaoh’s leniency was remarkable and showed Yahweh’s protection over Abram. The last word belonged to Pharaoh, showing Abram’s acknowledged guilt.

All three wife-sister stories (Gen. 12, 20, 26) have in common the fact that the foreign monarchs showed more concern for morality than did the patriarchs. Abram did not show faith in Yahweh, but Pharaoh did. Abram failed to be a blessing to the world as he was told he would be (Gen. 12:2-3). He could not find security through his own intelligence or wit; only Yahweh could keep him safe and provide for him.

Abram’s entrance into Egypt and the plagues that resulted in his exit from Egypt foreshadow Israel’s times in Egypt and the plagues that result in their exodus.

“Abram, like Jacob, was driven into Egypt because of famine. There Abram feared that he would be killed but that his wife would be spared. The policy of a later Pharaoh involved killing boy babies but sparing the girls (Exod. 1:16). The Israelites were given gold and jewelry on leaving Egypt (Exod. 12:35), and Abram too was enriched by his stay there. In both cases a heaven sent plague prompted the release of the Israelites, and similar instructions were given by the Pharaohs for both departures (Exod. 11:1; 12:32) and the same verb describes the expulsion. These parallels show that ‘Scripture wished to foreshadow in the tales of the patriarchs the history of their descendants… In the account of how Abram went down to Egypt, what befell him there and how he went forth from there, the Torah presages as it were, the migration of the Israelites to Egypt after they had settled in the land of Canaan, their servitude and their liberation’ (Cassuto, 2:336). This interpretation of Abram’s experiences in Egypt as prefiguring those of Israel seems to be confirmed by 15:13-16, where the Egyptian bondage is specifically prophesied.”^[94]

This event would have taught Abram several things about this God Yahweh. First was that Yahweh is all sovereign and powerful. He is not limited in His power by region nor element. Second was that Yahweh was faithful to Abram and His promises to him even when Abram was not faithful to Yahweh. This event would have blown up his “god box” and begun to push him out of a pagan worldview into something grander.

B. The Blessings of Victory (13:1–14:24)

In this section, the narrator develops the faith of Abram as he learned and responded to the previous events of the revelation of who Yahweh is. Abram begins to respond in faith and reap great blessings, whereas Lot would choose to walk away and would reap calamity. The events of Genesis 13 form a chiastic parallel emphasizing Lot’s choice of Sodom over the promises of Yahweh. It is in this section that Abram comes to the realization that Lot would not be his heir to the promises.

A Abram at altar in Bethel with contentious Lot (13:3-7)

   B Abram’s speech: his offer of the land (13:8-9)

      X Lot’s choice of Sodom (13:10-13)

   B’ Yahweh’s speech: His offer of the land (13:14-17)

A’ Abram at his Hebron altar alone (13:18)

The motif of nationhood is also very important in these chapters with the disputes over the land and then Abram acting as a military nation when he battled the four nations of Mesopotamia and then received blessings from Melchizedek, who was a king.

13:1-4 Abram returned to Bethel in Canaan (Gen. 13:1-4), where he should have been in the first place (this is implied by Gen. 13:3 as well). Notice that the text never mentions whether the famine had ended. The parenthetical statement reminds the reader that the wealth that Abram had just gained was the result of Yahweh’s faithfulness to His promises. The return to the altar shows that Abram was trying to recapture his previous experience with Yahweh. The difference is that he did not have to rebuild the altar, implying that the promises still stood.^[95] Abram demonstrated his faith by once again worshiping Yahweh there.

13:5-9 Abram and Lot’s livestock had become so numerous that their men were not getting along regarding where and when each man’s animals got to graze. The Canaanites are mentioned again as a threat to the promises but also as a revealing of the people to whom Lot would be moving closer. The Perizzites were a social class of Canaan’s descendants driven from the cities and living in the open country.

Abram solved the problem by giving up his rights and desires and allowing Lot to choose which land he desired. Abram had learned in Egypt that Yahweh was extremely generous in His blessing even when Abram did not deserve it. Abram’s faith in Yahweh allowed him to act as the image of God here and to be generous with what he had and with what would be given to him. When peaceful community is not possible, Yahweh prefers mutual separation (Acts 15:39; 1 Cor. 7:12-15).

13:10-13 Lot saw, desired, and chose the region of the Jordan River north of the Dead Sea. This territory was well watered due to the natural river that flowed through it. Lot’s choice of the better land shows that he was willing to promote himself at the disadvantage of his uncle. Abram gave Lot a choice between the north and the south in the land that Yahweh promised. Lot chose instead a third option, in the east outside of the land Yahweh had promised. Num. 34:2-12 states that the eastern border of the Promised Land was marked by the Dead Sea. This means Lot was choosing to live on the edge of Canaan, if not beyond it (Gen. 10:19). Though offered to share in the promises of the land of Canaan, he chose to reject it. Lot’s move eastward shows that he was moving away from Yahweh into exile. Likewise, he was moving outside the Promised Land. All throughout the Bible Yahweh makes clear that there are no blessings outside the Promised Land, as seen by the lack of well-being Lot would soon experience outside the Promised Land. In his autonomy, Lot decided to redefine the nature of the Promised Land, and, like Cain, he chose to move toward the city.

The narrator alludes to the Garden of Eden and to the land of Egypt for comparison. Just as Eve desired the tree in the Garden of Eden, so Lot desired the fertile valley. Later, memories of Egypt with its water will cause the Israelites to want to leave the wilderness and turn back to Egypt, abandoning the covenant and the Promised Land.

The parenthetical statements “before Yahweh destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah” (Gen. 13:10) and “Now the people of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against Yahweh” shows that things were not as good as they had appeared to Lot. Apart from Gen. 38:9, the Hebrew word for “destroyed” or “obliterated” is used only of the destruction by the flood and of cities. And the phrase “great sinners,” which is used only here, stresses the severity of Sodom and Gomorrah’s sin. Sinners in the time of the Torah faced sudden death (Num. 16:38).

13:14-18 Yahweh affirmed Abram’s willingness to give up his rights in order to make peace with Lot by reaffirming His promises to occupy the land in which Abram was dwelling. The promise of the land is repeated here but with greater emphasis. First, the land was defined more precisely. Second, it was given to Abram as well as to his descendants. Third, it was given to them forever. Yahweh’s allusion to “dust” suggests physical seed. The “stars,” given later (Gen. 15:5), are an allusion to the heavenly or spiritual seed, in addition to physical seed. The walking of the land symbolizes Abram’s legal right to own the land. Ancient kings would assert their right to rule their territory by walking its borders. In contrast to Lot, Abram remained in the countryside connected to the land, where the family can prosper, rather than in the city.

14:1-12 The narrator lists four nations from Mesopotamia who went to war against five nations from around the Dead Sea in Canaan. In the north, the first king was from Shinar, which was the region of Babylonia. The kings from Shinar, Elam, and Ellasar were all from regions located in Mesopotamia (the land of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers), whereas Tidal is a Hittite royal name from Anatolia, region (modern-day Turkey). In the south (Gen. 14:2), the kings mentioned were from the peninsula of land that juts into the eastern side of the Dead Sea. The kings of Sodom and Gomorrah have names compounded with “evil” and “wicked.”

This was a suzerain-vassal treaty, where one party was more powerful than the other and had the power to demand submission of the other. For twelve years, the kings in the southeastern part of Canaan had served and paid a tax to the kings of Mesopotamia. Most likely, the kings of the north did not want to expend the resources to rule over Canaan, but they wanted control over the trade routes. They were powerful enough to force a tax from the kings in the south, probably for the right to use the trade routes. In the thirteenth year, the kings of the south decided they were strong enough to break free from the kings of the north. The kings of the north, wanting to keep the trade routes between Mesopotamia and Egypt under their control, came down and defeated the kings of the south and then conquered even more of the surrounding territories. They also took many possessions and people as slaves. The significance of this battle becomes clear when the narrator states that Lot and his family were among the captives. The narrator also states that Lot had now moved into the city of Sodom. Indeed, Lot had reaped the consequence of the corruption and rebellion that comes with the city and the desire for control.

Though many of these names seem insignificant to the modern-day reader and one may ask why so much space is dedicated to them, they do serve a purpose even for readers today. These names root the Biblical stories in history and validate the authenticity of the Bible. The fact that archeologists and historians can validate most of these names and battles (there are always more sites to excavate) gives credence to the trustworthiness of the Bible and its other stories. Out of the 27 religious books in the world, the Bible is the only one rooted in history, mentioning names of people, places, and empires that have been validated by historians.

14:13-16 Abram is called “the Hebrew,” a meaning difficult to determine. This was not a term Israelites used of themselves but what non-Israelites called them (Gen. 39:14; 41:12). The Habiru/Apiru were well known in the ancient Near East and are referred to in many texts from the late third millennium and on. It seems to be more of a social characterization than an ethnic one. The Habiru were usually seen on the outskirts of society, as foreign slaves, mercenaries, or marauders.^[96]

The narrator informs the reader that by this time, Abram had formed alliances with some of the surrounding people. It is significant that people of Canaan wanted to ally themselves with Abram, a foreigner. This means Abram had become so blessed by Yahweh that others were seeing this and wanted to become a part of it in fulfillment of the promises (Gen. 12:1-3).

Abram took 318 trained men and pursued the four allied armies that had taken Lot. If Abram had that many young men, then his group must have totaled over a thousand people. The El-Amarna tablets^[97] show that a fighting force of 300 men was a sizable army for Canaan.^[98] Trained men would not be a professionally trained standing army but herdsmen who knew how to fight to protect their families and herds. Abram pursued Lot not only because family loyalty was important in the ancient Near East but also because he probably saw Lot as his heir to the promises of Yahweh. The fact that he divided his men and attacked at night in order to flank the enemy shows that Abram was strategic in fighting the enemy. That he defeated and drove away four allied armies shows that Yahweh was the source of his victory (Gen. 15:1).

So far in Abram’s journey of faith, Yahweh had shown himself to be a God whose power transcends regions. First, in the land of Mesopotamia, where the high god Marduk was the patron deity and ruled the land, it was Yahweh who spoke to Abram and promised to protect and provide for him. Second, in the land of Egypt, where Ra was the high god, Yahweh protected Abram and blessed him, despite his lack of faith, showing Himself to be superior to the Egyptian gods and Pharaoh himself. And now in the land of Canaan, where Baal was high god, Yahweh showed that He was able to defeat the people of another god in the land of another god. Unlike the pagan gods, Yahweh is not limited in power or by geography.

14:17-20 When Abram returned from battle, he was greeted by the king of Sodom and by Melchizedek, the king of Salem. Melchizedek comes from two Hebrew words, melek’, which means “king,” and ṣeḏeq, which means “righteous” (Heb. 7:2). The city name Salem means “peace.” The Jebusites occupied Salem, and by the time of Joshua’s conquest, it would be called Jerusalem (Josh. 10:1), which means “City of Peace.” Melchizedek was both king and priest, a combination not found in later Judaism. Melchizedek is the first priest mentioned in the Bible. He is an enigma in his origins and identity and is a significant righteous figure without a genealogy, which is unique in the book of Genesis. Yet in this mystery, he was still merely a man who worshiped the same God as Abram. We know that he was not the pre-incarnate Christ because the author of Hebrews compares the resurrected Christ to Melchizedek to emphasize Christ’s superiority (Heb. 7), and it would not make sense to compare someone to himself in order to prove his superiority. Neither was he an angel, for Christ is shown to be superior to the angels in the book of Hebrews (Heb. 1–2) and then is shown to be similar to Melchizedek.

Melchizedek brought out bread and wine to Abram and blessed him. Bread and wine were seen as a priestly gift that accompanied animal sacrifices (Num. 15:2-10; 1 Sam. 1:24; 10:3). They were often used in covenant making. Many writers have commented on their symbolic significance (Gen. 27:28; Deut. 7:12-14; 33:26-29; 2 Kgs. 18:32; Ps. 104:13-15; Prov. 3:9-10).^[99] These are also symbols of the New Covenant that Jesus made with humanity (Gen. 49:10-11; grain: Matt. 14:13-21; 26:26; Jn. 6:25-59; wine: Jn. 2:1-11; 6:53-59; 18:1-8; Matt. 26:27-29). This is significant in the light that Hebrews 7 compares Melchizedek to Jesus.

The switch from prose to poetry emphasizes the importance of Melchizedek’s words. Three times Melchizedek blessed Abram, which looks back to Gen. 12:1-3. The phrase “creator of sky and land” is a metonymy for Yahweh as the source of all life, joy, and preservation in the midst of the everyday trials of life. This speaks of Yahweh as not just Creator but as one who is intimately involved in the present reality as humanity’s helper (Ps. 115:15; 121:2; 124:8; 134:3; 146:6). Abram then paid a tribute to Melchizedek as a first fruits offering to Yahweh for the victory he had received. Through this, Abram acknowledged that it was not by his might but by the power of Yahweh that he had been victorious.

14:21-24 The king of Sodom asked for his people back and said that Abram could keep the money he had taken in battle. Mostly likely the king of Sodom offered this because he was now indebted to Abram, who had done what he could not do for himself. The ancient Near East was an honor-shame culture, and one aspect of that culture was maintaining the balance of debt to another. The King of Salem did not want to be in Abram’s debt because Abram could them demand payment in any way at any time. Letting Abram keep the spoils would free him from this debt. However, Abram did not accept the gifts of the king of Sodom because he wanted it to be clear that whatever blessings or success he had received had come from Yahweh, not through the means of those who represent pagan gods. Through his actions, Abram testified to Yahweh as the only true God. “Solemnly swear” is literally “I have raised my hand,” which emphasizes the solemnity. Likewise, he did not want to be in the debt of the king of Sodom, who could claim that the spoils had been overly generous. There is a sense that Abram’s words free both of them from owing each other anything.

Melchizedek is portrayed as more generous than the king of Sodom. Melchizedek gave Abram bread and wine, but the king of Sodom gave him nothing. Melchizedek began by blessing Abram, whereas the king of Sodom started by saying nothing, and when he did speak, it was very grudging. Melchizedek is a reminder that Israel would find faith in the land. The king of Sodom could have found blessing in Abram, but his decision to reject the ministry of Abram put him on the path to doom (Gen. 19).

The demonstration of Yahweh’s power and faithful support is the clearest emphasis of this story. Yahweh revealed Himself as one who continued to bless Abram and protect him from military threats despite his failure in Egypt. The narrator develops two responses to the character and promise of Yahweh: Lot, who rejected Yahweh’s promises and chose the attractiveness of the city, and Abram, who demonstrated faith and clung to Yahweh’s promises. The narrator shows that Abram’s faith in Yahweh was growing as he recognized Yahweh as his sole provider both in blessings and in victory in the face of opposition. Even so, Abram did not sit back and expect Yahweh to hand everything to him; rather, he joined Yahweh in the obtaining of the promises and victories of life, just as Yahweh intended with Adam and Eve as His image bearers. With Abram, the narrator has begun to develop what it means to walk with Yahweh.

C. The Cutting of the Covenant (15:1-21)

This is one of the most central passages in the Abraham story, for here Abram is declared righteous by his faith, and Yahweh binds Himself to Abram in a covenant. Here Abram’s faith becomes a model to his descendants. Whatever the circumstances, they are to have faith in Yahweh. This is a crucial point because it demonstrates that faith is not based on obedience to the requirements of the law but on a trust relationship with Yahweh that results in obedience.

In making a covenant with Abram, Yahweh made Himself accountable to Abram in His willingness to lower Himself into a contractual agreement. This shows how important it was to the God of creation that humanity have a relationship with Himself. Genesis 15 uses an alternating parallel to tie Abram’s request to Yahweh’s response.

A Yahweh makes a promise to Abram, referring to Himself as “Yahweh” (15:1)

   B Abram questions Yahweh, addressing Him as “sovereign Yahweh” (15:2-3)

      C Yahweh reassures him by a symbolic act of the display of the stars as reference to the seed (15:4-6)

A’ Yahweh makes a promise to Abram, referring to Himself as “Yahweh” (15:7)

   B’ Abram questions Yahweh, addressing Him as “sovereign Yahweh” (15:8)

      C’ Yahweh reassures him by a symbolic act of the display of the torch and smoking pot (15:9-21)

15:1 “The word of Yahweh came” is a phrase used to introduce a revelation to a prophet (1 Sam. 15:10; Hos 1:1). But in Genesis it is found only here and in Gen. 15:4. Abraham is actually called a prophet in Gen. 20:7. The word vision is rare in the Bible and is used of Balaam (Num. 24:4, 16) and contemporaries of Ezekiel (Ezek. 13:7). Second and third millennium Akkadian texts show that prophetic visions were a recognized form of revelation. “Do not be afraid” was a common phrase used to introduce an oracle of salvation (Gen. 21:17; 26:24; 35:17; 43:23; 46:3; 50:19, 20; Isa. 7:4; 10:24).^[100] This prepared the way for the prophecy of the Egyptian bondage of Israel in Gen. 15:13-16.

The switch from prose to poetry emphasizes the importance of Yahweh’s words. The Hebrew word for “shield” (magen) is a military metaphor, referencing Yahweh as a shield who protects His warrior (2 Sam. 22:3, 31; Ps. 3:3; 115:9-11). This is a pun with the Hebrew word for “delivered” (miggen) in Gen. 14:20, connecting Yahweh to a specific event and showing that He approved of Abram’s actions in his battle against the four allied nations of Mesopotamia.

15:2-3 “Sovereign Yahweh” is found only here and in Gen. 15:8. “Sovereign” is used to address Yahweh in intercessory prayer (Gen. 18:3, 27, 30-32; 19:8; 20:4). It is not found outside the Abraham story.^[101] The fact that Abram addressed Yahweh in this way shows that even though he was struggling to see the fulfillment of the promises, he did not doubt Yahweh in His ability or faithfulness. Three times Abram had been promised a multitude of descendants (Gen. 12:2, 7; 13:16). Because of his age and the time that had passed since Yahweh first came to him, Abram was afraid that all he had would go to his servant Eliezar.

15:4-5 Yahweh made the point that this man would not be the heir, referring to him as “this man” rather than mentioning his name. This is significant, for often in ancient Near East the use of a name would bring legitimacy to inheritance and adoption cases. For the first time, Yahweh specifically mentioned that the fulfillment would come through a child from Abram’s own body. This is significant because Abram’s age would push his faith to a whole new level. It is also important to observe, in light of the next chapter, that Yahweh did not mention the child coming from Sarai as well. Yahweh then emphasized with a visual from the sky how great the fulfillment of the promise would be. The distinction between “the dust of the earth” (Gen. 13:16) and “the stars” here is between physical descendants of birth and spiritual descendants of faith, as mentioned above.

15:6 This is the first time faith and righteousness are mentioned explicitly in the Bible. Abram responded to this revelation by believing the words of Yahweh. The word for “believe” is the Hebrew word aman and has the idea of considering something dependable and acting on it. The Hebrew word ’hashav is a term of recognition, which can be translated as “credit, reckon, impute, assign.” Uniquely in this verse, the verb (credited) has two impersonal objects (belief and righteousness), which means the two objects should be equated—that Abram’s belief is his righteousness. Thus Yahweh considered it (Abram’s belief) to be “righteousness,” and He credited/assigned this righteousness to Abram.

The Hebrew word for "righteousness" (sedaqa) has the meaning of “God-like” or “pleasing to Yahweh,” always applies to human activity and is defined in terms of moral conduct. In the Bible, righteous acts acquit one of judgment (Deut. 25:1) and save them (Ps. 1:6; 75:10). But here Abram is not described as being or doing righteousness; rather, his faith is said to be righteousness. The rest of the Abraham story makes the point that faith leads to doing righteous acts (Gen. 18:19), but here faith is said to be righteousness.^[102] Here it is Abram’s faith, which is his righteousness, that acquits him of judgment and results in his salvation. Abram could never be righteous, but he could believe and trust in Yahweh. And in His grace and mercy, and knowing that He would send Christ to pay for Abram’s sins, Yahweh declared Abram’s faith to be his righteousness and thus his salvation. Even though Abram would not always be obedient, we see a clear demonstration of his faith in the character of Yahweh that leads him to trust in Yahweh’s promises. The more he came to know Yahweh, the more likely he was to obey Him. Faith is righteousness, which then leads to righteous actions (Gen. 18:19).

So, what is belief or faith in the Bible, and what is salvation in the First Testament, when Jesus has not come yet to atone for sin? Faith is not something you wish for or believe will happen because you want it to. Humans do not have the power to bring something about just because they believe in it. Faith is a trust in a dependable object, where one relies on it for fulfillment. What then is the object of faith in the Bible? It is clear from the context of the Abraham story and all the rest of the Bible that Yahweh and His revealed promises are at the core of what faith is based on. The object of the faith is only in Yahweh and His revealed promises. For example, you cannot have faith that someone will never fail you since they are a finite, limited, and flawed being. Nor can you have faith that Yahweh will heal you of cancer if Yahweh has not specifically promised that. You can know for certain only that which Yahweh, a righteous being demonstrated by His reputation, has revealed and promised. This is the basis for and the foundation of faith. Faith is then rooted in the past of who Yahweh has revealed Himself to be and oriented toward the future of what He has promised. Thus you can know the promises of Yahweh and can trust Him only if there is a past relationship in which you have come to know Him and see Him as trustworthy. In this way you are then able look toward the future fulfillment of the promises based on His revealed character. Faith requires an intimate relationship with Yahweh in which you are actively trusting Him through His character and promises.

So, faith is, first, based on a knowledge of the nature, character, and will of Yahweh. Abram had been following Yahweh long enough to see Yahweh at work and thus come to know who He is. Likewise, Yahweh had revealed His will and plan for Abram’s life. Second, the one acting in faith then agrees with the character and plan of Yahweh. Plenty of people believe that Yahweh exists and know about Him but do not accept Him or agree with His revelation. Abram demonstrated his agreement by continuing to follow Yahweh over the years and his expressed belief in Gen. 15:6. Third, faith involves a love commitment. This means one has to take risks and to trust in character of Yahweh, which will then lead to changed behavior through continuing to experience the faithfulness of Yahweh. This changed behavior is what leads to acting in a more righteous way. Fourth, true faith leads to hope in that the promises of Yahweh will come about. Hope is not wishing something will happen; rather, it is desire plus expectancy, based on the character of Yahweh that one has come to know and depend on. Therefore, the one who trusts and has faith in Yahweh can be confident and expect that what He says will come to pass. When one pursues this faith, then Yahweh declares that faith to be his righteousness and salvation.

15:7-8 This is one of four passages in Genesis where God refers to Himself as Yahweh. The use of the name here helps enhance the analogy between Yahweh’s call of Abram and His later redemption of Israel from Egypt, which is prefigured in Gen. 15:11-18.^[103] Yahweh reminded Abram that He was the only one who had brought Abram out of his past life and into this new land where He had been providing for him.

Abram’s asking for a sign does not signal unbelief (Jud. 6:36-40; 2 Kgs. 20:8-11), but not asking for a sign can demonstrate a lack of faith (Isa. 7:10-14). The narrator makes it clear that Abram’s faith was not in question here, seen in the statement in Gen. 15:6. Abram as a physical person in a physical world sought a tangible sign for his hope in Yahweh. It was Abram’s faith that led to Yahweh’s making a covenant with him, based on the promises of Gen. 12:1-3. “Complaint and faith are not antithetical; complaint is based on taking God seriously.”^[104]

15:9-11 This was a suzerain-vassal treaty, where one party was more powerful than the other and had the power to demand submission of the other. Both kings would contribute animals of their own and then cut them in half, laying them on both sides of the path (Jer. 34:18). By both kings walking between the pieces together, they were saying, in essence, “May this happen to me if I do not honor the covenant.” Covenants were valued only upon the shedding of blood. What is interesting is that all the animals listed were sacrificial animals. These animals would then represent Israel or priests, who were able to come into covenant relationship with Yahweh only through the sacrificial system.

The “birds of prey” were seen as unclean (Lev. 11:13-19; Deut. 14:12-18) and represented the foreign nations of the Gentiles (Ezek. 17:3, 7; Zech. 5:9), most likely Egypt. By driving them away, Abram symbolically defended his inheritance from foreign enemies. Gen. 22:16-18 and Gen. 26:5 state that Abram’s faithful obedience to the covenant was what guaranteed the blessings for his descendants. Ex. 2:24 and Deut. 9:5 state that the exodus from Egypt was grounded in the promises to the patriarchs. Abram was not just the archetype patriarch who had faith in Yahweh, but he was also the conquering king who had been promised a great victory over his enemies.

15:12-16 The Hebrew word (tardēmâ) used of “deep sleep” is used of receiving a vision or revelation from Yahweh and suggests awe-inspiring divine activity (Gen. 2:21; 1 Sam. 26:12; Job 4:13; Isa. 29:10). Abram’s falling asleep is symbolic of his death, which is followed by the prophecy of Abram’s descendants going into Egypt after his death.

The significance of Yahweh’s statement here is that not only did He tell Abram that his descendants would go through a period of trial, but He also let him know that their enslavement would not be a threat to the fulfillment of the promises. It was all a part of Yahweh’s divine plan in accordance with His promises that would lead to Israel’s deliverance. He promised that they would come out of the land with great wealth (Ex. 3:22; 12:36). Yahweh assured Abram that he would be buried in the land with his fathers in peace.

The reason Yahweh gave for Abram’s descendants having to wait so long to occupy the land of Canaan was that the sin of the Amorites was not yet ripe. The name Amorite was sometimes used as a term to refer to all the earlier inhabitants of Canaan (Gen. 48:22; Deut. 1:44; Jos. 2:10). Here it is used as a synecdoche for the ten nations listed in Gen. 15:19-21. The Ugaritic texts (from an ancient Syrian port city on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, ca. 1400 BC) document the sins of the Amorites. They make mention of the gods they worshiped, degrading themselves in violent acts and deviant sexual behavior. The Bible makes it clear that the Amorites deserved this fate (Lev. 18:24-27; Deut. 9:4-5; Amos 2:9).

As a holy and just God, Yahweh would not punish the sins of the Amorites until their sins were full. Knowing all things, He knew when that time would come, and He tied together the time of Israel’s enslavement with His divine longsuffering for the Amorites. It is not until the nations were completely consumed with wickedness that Yahweh would dispose of them (Lev. 18:24-28; 20:23). This can be seen with the flood (Gen. 6:5, 12) and the exile of the Israelites (Deut. 28:36-37; 2 Kgs. 24:14; 25:7).

15:17-18a The term smoking firepot meant a large earthenware jar. The dough was stuck to the side of the jar and then baked by putting charcoal inside the jar or putting the jar near the fire. These jars were also implements used in Mesopotamian rituals to ward off evil. Later in Exodus the smoke and fire are used symbolically to represent Yahweh’s presence in the shekinah glory of Yahweh that would lead Israel out of Egypt (Ex. 3:1; 13:21-22; 14:24; 19:18; 20:18; 33:9-10; Deut. 31:15).

Some have said that because only the smoke and fire went between the animals, it implies that only Yahweh went between the animals, meaning Abram was not participating or declaring his vows, making this an unconditional covenant. But that is not what the text says. First, if Abram had not participated in making the covenant, then he would not have been a part of the covenant or even have a covenant with Yahweh. Second, it does not say that either Abram or Yahweh went between the animals. Therefore, it is an assumption to say that it was only Yahweh. Third, in the ancient Near East, when two parties made a covenant with each other, one would carry the smoking firepot and the other would carry the flaming torch as they walked between the animals and spoke their vows. That means everyone would have understood that the smoke and fire represented both Yahweh and Abram walking between the animals; it did not have to be stated because it was the language of the culture. Fourth, Yahweh made it clear that the covenant was conditional when He later stated that only if Abram walked before Him faithfully, then He would bless Abram with the covenant promises (Gen. 17:1-2, 9). The covenant would eventually become unconditional, but only after Abram’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac does Yahweh confirm the covenant with no if-then statement.

Why then did they not both physically walk between the animals? It was simply because Abram as a sinner would not have survived coming into the presence of Yahweh. There are only three ways one can enter the presence of Yahweh. First is being without sin. This is why Adam and Eve were able to be in Yahweh’s presence before their sin and were removed after their sin. Second is through faith in the atonement sacrifice of Jesus Christ. This is why humans could not enter heaven until after Jesus’ death on the cross. Third is by being surrounded by angels, as a shield of protection from His righteous glory. When Yahweh later visited Abram and ate with him, He brought angels with Him (Gen. 18:1-3, 16; 19:1). When Yahweh came down to Moses, He was surrounded by a myriad of angels (Deut. 33:2; Acts 7:53; Gal. 3:19). However, Abram was not without sin, Jesus had not atoned for sin yet, and angels could not be a part of the covenant because the covenant was not with them. Therefore, the covenant had to be cut in a vision, and the smoke and fire represented Yahweh and Abram in the covenant.

This ceremony made the promises of Gen. 12:1-3 an official covenant—the third covenant Yahweh had made with humanity. Here Yahweh not only bound himself to Abram and his descendants to honor His promises, but His walking between the animals, which represented Israel, also demonstrated His desire to live among Israel and to have a relationship with them. The rest of the Torah insists that the Abrahamic Covenant is the foundation to the exodus (Ex. 2:24; Deut. 9:5). Yahweh was thus walking among Israel; “I will walk among you and be your God” (Lev. 26:12; Deut. 23:15). This covenant made Yahweh unique to all other gods. It was also by far the most important and foundational covenant, for it was upon this covenant that Yahweh would build all the others that would lead to the coming and fulfillment of the Messiah.

Though there were no official obligations placed on Abram, this does not mean Yahweh was not holding Abram to obedience. The later command to obey, in Gen. 17:1-2, 9, makes it clear that Abram had a responsibility in maintaining the covenant. Yahweh wanted to have a relationship with Abram; however, Abram was responsible as well. This covenant would become unconditional with the faith of Abraham in his willingness to sacrifice his son (Gen. 22).

15:18b-21 In this covenant, Yahweh promised Abram and his descendants all the land between the Euphrates River in Mesopotamia and the Wadi El ‘Arish, which is the geographical boundary between Canaan and Egypt. Yahweh later specifies this detail in Num. 34:5 and Josh. 15:4, 47. Never has Israel obtained all this land, so the promises are yet to be fulfilled for Israel.

D. The Birth of Ishmael (16:1-16)

The birth of Ishmael not only shows Abram’s attempt to attain the promises of Yahweh through his own works, but it also reveals Yahweh’s ability and desire to bring something good out of Abram’s lack of faith. The first scene (Gen. 16:1-6) and the second scene (Gen. 16:7-14) are tied together with the use of the verb “fled” and the titles “mistress” and “maidservant.” The first scene (Gen. 16:1-6) is an alternating parallel.

A Sarai proposes (16:1-2a)

   B Abram agrees (16:2b)

      C Sarai’s actions (16:3)

         D Hagar’s reaction (16:4)

A’ Sarai proposes (16:5)

   B’ Abram agrees (16:6a)

      C’ Sarai’s actions (16:6b)

         D’ Hagar’s reaction (16:6c)

The second scene (Gen. 16:7-14) follows a concentric parallel, emphasizing the angel’s prophecies to take care of Ishmael as a child of the promises.

A The angel finds Hagar by the spring (16:7)

   B Dialogue between the angel and Hagar (16:8-9)

      C The angel’s first prophecy (16:10)

      C’ The angel’s second prophecy (16:11-12)

   B’ Hagar’s worshiping response (16:13)

A’ Hagar names the spring (16:14)

16:1-2 The story begins with the fact that ten years after Yahweh’s promise, Sarai still had no children, which is contrasted with the fact that her Egyptian maidservant, Hagar, could have children. The word “maidservant” refers to a personal female servant owned by a rich woman, not a slave girl answerable to the male. The practice of surrogate motherhood for an infertile wife through her maidservant was an acceptable practice during this time, as evidenced by Gen. 30:3-12 and the law codes of the time. This introduces a temptation to not trust in Yahweh and to appeal to the laws and customs of the culture to bring about the fulfillment of Yahweh’s promises. Hagar’s name seems to be of Semitic rather than Egyptian origin and may mean “flight,” pointing to her later running away from the family.

Not only had Sarai not had any children since Yahweh first came to Abram, but she had already been carrying for years the burden of being a failure as a woman. Having lots of children was a sign of success for women in the ancient Near East. Sarai feared that Yahweh’s promises would not be fulfilled, so she decided she needed to take matters into her own hands. Technically, using Hagar would work because Abram would still be the father and because Hagar legally belonged to Sarai. However, even though using a maidservant was the custom of the ancient Near East, this was never Yahweh’s desire (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:4-5).

16:3-5 Abram autonomously took matters into his own hands rather than depending on Yahweh to produce an heir. If this plan was what Yahweh had meant when He said He would make Abram into a great nation, then He would have had Abram do this a long time ago. Yahweh had planned to do the impossible—to give Abram a son through Sarai at a very old age. Yahweh also wanted a man who had walked with Him for a long time and who would thus raise the boy with the wisdom of Yahweh and not of the world. There is a parallel here with Eve’s taking the fruit of the tree and giving it to her husband, Adam, in Gen. 3:6. “Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar, her Egyptian maid, and gave her to Abram, her husband, as a wife.” The parallel wording shows that the narrator saw this as an act of autonomy against Yahweh’s will.

Most likely, Hagar, after becoming pregnant by Abram, then viewed herself as an equal to Sarai. Sarai made this clear by pleading her case before Abram, saying she had been “wronged;” the Hebrew implies a blatant violation of the law. The fact that the narrator confirms Sarai’s evaluation of the situation in Gen. 16:4 shows that his sympathy is with Sarai. Likewise, Yahweh in Gen. 16:9 would send Hagar back to Sarai to submit as a maidservant to Sarai’s authority.

16:6 Abram gave Sarai permission to treat Hagar however she deemed right, since she had authority over Hagar, but Sarai began to mistreat Hagar as if she were a slave. The Code of Ur-Nammu gave a woman the right to mark a rebellious maidservant as one who should be treated like all the other slave girls. Once people abandon faith, they begin to reason and make decisions based on their own understanding, and concepts of right and wrong get entangled with human desire and the rationalization of actions. Life then quickly becomes very complicated and messy. The events of Abram and Sarai’s choice make it clear why Yahweh forbade multiple wives. The cost of Sarai’s decision was that she would have to watch Hagar give birth to her husband’s child (Gen. 16:15).

“A thousand volumes written against polygamy would not lead to a clearer fuller conviction of the evils of that practice than the story under review.”^[105]

16:7-9 Yahweh sent His angel to Hagar to comfort and bless her. Notice that once again it was Yahweh who pursued humanity. Yahweh showed that He cares for the mistreated and rejected and desires to bless them. However, He did not allow Hagar’s actions to be excused, sending her back to submit to the authority of Sarai (Gen. 16:9). For the first time, Hagar was addressed by name, showing that Yahweh saw her as a woman of value, compared to how her masters viewed her. This is also the first time since Genesis 4 that Yahweh asked of someone’s whereabouts.

This is the first time in the Bible that an angel has appeared. The word angel comes from the Hebrew word malakh and simply means “messenger.” There are times when humans are called malakh (Job 1:14; Isa. 42:19; Mal. 2:7; 3:1). When supernatural beings come as angels, they look like and are often seen as human men by those to whom the angels appear. “The angel of Yahweh” or “the angel of God” appears thirty-three times in the Bible.^[106] There is nothing in the Bible that suggests this is the same angel every time. In fact, in the Hebrew, the article is indefinite and should be translated as “an angel of Yahweh.” (Note the analogous expression “the servant of Yahweh,” which refers to various individuals in the First Testament.) Sometimes the angel is clearly distinct from Yahweh when he appears, and sometimes it seems as if Yahweh is the one speaking. However, this could be merely because the angel is speaking on Yahweh’s behalf, in the way the prophets spoke as if they were Yahweh. Some see the angel of Yahweh as the pre-incarnate Christ, but this is not possible. First, Jesus Christ is never called an angel in the Bible. Second, Hebrews 1–2 makes the argument that Christ is superior to the angels. He cannot be an angel and be superior to angels at the same time. Third, no Second Testament author ever connects the angel of Yahweh with Jesus Christ. If Jesus were the angel of Yahweh, then this would be a crucial and powerful argument for the Second Testament writers to have made with their Jewish audience.

16:10-12 The switch from prose to poetry emphasizes the importance of Yahweh’s blessing. Yahweh made a promise to Hagar that her son’s descendants would be numerous and great, just as Abram’s would be. Hagar was to name her son Ishmael, which means “God hears,” for Yahweh heard even the cries of an Egyptian slave girl. She is told that Ishmael would be a “wild donkey of a man.” This does not communicate rebellion; a wild donkey looks more like a horse than a donkey. The donkey was symbolic of wealth or kingship. It can also be used as a symbol of an individualistic lifestyle not confined by social convention (Jer. 2:24; Hos. 8:9), a lifestyle that would put him in conflict with those who followed social conventions. This hostility would be more like friction because of his opposition to their way of life rather than wars or outright rebellion. The freedom Hagar sought would one day be her son’s.

Even though Ishmael was conceived out of a lack of faith in Yahweh, Yahweh still blessed him as a child of Abram since He made a covenant promise to Abram to bless all his descendants. Yahweh is a God of His word and is faithful to His promises even in the midst of a lack of faith. However, Yahweh would make it clear that, although He would bless Ishmael, it was not through Ishmael that He would continue the line of Abram.

16:13-15 Hagar named God El-Roi, a pun that can mean either “the God who sees me” or “the God I see.” The first fits her context, and the second fits her explanation. This is the only instance in the Bible where a human gives Yahweh a name. So, Hagar returned to her master and gave birth to Abram’s son. The absence of Sarai in the text is significant. Three times the text says, “Hagar gave birth to a son of Abram.” The story ends not with the joy of a newborn son but with tension in the family and Sarai’s absence in the birth of Abram’s son, a result of their lack of faith. Despite all of this, Yahweh was still faithful to them.

E. The Sign of the Covenant (17:1-27)

In this section, Yahweh changes Abram’s name to reflect His promises and provides Abraham and his descendants a sign to mark them as belonging to Him through the Abrahamic Covenant. This is a significant event in the Abraham story. The promises to Abraham have become more detailed up to this event, unfolding in a crescendo-like moment wherein Yahweh gives five speeches to Abraham laying out the significance of His covenant promises with Abraham. From this point on, Yahweh’s speeches become fewer and fewer, but the fulfillment of the promises become more visible and evident.^[107]

The sign of circumcision becomes an important sign that will shape the identity of Israel for generations. It also becomes the basis for the work of the Holy Spirit in the Second Testament. This chapter forms a chiastic structure that emphasizes circumcision as the sign of the covenant.

A Abraham is 99 years old (17:1a)

   B Yahweh appears (17:1b)

      C God speaks (17:1c)

         D First speech: Yahweh confirms His covenant with Abraham (17:1d-2)

            E Abraham falls on his face (17:3)

               F Second speech: Abraham’s name change (17:4-8)

                  X Third speech: Circumcision as the sign of the covenant (17:9-14)

               F’ Fourth speech: Sarah’s name change (17:15-16)

            E’ Abraham falls on his face (17:17)

         D’ Fifth speech: Yahweh confirms His covenant with Abraham’s descendants (17:19-21)

      C’ God ceases speaking (17:22a)

   B’ God goes up from him (17:22b)

A’ Abraham is 99 and Ishmael is 13 (17:24-25)

Genesis 17 also follows an alternating parallel.

A Yahweh’s intention to make an oath about descendants (17:1-2)

   B Abraham falls on his face (17:3)

      C Abraham the father of nations (17:4-6)

         D Yahweh will carry out His oath forever (17:7)

            E The sign of the oath (17:9-14)

A’ Yahweh’s intention to bless Abraham with descendants (17:16)

   B’ Abraham falls on his face (17:17-18)

      C’ Sarah the mother of a son (17:19)

         D’ Yahweh will carry out His oath forever (17:19b-22)

            E’ The sign of the oath (17:23-24)

17:1-2 It has been twenty-four years since Yahweh first appeared to Abram and promised that He would make Abram into a great nation. Yahweh came to him and revealed Himself as El Shaddai. The name El Shaddai occurs forty-eight times in the Bible, mostly in Genesis and Job. El is the generic name for god. El and Shaddai thus form a compound name for God. El Shaddai is often translated as “God Almighty;” however, this does not seem to be the best translation of the name. The focus does not seem to be so much on power and might (although that is implied) but more on sovereignty and kingship. The best proposal seems to be that El Shaddai means “God, the one of the mountain.” The closest association of Shaddai is to the Akkadian word Shadu, which means “mountain,” although the connection is still uncertain.

Though the origin and meaning of the name are uncertain, it is clear from its context that it carries the idea of Yahweh being the source of fertility and life (Gen. 17:1-8; 29:31; 30:22-24; 35:11, 16-18; 43:14). In Genesis 17, when Yahweh revealed Himself as El Shaddai, He stated that if Abram was obedient to His commands, then He would confirm with Abram His covenant of multiple descendants (Gen. 17:2, 5). In Jacob’s farewell address in Gen. 49:25, Jacob makes a connection between the title of El Shaddai and the promises of the blessings of the breast and womb, a wordplay between shadu (mountain) and shad (breast). Throughout the rest of the Bible, the title El Shaddai is used in the context of the sovereign God of blessing, and it will bring with it the promises of multiple descendants as developed in Genesis. Now that Yahweh was ready to bless Abram with a child, He emphasized that He was the source of the promises of fertility and children and would honor His promises, unlike the pagan gods. He would bring to Abram and his barren wife the fertility that they so desired, for He was a good, faithful, and sufficient God.

Abram was commanded by Yahweh to walk before Him and be blameless. Walking before Yahweh means living more openly before Him in such a way as to deserve and enjoy His approval and favor. This involves Abram’s orienting his entire life to Yahweh’s presence, demands, and promises. Blameless does not mean without sin but communicates a desire to know Yahweh, to do His will, and, when one has failed, to immediately reorient (repent) oneself back to Him. Whereas previously the imperatives were “go” and “be a blessing,” here they are “walk” and “pursue obedience.” Yahweh was requiring more from Abram now because he had come to understand more about Yahweh since leaving Ur.

Notice in Gen. 17:2, Yahweh stated that if Abram did this, then and only then would Yahweh confirm His end of the deal (the if is implied by the mention of then). Yahweh repeated all His previous promises (Gen. 12:1-3) and stated that He would make it a “perpetual” or “eternal” covenant in Gen. 17:7. Notice the future tense of “will,” implying that it had not already been made an eternal or unconditional covenant. The expectations of Abram are restated in Gen. 17:9.

17:3-8 Abram responded to Yahweh by falling on his face in total submission, whereas before his response was doing only what Yahweh commanded. Yahweh changed Abram’s name, “exalted father,” to Abraham, “the father of a multitude.” Because a name was a person’s identity and communicated who they were, Yahweh made the promises of the covenant a part of Abraham’s identity. Yahweh showed that His nature and the nature of His promises had changed and would continue to change who Abraham was. Whereas before Yahweh had made these promises only to Abraham, He was now extending the promises to all of Abraham’s descendants as a perpetual covenant. It would be through Abraham’s descendants that Yahweh would bless humanity again, as was first seen in the Garden of Eden.

“The choice of the word be fruitful in verse 6 and multiply in verse 2 seems intended to recall the blessing of all humankind in Gen. 1:29: ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the land,’ and its reiteration in Gen. 9:1: ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the land.’ Thus the covenant with Abraham was the means through which God’s original blessing would again be channeled to all humankind.”^[108]

17:9-14 Yahweh reminded Abraham that in order to maintain the covenant, he must keep the commands of Yahweh. Then He specifically stated the requirement of circumcision, which would be the sign of the covenant (Gen. 17:11, 13). Yahweh wanted Abraham’s entire household to be part of and be marked by this covenant, whether they were biological descendants or slaves. This was extremely significant because covenants in the ancient Near East were not made available to slaves. Yahweh stated that any male who refused to do so would himself be cut off (Gen. 17:14). This meant excommunication from the community and the covenant blessings, which would put at risk the survival of the person who was outside the community.

Circumcision was not a new rite in the ancient Near East. The priests in Egypt practiced it, but in Mesopotamia and Canaan, it was not customary. Later, the Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites practiced it, but the Philistines did not. Normally, it was practiced on young adults (Gen. 34), whereas circumcising infants was something new here. In the ancient Near East, it seemed to be a rite of passage for a male who had come of age, for preparation for marriage, or as an offering to a deity.^[109] It also had hygienic value since penile cancer has a higher rate of occurrence in uncircumcised males.^[110]

Though these same ideas are found here in Genesis 17, far more meaning is attached to it. First, the sign is a reminder of Yahweh’s promise of fertility to Abraham. It would be from the male reproductive organ that this seed of life would come, which would multiply into a great nation. This is significant in a book of genealogies, where the seed of the land and the seed of humanity were already directly linked as life and blessing. The marking of this organ, responsible for children, would be a reminder of Yahweh’s promises. At the very heart of the promises of Yahweh to Abraham was the promise of the seed that would be a great nation and ultimately bless the whole world. Thus, the organ responsible for the procreation of the seed had to be consecrated to Yahweh (Deut. 30:6; Jer. 4:4).

Second, the male and female genitalia are the only organs in the human body that produce both life (seed/egg) and death (urine). The idea is that if one is not marked by Yahweh, then the flesh can produce only death. But if one is marked by Yahweh, then one can produce life and blessings. Yahweh commanded Abraham and his descendants to cut off this part of their flesh, or else they would be cut off from the covenant blessings. They would be without life. Spiritually, it would have been a frequent visual reminder to every circumcised male of Yahweh’s promises involving seed and a symbol that they had denied “the flesh” in favor of trust in Yahweh and His spiritual promises. It is also possible, since Yahweh does not require child sacrifice, that this was a substitutionary sacrifice of the body to Yahweh.

This idea will be developed further when Yahweh makes the point that humanity is incapable of producing life and blessing and so must be circumcised of the heart (Deut. 10:10-16; 30:6; Ps. 51:10-12; Jer. 9:25; 31:31-34; Ezek. 11:17-19). Metaphorically, the heart is also an organ that can produce life or death. Humanity’s heart is corrupt and evil (Ecc. 9:3; Jer. 17:9). This corruption must be cut away from the heart so that humanity will both desire and be capable of obedience to Yahweh. This was made possible through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit after Christ offered up His flesh to death on our behalf so that we could produce life (Rom. 2:29).

In Gen. 17:12, the requirement of circumcision on the eighth day shows that Yahweh is truly the creator and sustainer of the human body. Before birth, a baby’s nutrients and antibodies come from the mother’s blood, including her blood-clotting ability, made possible by the protein prothrombin, which is dependent on vitamin K for its production. At birth, the baby is unable to produce vitamin K. After birth, prothrombin decreases so that by the third day it is only at thirty percent of normal; hemorrhaging would result if this skin were cut. Gradually, the body begins to produce vitamin K, and by the eighth day, production is at 110 percent; it then levels off to 100 percent for the remainder of one’s life. Today, vitamin K is routinely administered to newborns shortly after their delivery, which eliminates the clotting problem. However, before the days of vitamin K injections, a 1953 pediatrics textbook recommended that the best day to circumcise a newborn was the eighth day of life.^[111]

17:15-16 Yahweh changed Sarai’s name, “my princess,” to Sarah, “royal princess from whom kings would come.” Abraham’s new name emphasized the multitude of the seed, while Sarah’s new name emphasized the royal nature of the line. By referring to the old age of Sarai, the narrator had led the reader to assume that she would be the mother of Abram’s descendants, but this had not been specifically stated by Yahweh until now.

17:17-22 There was uncertainty and disbelief in Abraham’s response of laughter. Though he had seen Yahweh do many amazing things, resurrecting a dead womb was something completely different. Yahweh confirmed the reality of His promise and told him to name the child Isaac. The name Isaac means “he laughs.” Abraham and Sarah’s first act of laughter signaled disbelief, but when the boy was born, the laughter signaled surprise and joy. Yahweh stated specifically that through Isaac He would continue His covenant with Abraham and make him into a great nation. Yahweh then promised Abraham that Isaac would be born within the year.

Even though Yahweh chose to bring about His chosen nation through Isaac, He had not forsaken Ishmael. Yahweh had promised to bless all of Abraham’s descendants, and Ishmael was a descendant of Abraham. Though Ishmael did not fit into Yahweh’s greater plan to bring about the redemption of the world, Ishmael was a part of the world that Yahweh wanted to redeem.

Usually when Yahweh is done speaking, the Bible moves on to the next event. Here the reader is told “God went up from him,” which draws attention to Yahweh’s dramatic exit and thus brings full closure to the scene.

17:23-27 Abraham responded to Yahweh through faithful obedience by circumcising every male connected to him on the very same day that Yahweh had spoken to him. The brevity of these verses compared to the length of the previous events highlights both the urgency of Abraham’s obedience to Yahweh and his desire to move on and have the child. The repetition of “on that very day” (Gen. 17:23, 26) shows that this was a significant turning point in Abraham’s family, like Noah’s entry into the ark and the later exodus (Gen. 7:13; Ex. 12:17, 41, 51).

F. The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (18:1–19:38)

The point of this passage is to give insight into the justice of Yahweh as sovereign king over His creation. This can be seen in Abraham’s comment in Gen. 18:25: “Will not the judge of the whole earth do what is right?” By inviting Abraham into His plans to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, Yahweh reveals His justice. Abraham’s dialogue with Yahweh reveals the mercy of Yahweh amid judgment. Thus, Yahweh is judging Sodom and Gomorrah because He is just. Yahweh also shows that He is just and faithful (Gen. 18) in saving Lot, who shows that he was righteous by his willingness to show hospitality to the angels and to leave the ways of the city. At the same time, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah would become a warning to all the other Canaanite cities that they, too, would be judged if they followed in the ways of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 15:13-16). There is a chiastic parallelism that emphasizes a just destruction of Sodom that Yahweh announced to Abraham.

A Abraham’s visitors look toward Sodom (18:16)

   B Divine reflections on Abraham and Sodom (18:17-21)

      C Abraham pleads for Sodom (18:22-33)

         D Angels arrive in Sodom (19:1-3)

            E Assault on Lot and his visitors (19:4-11)

               X Destruction of Sodom announced (19:12-13)

            E’ Lot’s sons-in-law reject his appeal (19:14)

         D’ Departure from Sodom (19:15-16)

      C’ Lot pleads to go to Zoar (19:17-22)

   B’ Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed (19:23-26)

A’ Abraham looks toward Sodom (19:27-28)

There is an emphasis on the hospitality of Abraham and Lot in contrast to the lack of hospitality of Sodom. Love for Yahweh and for one’s neighbor (Deut. 6:4; Lev. 19:18) is at the heart of the Law. The real virtue of Abraham was his generous hospitality, and the real sin of Sodom was their gross lack of hospitality. This is emphasized by the doublet parallels between Abraham and Lot’s demonstration of hospitality towards the visitors.

This story stands in stark contrast to that of Abraham’s faith. Whereas Abraham could invite Yahweh and the angels into his home without the repercussions of a badly chosen neighborhood, Lot could not offer this same security to his guests. Abraham, through faith, would become a great nation, whereas because of Lot’s lack of faith, he lost his family, and his daughters would beget ungodly nations.

18:1-2 The narrator begins by informing the reader that Yahweh appeared to Abraham, which Abraham did not realize until later in the visit. This shows that Abraham’s hospitality toward the three men was not because he knew who they were but because he was the kind of man who was hospitable toward strangers. This is important when this scene is contrasted with the absence of hospitality toward the angels in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Though the narrator makes it clear that the one visitor was Yahweh, the two visitors with Yahweh are referred to as men all throughout Genesis 18. It is not until Gen. 19:1 that they are referred to as angels. The Hebrew word for “angels” is malakh, which means “messenger” and can be used of humans. It is clear that these messengers were divine beings, seen in their close connection to Yahweh in Gen. 18 and in the way they rescued Lot in Gen. 19:11. Yet throughout Genesis 18–19, they are portrayed as men and are seen as men by the others in the story.

18:3-8 From Abraham’s perspective, he looked up and saw three men outside his camp whom he had not noticed before. Did they appear suddenly, as angels do (Judg. 6:11-21), or had he been dozing or engrossed in what he was doing? Abraham, not knowing who they were, rushed to greet them so as not to offend them, and he quickly invited them to stay with him. Abraham’s eloquence and verbosity show his desire for them to stay. He offered them only bread but ended up bringing them a feast. If he had offered them the feast to begin with, they might have felt like they were imposing on him and moved on. So, Abraham understated the nature of the meal, which is characteristic of generous people in the Bible.

Despite the heat, Abraham made three seahs (24 quarts) of flour and killed a cow for the men. This was a feast for royalty and way more than three men needed or could eat. As a good host, Abraham stood in the background waiting on them and allowed them to enjoy their meal. He did not realize he had just shown great and fitting generosity to Yahweh Himself.

18:9-15 It was about this time that Abraham began to realize these men were so much more than he had originally perceived. They asked about his wife by name, whom they had never met. Yahweh spoke directly to Sarah, announcing her pregnancy, even though she had remained in the tent out of sight. Sarah responded in disbelief and laughed. The narrator mentions that she was past menopause, helping the reader understand her laughter. Also, since she had yet to fully grasp who was offering her such unusual promises, one cannot blame her for her laughter.

It is not clear why Sarah lied about laughing, but Yahweh’s response shows that He had declared it so, and so it was final; it would happen. Yahweh’s rhetorical question, “Is anything impossible for Yahweh?” declares Himself to be omniscient as well as omnipotent. Though these truths are seen clearly throughout the Biblical narrative, rarely are they stated so explicitly.^[112]

Between the two statements of Sarah’s being past menopause and Yahweh’s declaring nothing is impossible for Him, it is revealed to the reader the reason Yahweh had waited twenty-five years to fulfill His promise of a son. With the impossibility of Sarah becoming pregnant, Yahweh would resurrect her dead womb and bring life from it. To all who witnessed this, it would be obvious that Isaac was a miracle and the true fulfillment of the promises of Yahweh.

18:16-19 As the three men left, Yahweh addressed the angels with Him and discussed the matter of bringing Abraham into His divine council.^[113] The divine council of Yahweh is a council of angels and sometimes the prophets who discuss matters relating to humanity and make decisions (Jer. 23:18). This does not mean Yahweh needs a council or advice but rather that He chooses to invite others to join Him. Similarly, Yahweh does not need humanity to expand His kingdom (Gen. 1:26-28) or to share the gospel and make disciples (Matt. 28:18-20), yet He desires that humanity join Him in this endeavor. Yahweh’s desire for relationships and His willingness to allow others to join Him in the ruling and subduing of creation is what makes Him unique in contrast with all the other gods. Yahweh was inviting Abraham to join His divine council as a prophet and to determine the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. Gen. 18:21 hints at the fact that Yahweh wanted intercession on behalf of Sodom and Gomorrah, and Abraham was invited to be that. This makes Abraham unique compared to the prophets who come after, for he interceded not on behalf of his own people but for a people with whom he had no connection. Yahweh’s reason was that Abraham would be the father of a great nation, one that would be responsible for blessing the other nations. This shows that this is one of the roles Yahweh desires for Israel—a nation that belongs to Him, interceding on behalf of the other nations and bringing blessings to them. Abraham was to train his descendants to be, as Yahweh’s image, just and merciful concerning the nations.

18:20-21 Though Yahweh is a merciful God who wants intercession for the nations, He is also a just God who cannot tolerate evil and must punish the wicked. The justice and mercy of Yahweh pose an incredibly difficult tension for humanity to grasp (Ps. 146:8-9). Sodom and Gomorrah had become so evil that Yahweh had decided they had to be cleansed from the face of the earth so that they could not corrupt or hurt those who surrounded them. Yet Yahweh was calling Abraham to intercede on behalf of the righteous to reveal His own and Abraham’s desire that the righteous would not be swept away with the wicked.

18:23-25 At this point, the two men/angels with Yahweh departed, and Abraham began to take the role of a prophet, interceding on behalf of the righteous. Abraham showed that he understood that the righteous should not be swept away with the wicked. The principle of reward for righteous behavior had just been established (Gen. 18:19), and it was on this basis that Abraham made his argument. Three times he pointed out the inappropriateness of treating the righteous and the wicked alike. This is how Israel’s judges were supposed to conduct themselves (Ex. 23:6-7; Deut. 25:1; Prov. 17:15). He was posing this point: If he as a human understood this, then should not the God of the universe understand this? Should He not do what is right? The tone of Abraham’s submission and humility before Yahweh in this exchange shows that one should not interpret him as being arrogant or accusing. Yahweh accepted Abraham’s logic and stated that if He found fifty righteous people in the city, He would spare the whole city.

18:26-33 Abraham continued to make his case, eventually bringing the number of righteous people down to ten. Though Abraham had learned a lot about Yahweh, he had never been brought this close to Yahweh’s justice and mercy. Yahweh’s entering the negotiations (for lack of a better word) with Abraham shows that He was willing to allow Abraham to affect Him and His final choice. One must not make the mistake of thinking that Yahweh was doing this just for show or for Abraham’s sake or, at the other extreme, that He was not sure what to do without Abraham’s input. Yahweh did not need Abraham’s input, nor was He required to listen to him. Instead, by His sheer desire to be in a relationship with humanity and to allow them to represent Him, He chose to allow Abraham to affect His choice—because a true relationship is reciprocal.

In Gen. 18:31, at twenty righteous people, Yahweh introduced the word ruin, hinting that Abraham should go no further. Abraham pressed on one more time to ten, to which Yahweh agreed. The narrator shows that it is Yahweh who brought the conversation to an end by speaking last and then walking away. However, Abraham had made a strong case, leaving the reader with the question of what Yahweh would do with the city, especially if fewer than ten righteous people were found in the city. Genesis 19 would reveal that Lot was the only righteous person.^[114] But even with fewer than ten people, Yahweh showed that He still does not believe in collateral damage, for He would extract the righteous and then destroy the cities.

19:1-3 The angels arrived in Sodom and Gomorrah and found Lot sitting at the city gate. The city gate was where city authorities and judges would sit (2 Sam. 19:8; Jer. 26:10; 38:7; 39:3). During the day, officials would sit in chambers off the passageway that went through the city wall to control the trade going in and out and to hear the cases of people coming into the city. The fact that Lot had gone from living near Sodom (Gen. 13:12) to dwelling in it (Gen. 14:12) to now being one of the city officials (Gen. 19:1) shows his progressive compromise over time.

Lot was the only elder who got up and invited the angels to stay with him. Because there were no hotels or inns in most cities, visitors depended on being invited into a person’s house for the night. This was not uncommon since hospitality was considered one of the highest virtues in the ancient Near East. The fact that no other elder is mentioned could communicate that Lot was sitting by himself, that he was not accepted by the others (Gen. 19:9), or that no other elder cared to show hospitality. Most likely it was the latter two, in light of how they later treat the visitors and speak to Lot (Gen. 19:5, 9). The close parallel between Abraham’s hospitality and Lot’s hospitality with the two men shows that he should be seen as a righteous man (2 Pet. 2:7-8). Lot insisted they stay the night, fearing what would happen to them if they did not. Just as one was expected to offer hospitality, the other was expected to accept it (Gen. 24:23, 54; Judg. 18:2; 19:4-20). The question, then, is why were the visitors hesitant to accept his offer, and why had the third visitor (Yahweh) not come at all? The reader is left to reflect. Perhaps it was because they knew what kinds of things happened in this city.

Although the men of the town would later come seeking sex with the visitors, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is, in the Bible and Jewish tradition, rarely seen as homosexual sin but as a violation of hospitality (Wis. 19:14-15; Josephus, Ant. 1:194), as selfishness (Gen. 13:13; 18:20; Ezek. 16:49-50; 3 Macc. 2:5), or as sexual immorality in general (Jub. 16:5-6; 20:5; T. Levi 14:6; T. Benj. 9:1). This fits the emphasis on hospitality in Genesis 18 and in these verses.

19:4-5 The locals’ desire to have sex with the two visitors was not just a sin of homosexuality but, worse, the desire to humiliate and subjugate another. In the ancient Near East, it was not uncommon for high-ranking men to demonstrate their dominance by raping other men. To be the active homosexual was a sign of masculinity and power, while being the passive homosexual was a sign of weakness. This mentality of homosexual gang rape is not much different from prison rape today. The goal of such an action is to dominate and humiliate the new person in the most degrading way possible by demonstrating absolute power and authority over the person. If it were merely about fulfilling a homosexual sexual desire, the whole city would not have come and forced themselves into the house to take the visitors. But the fact that every man had come to do this shows how wicked they were, for they considered this act as righteousness. Even today, in our progressive culture, this kind of practice would not be accepted. In their autonomy they had redefined what it meant to be a community. For them it was about power and control, not love and hospitality.

19:6-9 Lot was now experiencing the true consequences of his willingness to compromise and become a part of this wicked city. The fact that Lot went out to meet the threat and shut the door behind him shows that he had cut off his escape and had sought to protect his guests. In the ancient Near East, protecting your guests was a sacred duty. First, he tried to reason with them, which failed. Then, in desperation, he offered up his daughters. This would have been as shocking to the narrator and the original readers as it is today. But he stated that the visitors were under his roof and protection. Offering his daughters up is certainly questionable and not right, but it shows how committed he was to protect his guests and how flustered and desperate he had become. Because of his bad choices over time, he had now put himself in a corner where he was left to choose between two bad options. The men of the city slandered him for being a foreigner and, ironically, saw him as arrogant. They threw him to the side and began to push their way in.

19:10-14 That the angels waited until the last minute to intervene shows they were waiting to see how Lot would respond to the situation. The angels moved into action and pulled Lot into the house. This is an allusion to Noah, the only righteous man pulled into the ark to escape the judgment of Yahweh. The angels then struck the men of the city with blindness, symbolic of spiritual blindness (Isa. 6:10; John 9). The fact that the men could not even find the door handle, which even blind men can do, shows divine intervention. But what is odd is that despite such a sudden and devastating act of blindness falling upon them, they did not go home. The fact that they still tried to find and violate the visitors, to the point of wearing themselves out, shows the depth of their moral wickedness. Humans are supposed to repent in the face of divine judgment (Amos 4:6-12).^[115]

The angels then commanded Lot to take his family, sons-in-law, and relatives out of the city, for they were going to destroy the city. Only Lot’s wife and daughters would have been under his patriarchal headship, so it was unusual that the angels included the sons-in-law. When Lot went to them, they laughed as if he was joking or looking for an excuse to cancel the weddings. This reaction further reinforces the wickedness of the city and Yahweh’s justice in destroying it.

19:15-22 The angels then proceeded to lead Lot and his family out of the city and commanded him to go to the mountains and not to look back. The fact that the angels mention “the daughters who are here” (Gen. 19:15) implies that Lot may have had others who chose to stay behind. Lot feared that he would not be able to make it to the mountains, so he asked to go to a nearby city. Unlike Abraham, Lot did not immediately obey but questioned Yahweh’s ability to save him. He hoped that the nearby city would not be destroyed because it was small, not because it was full of righteous people. Once again, Lot sought the city rather than his righteous family (Abraham) in the countryside. He was selfish and faithless. However, Yahweh granted his request, revealing that He shows mercy even to those who are not fully righteous or who lack faith.

19:23-26 Yahweh judged the two cities with fire from the sky. Lot’s wife was condemned because she directly disobeyed the command of Yahweh; in looking back she demonstrated her longing for what she had left behind. Repentance in the Bible carries the idea of turning away from one’s sin, whereas here she refused to turn away from the wicked city. Her identity was found in the city, not in Yahweh who was rescuing her.

19:27-29 In Gen. 18:17-19 Yahweh had decided to let Abraham in on what He was about to do, placing him in the role of prophet. In Gen. 18:25 Abraham had asked, concerning the fate of Sodom, “Will not the judge of the whole earth do what is right?” Gen. 19:29 states that Yahweh “remembered” or “honored” Abraham by not destroying Lot. Now Abraham went back to the place where he had talked with Yahweh, and he watched the city burn. Not yet knowing the fate of Lot, he might have been wondering whether Yahweh had honored their conversation. Yet the narrator goes on to show that Yahweh truly allowed Abraham to play a role as judge over the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and that Yahweh was truly just in His judgments. Though Yahweh did not spare the city for the sake of the righteous, He did extract the righteous from the city. In this He demonstrated His justice and mercy simultaneously.

19:30-35 Eventually Lot obeyed the command of Yahweh and left the city for the mountains. However, he did not do it in obedience but out of fear of living in the city. He also showed once again that he did not trust Yahweh’s assurance that he would be safe in the city. He was reduced to a wandering man, fearful and living in the caves. And he still did not return to Abraham and the covenant promises.

The thinking and the actions of Lot’s daughters show that they had been influenced by the ways of Sodom and were like their mother, who preferred the ways of the city. The oldest daughter should have been concerned for the welfare of her father in his old age but instead could think only of herself. She was afraid her father was too old to find her a husband. The death of Lot’s wife, and maybe of some of his other daughters, explains his willingness to get drunk, which does not make it right but creates some understanding and sympathy.

The passivity of Lot and the fact that both girls succeeded shows his ignorance of what happened and releases him from the guilt of participation. Though Lot may have been rescued by Yahweh, his choice to live in Sodom for so long cost him his family.

“But there is a pathetic irony. The angels have rescued Lot and his virgin daughters from the Sodom mob; now they sacrifice their virginity and their father’s honor when there is no actual danger.”^[116]

“In tragic irony, a drunk Lot carried out the very act which he himself had suggested to the men of Sodom (19:8)—he lay with his own daughters.”^[117]

“The impact of the unit focuses more directly on a characterization of the father. The one who offered his daughters for the sexual gratification of his wicked neighbors now becomes the object of his daughters’ incestuous relationship… To be seduced by one’s own daughters into an incestuous relationship with pregnancy following is bad enough. Not to know that the seduction had occurred is worse. To fall prey to the whole plot a second time is worse than ever.”^[118]

19:36-38 The sons of Lot would become the fathers of the Moabites and the Ammonites. The Moabites (Gen. 19:37-38) were a nation that dwelled on the eastern side of the Dead Sea, and the Ammonites dwelled east of the Jordan River just north of the Moabites. These two nations were later rejected by Yahweh because of their mistreatment of Israel (Deut. 23:3-6).

“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 patriarch became drunk with wine and uncovered himself in the presence of his children. In both narratives, the act had grave consequences. Thus at the close of the two great narratives of divine judgment, the Flood and the destruction of Sodom, those who were saved from God’s wrath subsequently fell into a form of sin reminiscent of those who died in the judgment. This is a common theme in the prophetic literature (e.g., Isa 56-66; Mal 1).”^[119]

Despite this, in mercy and in fulfillment to His promises to Abraham, Yahweh would include the Moabites and Ammonites in the Abrahamic promises since Lot was a part of Abraham’s family. They would inherit land in the Promised Land, and Yahweh would forbid Israel from taking their lands.

G. Abraham and Abimelech (20:1-18)

This section records Abraham’s second journey south of Canaan and his lack of faith, which he demonstrates with foreign kings. Though Abraham may have been acting out of ignorance in the first event (Gen. 12:10-20), it is clear here that he has not learned from his mistakes. The point of the story is to reveal the flawed nature of Abraham. Even though he was a righteous man, he was still human and continued to make mistakes, like all flawed humans do. However, because of his lack of faith, he fails to truly be a blessing to the world. Instead, Abimelech comes under the judgment of Yahweh and is filled with great fear as a result of Abraham’s deception. There is a chiastic parallelism that emphasizes the fear of Abimelech.

A Abimelech takes Sarah into his harem (20:1-2)

   B Yahweh rebukes Abimelech (20:3-7)

      X Abimelech and his officials become afraid (20:8)

   B’ Abimelech rebukes Abraham (20:9-13)

A’ Abimelech blesses Abraham, and Abraham prays for Abimelech (20:14-18)

But what stands out even more in this story is the continued faithfulness of Yahweh and His covenant promise to curse those who curse Abraham even when Abraham does not trust in Yahweh.

20:1-2 Abraham moved to Gerar, which was in the southwest region of Canaan. Unlike the previous story, Abraham did not go as far south into Egypt but stayed closer to Canaan. The ruler was a local king over a city rather than Pharaoh over a nation. Also, Sarah did not get as tangled in the harem as in the previous story. “Abimelech” means “my father is king” and is, as with Pharaoh, most likely a title of a ruler rather than a personal name. There are many rulers in the Bible with the name Abimelech. The narrator skips most of the details about Abraham’s passing his wife off as his sister and Sarah’s getting taken into the ruler’s harem because the reader already knows this process from the previous event. Instead, the narrator focuses on how Abimelech was different from Pharaoh, starting with his dream from Yahweh.

20:3-7 Despite the lack of faith Abraham demonstrated again, Yahweh stepped in, protected, and delivered Abraham from the hands of Abimelech. Unlike Pharaoh, Yahweh spoke directly to Abimelech in a dream, and Abimelech spoke back to Yahweh. Yahweh told Abimelech that he was going to die because he had taken a married woman, specifically a woman of the Abrahamic Covenant. Just as Abraham talked with Yahweh about not punishing righteous men in Genesis 18, so did Abimelech, who declared his innocence because he had been deceived.

Yahweh acknowledged the truth of this statement and said that this was why He had prevented him from sleeping with Sarah. Twice the narrator states that Abimelech had not slept with Sarah (Gen. 20:4, 6), and later he states that the wombs of all the women had been closed (Gen. 20:17). What makes this lack of trust in Yahweh so dangerous is that Sarah was pregnant with Isaac. This means that if Abimelech had slept with her, everyone would wonder which man Isaac belonged to, and Abimelech could claim Isaac as his own. Isaac would no longer be the child of the promises. Yahweh was not protecting only Abraham and his family but also His covenant promises. Yahweh’s chosen ones cannot, by failing, destroy His ultimate plans for them.

Abraham’s being called a “prophet” by Yahweh here is the first explicit reference to a prophet in the First Testament. Prophets received direct revelations from Yahweh and communicated Yahweh’s will to others on His behalf. Here, the role of the prophet included that of intercessor, as it does elsewhere in the Bible. The irony here is that Abraham was not acting like a prophet by lying to Abimelech to protect himself.

20:8-13 Just as Pharaoh did, Abimelech questioned Abraham and asked why he would lie to him and do such a thing. Notice that, unlike Pharaoh, Abimelech was not concerned just for himself but for all his people. Between this and his conversation with Yahweh, the narrator is showing that Abimelech was a God-fearing man. The narrator reveals with Melchizedek and Abimelech that not everyone in Canaan was as wicked as those in Sodom and Gomorrah. Even in a pagan land there are still those who fear God.

Unlike the previous time, Abraham did respond to the questioning. Abraham showed that he had completely misread Abimelech and his people, saying he assumed no one in the city feared God. He also showed an incredible lack of faith in that he did not believe Yahweh could protect him. After being rescued in Egypt, defeating the kings of Mesopotamia, and so many other incidents, he still did not have faith that Yahweh could protect him. The most surprising of all Abraham’s comments is when he said they always passed Sarah off as his sister when they went to new places. The narrator has recorded only one other time, so was Abraham lying, or were those other times just not recorded? Abraham did not look good either way. The first makes him a liar, and the second shows him to be a man of very little faith. In the context of the greater story, the first option is most likely. This raises the question, however, of whether Sarah was actually his half-sister, especially when these events are the only places in the Bible where this relation is mentioned. Considering his other lies, was Abraham telling the truth about this?

In Genesis 18, Abraham acted as a prophet, interceding on behalf of the righteous whom he did not know. Now he was acting with so little faith. The first time he did this with Pharaoh was understandable because he knew so little about Yahweh. Now it is shocking that he feared for his life and acted as if he did not know who Yahweh was. In contrast to the God-fearing Abimelech, Abraham does not look quite like the righteous man he did previously when measured against the pagans he had encountered.

20:14-18 In the previous incident, Pharaoh gave Abraham animals as a dowry for taking Sarah into his harem before he knew he had been deceived. Here, Abimelech gave Abraham animals after being deceived in order to make amends with Abraham. He also let Abraham pick any part of his land to live in. Though this did not give Abraham ownership, he was closer than before to gaining possession of the land of Canaan. Once again, Abimelech looks better than Abraham.

Despite Abraham’s failure, he still demonstrated faith in Yahweh through his prayers as he interceded on behalf of Abimelech. Here, Abraham finally acted as a prophet as he revealed the grace and power of Yahweh to a foreigner.

The truly amazing part of this story is that Yahweh still watched over and protected Abraham despite his lack of faith. Not only that, He chose to use Abraham as a prophet in the life of Abimelech to bring him and his family restoration—even though Abraham had failed and no repentance was evident in this scene. Yahweh continued to honor His promises despite the lack of faith of His chosen people.

H. Isaac Displaces Ishmael (21:1-34)

Yahweh proved Himself faithful to His promise to Abraham by providing Isaac after so many years of waiting. However, Ishmael became a threat to Abraham’s heir, so Abraham sent Ishmael away into the wilderness, where Yahweh continued to provide for him. This event removes the threat Ishmael posed to Yahweh’s promises through Isaac, the promised son. There are similarities in structure between the two Hagar scenes (Gen. 16:1-16; 21:1-21).

21:1-5 Yahweh’s visiting people shows His special and relational attention to people and His direct involvement in their lives. Twice Yahweh predicted the birth of Isaac (Gen. 17:16-21; 18:10-15), and here the fulfillment of the promise is mentioned twice (Gen. 21:1, 2). Abraham was a hundred years old and Sarah was ninety years old when Isaac was born (Gen. 17:1; 18:10). Abraham’s immediate response when Isaac was born was to name his son Isaac and have him circumcised in obedience to Yahweh. The lack of hesitation shows Abraham’s faith and dedication to Yahweh.

21:6-8 Sarah likewise showed obedience by immediately praising Yahweh for His faithfulness and telling others about the joyous occasion. She even sang a song of praise using the word for laugh—the name of Isaac—twice. The second laugh is the exact form of his name, “everyone who hears it will Isaac for me.” Whereas before the laughter was from disbelief, here it was joy.

When Isaac was at the age of weaning, Abraham threw a feast to celebrate his life. Children were not usually weaned until three to five years old. In a culture where the infant mortality rate was high, to make it to three years old was significant and usually accompanied by a large feast.^[120]

21:9-10 The contrast here is between the joy of the birth of the son Yahweh had promised and the mocking of Ishmael, who did not align himself with the will of Yahweh. From the very birth of Isaac, these two nations were already at odds.

The participle used for the word “mocking” is the same root as the name “Isaac.” What exactly Ishmael was doing is not clear. Most likely, Ishmael was making it clear that he was the firstborn and that he, not Isaac, would get the inheritance. Sarah saw this as a threat and demanded the banishment (“drive off”) of Hagar and Isaac. The irony is that this was the result of Sarah’s idea of giving Hagar to Abraham to acquire a son (Gen. 16:2-3).

21:11-13 The Hebrew says that “Abraham was very displeased.” In other places when men are displeased, they explode in anger (Num. 11:10; 1 Sam. 18:8). When Yahweh was displeased, He brought death as judgment (Gen. 38:10; 2 Sam. 11:7). Only here is someone described as being very displeased. This shows the great distress and anger that Abraham felt at this. To Sarah, Ishmael was the son of her maidservant, but to Abraham, Ishmael was his son.

Yahweh came to Abraham and told Him to obey Sarah and send Ishmael away. The last time Abraham obeyed Sarah it was a mistake (Gen. 16:2), so Yahweh assured him that He would take care of the child. Yahweh also restated the promises of Gen. 17:20 to further assure Abraham.

The Hebrew word naar, which is translated “child,” does not necessarily refer to Ishmael’s age but to anyone from childhood to full grown. In Genesis it usually refers to those capable of taking care of themselves (Gen. 18:7; 37:2) and those who are morally responsible for themselves (Gen. 19:4).^[121]Ishmael was thirteen years old when he was circumcised (Gen. 17:25) and a year later Isaac was born making him fourteen years old (Gen. 18:10; 21:1-3). Now three to five years later after Isaac’s weaning, Ishmael would have been seventeen to nineteen years old, and Isaac would have been three to five years old.

21:14-16 In obedience to Yahweh, Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael off with provisions. To “send her off” (NIV) is a softer version of the term “drive out” (Gen. 3:23; 18:16; 19:20) and is used of divorce (Deut. 22:19; 24:1, 3) and of the release of slaves with generous provisions (Ex. 11:1-2; Deut. 15:13).^[122]

Hagar and Ishmael wandered in the wilderness for so long that their provisions ran out and they were about to die. Hagar was so desperate and distraught that she hid Ishmael away so that she would not hear his cries and see him die.

21:17-21 It was in response to this despair that Yahweh appeared in order to rescue them. As usual, Yahweh asked Hagar questions to draw her out and into a relationship of trust in Him. Yahweh enabled Hagar to see a well that would provide life for them. As promised in Genesis 16, Yahweh was faithful to provide for them and honor the promises He had made. The story ends with Ishmael growing up, becoming an accomplished archer, and getting married in order to continue his line—as promised by Yahweh.

21:22-23 It is difficult to know where the event of Abraham’s treaty with Abimelech fits in the chronology of the story, as well as the literary significance of its placement here in the story. Scholars George Coats and Benno Jacob believe the phrase “at that time” refers to the feast of Isaac that Abimelech and Phicol were already attending and that this may be why the narrator does not explain their coming.^[123] This is the same Abimelech that Abraham had deceived in Genesis 20. Now he had come to Abraham with the desire to enter into a treaty with Abraham and required of Abraham that he would not be deceived again. The fact that he came with an army suggests that Abraham had a considerable force as well. Abimelech was concerned not only for himself but also for his people. He seemed to anticipate the continued growth of Abraham’s family. This shows that Abraham was truly growing as Yahweh had promised, becoming so great that others wanted to be part of that blessing (Gen. 12:1-3).

21:24-26 Abraham agreed to the friendship but complained that one of the wells he had dug had been seized by Abimelech’s men. Abimelech became angry at the accusation and stated that Abraham had never mentioned this before.

21:27-34 Apparently satisfied with this, Abraham made a treaty with Abimelech. The fact that Abraham was the only one who offered animals suggests that he was the lesser king in the treaty. Abraham set apart seven lambs to give to Abimelech as payment for the well and proof that it belonged to him. The well was named Beer Sheba, which means “the well of the oath.” Later, the Law would forbid the making of treaties with the people of Canaan (Ex. 23:33; Lev. 20:26; Deut. 7:2).

The reference to “Philistines” living in the land may anticipate the Aegean people who came across the Mediterranean in 1200 BC and settled in Canaan or to an earlier and smaller group that had already settled in Canaan at the time of Abraham. The significance of the tamarisk tree is unknown, but trees are symbolic of life and blessings (Ps. 1:3; Jer. 17:7-8)

“The reader is forced to ask why the author constantly draws attention to the fact that Abraham was dwelling with the Philistines during this time [cf. v. 34]. The purpose of such reminders may be to portray Abraham as one who had yet to experience the complete fulfillment of God’s promises.”^[124]

I. The Sacrifice of Isaac (22:1-24)

This section is the most important event in the Abraham story, both literarily and theologically. It is the climax of Abraham’s faith, evidenced in his willingness to sacrifice his only son to Yahweh. Despite Abraham’s failures, this event shows the full extent and offers the most vivid demonstration of his faith in Yahweh (James 2:21). The chiastic structure emphasizes Abraham’s journey of faith up the mountain to the altar of sacrifice. It also emphasizes Abraham at the foot of the mountain on the third day and then going up the mountain alone just as Israel would later come to the mountain on the third day and Moses would go up alone. Where Abraham would sacrifice his son, Moses would receive the Law that was based on the sacrificial system.

A Yahweh’s command to sacrifice Abraham’s son (22:1-2)

   B Departure the next morning (22:3)

      C The third day at the foot of the mountain (22:4-6b)

      C’ The journey up the mountain (22:6c-8)

   B’ Preparation for sacrifice (22:9-10)

A’ Angel speaks to stop sacrifice (22:11-18)

It is here that the Abrahamic Covenant becomes finalized and unconditional for all the generations of Abraham to follow. This is the last time Yahweh speaks to Abraham in the story, emphasizing even more the importance and the finality of the Abrahamic Covenant.

22:1-2 The phrase “sometime later” communicates that many years have gone by since the previous chapter. Most scholars believe that Issac was anywhere between eighteen and twenty-five years old. Jewish rabbinic tradition states that he was thirty-seven years old at this time. We know that he was younger than forty years old because he was forty years old when he got married to Rebekah (Gen. 25:20). That means that Abraham was between 118 and 125 years old at this time.

From the very beginning, the reader is informed that Abraham would be tested (Ex. 20:20; Deut. 8:2), removing from the story the tension about any ultimate danger to Isaac and the righteous character and goodness of Yahweh. It shifts the reader from the question “will Isaac be sacrificed?” to “will Abraham pass the test?”

In the Hebrew, the command begins with the word “please,” which is very unusual of Yahweh’s commands. It makes the command more of a request and shows that Yahweh understood the difficulty of the command and what it would cost.

Even though Ishmael was also Abraham’s son, the reference to Isaac as Abraham’s “only son” emphasizes the fact that he was the only son of the covenant promises of Yahweh. It also was somewhat true practically since Ishmael had left the family. The command to “go to the land of Moriah” echoes the language of Gen. 12:1, where Yahweh first commanded Abraham to follow and obey Him. These two phrases frame the story of Yahweh’s covenant promises with Abraham and Abraham’s obedience. The designation of “the land of Moriah” occurs again in 2 Chr. 3:1 as the mountain on which the temple stood in Jerusalem, where all the sacrifices of Israel were offered. The later mention of “on the mountains” is an allusion to Mount Sinai, where Yahweh would later appear to the nation of Israel (Exodus 19).

A burnt offering was one in which the sacrifice was completely consumed in the fire. It represented the offeror’s giving all of themselves to Yahweh, since the animal represented the offeror and their atonement for sin. Abraham would truly be offering to Yahweh himself and the promises through the sacrifice of his son.

22:3-8 The mention of “early the next morning” (Gen. 22:3) shows that there was no hesitation in Abraham’s obedience. Even though Abraham displayed great, unwavering faith, it could not have been easy for him emotionally (Mark 9:24).

Abraham arrived at the mountain on the third day (symbolic of redemption). Three days would have been a long time for Abraham mentally and emotionally as he moved closer to the moment of action. Abraham told the servants that he and Issac were going to go up the mountain and worship and then they would return. Was Abraham lying about Isaac’s return so that no one would know what he was going to do, or did he hope or believe that Yahweh would rescue Isaac? From the context of the passage, it is clear that it is the latter. This can be seen in the fact that Abraham used the word “worship,” which is a vaguer term than “offer” and can mean “bow down.” Also, when answering Isaac’s question about the lamb, he answered that Yahweh would provide a lamb (Gen. 22:6-8). This seems very important considering how much space is given to this dialogue. Though the reader can never know the thoughts of Abraham, the author of the book of Hebrews concluded that Abraham believed Yahweh would give him his son back.

Why was Abraham willing to sacrifice his son to Yahweh when this request was more like what a pagan god would demand, was contrary to the character of Yahweh that had been revealed to Abraham, and would cost him his son, threatening Yahweh’s promises to him? Abraham knew that the character of Yahweh was different from all the other gods and that He abhorred child sacrifice (Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5), yet now Yahweh was requiring him to sacrifice his son. However, Yahweh had proven to Abraham throughout his life that there was no limit to what He could do as sovereign creator over the creation, even resurrecting the dead womb of Sarah. Yahweh had promised that it would be through Isaac specifically that He would fulfill His promises to Abraham, and Yahweh had always honored His promises. Thus, Abraham reasoned that he could offer his son to Yahweh in the faith that Yahweh would raise him from the dead because He can do anything (Heb. 11:17-19). Not only did Abraham commit his life to Yahweh in faith, but he also knew Yahweh so well that he could anticipate what He would do.

Yahweh was not asking Abraham whether he loved Yahweh more than he did his son. Instead, Yahweh was asking Abraham whether he trusted Him enough to surrender everything that was precious to him into Yahweh’s hands, to care for it and work it out for Abraham’s good. The first question is that of a God who is insensitive and indifferent to the things and people that matter to us, demanding we eliminate them so that He is the only thing in our lives. That is the not the character of Yahweh, a relational God who created all things as a gift to humanity that we might take care of them. The second question is that of a God who values the things and people in our lives but asks us to trust Him, more than ourselves or others, to care for them and put them in their proper place in our lives in relation to Him.

22:9-10 The fact that Isaac is called a “boy” (naar)—the same word used for Ishmael (Gen. 21:12; 22:4, 12)—and the fact that he was able to carry the firewood shows that he was at least in his late teens, as discussed above. That Isaac allowed a more than a hundred-year-old man to tie him up and lay him on the altar shows that he was a willing participant. He trusted his father and Yahweh so much that he allowed himself to be laid on the altar. Abraham in total obedience to Yahweh lifted his hand with the knife in order to sacrifice his one and only son to Yahweh.

22:11-14 In harmony with the reader’s having been informed that this was only a test and Abraham’s expectation to come back with his son, Yahweh stopped him from sacrificing his son Isaac since Abraham had adequately demonstrated his faith in Yahweh. Yahweh then stated, “for now I know that you fear God because you did not withhold your son, your only son, from me.” This emphasizes that the Abrahamic Covenant had been, according to Genesis 15 and 17, conditional up to this point, for Yahweh was testing Abraham to see if he would be faithful to his end of the covenant. Yahweh was not testing Abraham to find out if he would be obedient, for He already knew this. Yahweh was testing Abraham to reveal to Abraham what his faith consisted of and how much he really loved Yahweh. Often we never know how we will react or what we will do in certain circumstances until that moment comes. Now Abraham knew how much Yahweh meant to him. Because of Abraham’s faithfulness, Yahweh provided a substitutionary sacrifice to die in Isaac’s place.

22:15-19 Here Yahweh made the covenant with Abraham unconditional. Yahweh swore by His own self (Heb. 6:13-20) that because of what Abraham did that day, Yahweh would most certainly bless Abraham and his descendants. The phrase “by myself” communicates the solemnness and the one-sidedness of the oath (Jer. 22:5; 49:13; Ezek. 37:14; Amos 4:2; 6:8; Heb. 6:13-18). From here on, all of Abraham’s descendants would reap the benefits of the covenant because of Abraham’s faithfulness. The fact that Yahweh made a big deal about swearing that He would honor His promises based on Abraham’s actions here and did not use any conditional language demonstrates that this was the first time the covenant truly became unconditional.

These words are the most important words of Yahweh in this story. First, they bring the story and promises to a conclusion and guarantee the security and longevity of the covenant after the death of Abraham. Second, they are necessary in order to show that the covenant would live on through Isaac and not Ishmael. Without these words, the last time Yahweh had spoken was His confirming the promises to Ishmael through Hagar. This would have left the reader with the idea that Ishmael was the son of the covenant (Gen. 21:17-19). These final words seal the covenant promises in the name and line of Isaac, just as Yahweh had promised.

The Second Testament alludes to Abraham in this event as a type of Christ, in that Yahweh would (like Abraham) ultimately sacrifice His own Son for humanity but that this Son would (like the ram) be a substitutionary sacrifice for all humanity. Just like Isaac was called Abraham’s “only son, whom you love,” Jesus was called this in the gospels and epistles (Matt. 3:17; 17:5; Jn. 3:16; Rom. 8:31-32). The difference is where Isaac did not and could not become the atoning sacrifice, Jesus accomplished this for us.

An interesting item to note is that the narrator mentions only Abraham, and not Isaac, coming back down the mountain. There is no hint as to the meaning of this.

22:20-24 The genealogy of Nahor establishes the background for Rebekah, who would become the wife of Isaac and continue the line after the death of Abraham and Sarah.

“This section signals a change in the direction of the narrative. It moves from Abraham to the next generation and its connections with the East. The record of Nahor’s 12 sons prepares the way for the story of Isaac’s marriage. It also shows that Rebekah was the daughter of Bethuel’s wife Milcah (v. 23), not the daughter of Bethuel’s concubine (v. 24). Isaac’s marriage was very important because Isaac was the heir of the promises (ch. 24).”^[125]

J. Purchase of Burial Ground (23:1-20)

Sarah’s death not only begins to bring an end to the Abraham story, but it also demonstrates the faithfulness of Yahweh in that He provided a son before the curse of death could come on Abraham’s family. The main focus of this story is not on the death and burial of Sarah but on the purchase of the land. This emphasis shows that between the purchased well from Abimelech (Genesis 21) and the land Abraham purchases here, this is all of the land that Abraham had obtained from what Yahweh had promised. Here the narrator begins to develop the idea of the partial fulfillment of the promises in the lives of the patriarchs. This begins to hint that the promises must entail so much more than what was on the surface for Abraham to be the true recipient of the promises (Heb. 11:13-16).

23:1-2 Sarah was 127 years old when she died. She is the only woman in the Bible whose lifespan is given, showing her importance. She died when Isaac was thirty-seven, three years before he was married. Abraham was 137 years old when Sarah died, and he outlived her by thirty-eight years.

23:3-9 Abraham’s desire to purchase a burial site in Canaan was one final demonstration of his rejection of the pagan gods. The people of the ancient Near East believed that you needed to be buried in the land of your gods, or else they could not take you into the afterlife since they were limited in power to only their territory. By not burying his wife in Mesopotamia, where they were from, Abraham showed that he was trusting Yahweh with the life of his wife in the afterlife.

The sons of Heth show Abraham great respect by calling him a mighty prince and offered him the burial cave for free. The generosity was partly genuine because of who Abraham had become and partly the custom of negotiations in the ancient Near East. Abraham refused to take the cave for free and offered to pay the value of the cave. A gift rather than a sale would place the recipient under the obligation of the donor. Three times Abraham and the sons of Heth went back and forth until the deal was finalized.

23:10-11 Ephron the Hittite’s response to Abraham’s requests sound very generous, but he was really making it difficult for Abraham to pay less than his asking price. Ephron’s objective may have been to get a present from Abraham for having given him the field and cave that would compensate for the value of the land. Such a gift was customary. On the other hand, he may have wanted to preclude Abraham’s offering to pay him less than his asking price.^[126]

“Why did Ephron want to sell Abraham the entire plot of ground in which the cave lay rather than just the cave as Abraham requested (vv. 8-11)? Hittite law specified that when a landowner sold only part of his property to someone else, the original owner had to continue to pay all taxes on the land. However, if he sold the entire tract, the new owner was responsible to pay the taxes (cf. 1 Chron. 21:24). Consequently Ephron held out for the entire tract knowing that Abraham needed to make his purchase quickly so he could bury Sarah.”^[127]

23:12-20 Abraham was willing to pay the full price of the field because he knew that Yahweh had provided him with the means to do so and would continue to provide for him and his descendants in fulfillment of His promise. The price was substantial, meaning either Abraham had purchased a large parcel of land or that Ephron had overcharged him.

“It should be stressed here that the world of the patriarchs was that of a developed and organized society and not what is usually regarded as a simple pastoral-bedouin existence. Throughout Genesis 12-50 there are connections to Mesopotamia and to Egypt as well as negotiations with local political centers (Shechem, Salem and Hebron) as well as Gerar in the Western Negev on a branch of the Coastal Highway.”

“Much of the theological relevance of the patriarchs is based upon the fact that there were other more attractive lifestyles available to these early Biblical figures. The option they chose gave them few of the advantages they could have enjoyed elsewhere, especially in Mesopotamia where their family was established. In light of this fact and the great promises made to Abraham during his lifetime, his remark to the leaders of Hebron after the death of his wife, Sarah, takes on new meaning.”^[128]

K. The Betrothal of Rebekah (24:1-67)

Obtaining a wife for Isaac is an important part of Yahweh’s faithfulness to the Abrahamic Covenant. It was not enough to provide a son to Abraham; He must continue Abrahams’s line to fulfill the covenant.

24:1-5 This is the first time the narrator has specifically mentioned that Abraham was blessed in everything. It shows that even though he had not gained all the land Yahweh had promised him, he had gained all the other blessings Yahweh had promised.

Abraham saw that it was time for Isaac to marry, and so he charged his servant, who is unnamed, with the task of finding a wife for Isaac. The statement “put your hand under my thigh” is a reference to the loins—a euphemism for the seed of Abraham, which was Isaac. By placing his hand under the thigh, the servant would be touching the genitals; the privacy of this made the oath especially solemn. The circumcised genitals were the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant and so connected the acquiring of a wife for Isaac to the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant of providing descendants for a great nation. This oath was sworn in the name of “Yahweh, the God of heaven and the God of the earth,” which takes the reader back to creation and the seed of the garden.

Abraham did not want his son marrying one of the wicked Canaanites that surrounded them (Gen. 9:24-27; 15:16; 18:18; Deut. 7:1-4), which would later also be forbidden by the Law (Ex. 34:16; Num. 25; Deut. 7:3). The only other option was to send his servant back to where he had come from to find a wife from among his family. However, his family lived in the land that Yahweh had called him out of, and he wanted to ensure that his descendants would not return to that land, so he sent his servant rather than his son. He trusted that Yahweh would guide his servant to one who was right for Isaac.

24:5-9 The servant questioned whether it would even be possible to find a woman who was willing to leave her family and go to a new land to marry a person she had never met. He then asked if he should take Isaac. Abraham responded with an emphatic no. To “take care” is often used to refute a shocking or unworthy idea (Gen. 31:24, 29; Ex. 34:12; Deut. 4:9). Abraham was confident that the same God who had called him out of the land of his father, blessed him with so much, and had been so faithful to him would also be faithful to bless Isaac with a wife. Even so, Abraham ended by assuring him that if no woman would return with him, then he would be free from the oath. To this the servant agreed and pledged the oath to Abraham.

24:10-14 The servant then went with great wealth to the land Abraham had left. Camels were extremely rare at this time in the ancient Near East, so for a servant to be able to take ten camels loaded with goods would have been a great amount of wealth for any family to receive for giving their daughter in marriage to Isaac. Exhausted from the journey, the servant would have been dependent upon the generosity of a family to take him in. He went to the city’s well at the time of day at which the women came to the well. It was customary for women, especially unmarried women, to water the herds (Gen. 29:10; Ex. 2:16; 1 Sam. 9:11). The well mentioned here was a cistern. This was a large, raindrop-like hole carved out of the bedrock that would collect rain during the rainy season. After the rainy season, this would be the only water the village had until the next rainy season. Once it was filled, it would be covered with a large, circular stone. With no light or air, the bacteria would die, and the sediment would settle to the ground, leaving purified drinking water in the cistern.

The servant’s first thought was to pray to Yahweh for guidance in finding a woman for Isaac. He praised Yahweh for his faithfulness and asked that Yahweh would be faithful to him as He had been to Abraham (Ex. 20:6; Deut. 5:10; Ps. 136). It is clear here that throughout the years Abraham’s faith had influenced his servant. The servant set up a clever test of a woman’s character. Though it would not be uncommon for a woman to offer a traveler water to drink, to then offer to water ten camels in addition would be extremely unlikely. A camel can drink up to thirty gallons of water. A woman who was willing to offer this would be a woman of great generosity and character.

24:15-21 Before the servant had even finished praying, Yahweh sent Rebekah, who was related to Abraham, his way. The meaning of the name Rebekah is unknown. Rebekah was the granddaughter of Abraham’s brother Nahor. The narrator makes it clear that she was beautiful and that she was a virgin.

The servant asked Rebekah for a sip of water, but she lowered her jar and offered him to drink as much as he wanted. Then she volunteered to also provide water for all his camels, just as he had prayed, and not just for the camels to drink some—but as much as they wanted. The narrator’s stating that she did this “quickly” and “ran back” shows the eagerness and cheerfulness of her generosity.

24:22-27 As a payment for her generosity, he gave her a hefty sum of money. This showed that he was wealthy and generous. He then asked her whose daughter she was and whether there was room for him to stay in her father’s house. She told the servant who her family was, but she did not give her name, which would have been unwise. Likewise, she told him there was room but did not offer to let him stay because that would not have been her decision to make on her own. The servant’s first response was to praise Yahweh for answering his prayer so quickly and providing him with a wife for Isaac.

24:28-31 It was custom in Hurrian society to consult the bride before going to the family. Likewise, the brother usually took the lead in giving his sister in marriage. Notice that Laban, her brother, was the principal negotiator who represented the family, rather than Bethuel, her father (Gen. 24:50). The description of the family’s farewell also reflects this system of fratriarchy (Gen. 24:59-60).^[129] Laban’s name means “white,” which is a metonym for the moon (Isa. 24:23; 30:26) and shows his family’s connection with the pagan gods. Notice that Laban immediately noticed Rebekah’s jewelry, the camels, and the wealth of the servant, whereas Rebekah did not even mention the camels until after she had provided the servant with water, and money was not mentioned until after her generosity to the servant. Laban invited the servant in not because of his own generosity but because of the servant’s wealth. Laban was a greedy man interested mostly in wealth rather than people, as will be seen later when he uses his daughters to cheat Jacob (Gen. 29).

24:32-49 The servant refused to eat until he had recounted the amazing way Yahweh had guided him there and provided for him. The repetition of the events of how the servant met Rebekah emphasizes that it was the providence of Yahweh that brought them together. Likewise, it also shows the servant’s faithfulness in making the blessings of Yahweh known to others. The servant first told of his master Abraham and his oath and then recounted his encounter with Rebekah at the well. Notice that after meeting Laban, the servant put more emphasis on the wealth of Abraham and the close family connection with Bethuel than the narrator had when telling the account of what happened.

24:50-61 Laban and Bethuel agreed to marry Rebekah off to Isaac because Abraham was family and they were aware of his wealth. Most likely, they asked the servant to stay longer because of the wealth he had brought with him. But the servant’s being anxious to get back put the decision on Rebekah. She showed incredible bravery in her unhesitating willingness to go to an unfamiliar land to marry an unknown man.

The switch from prose to poetry emphasizes the importance of the words of the blessing. The blessing pronounced upon Rebekah echoes Yahweh’s blessing upon Sarah (Gen. 17:16). Just as Isaac was the seed of Abraham and continued the covenant blessings, so Rebekah would become the next matriarch as she joined Isaac in the continuation of the seed and blessings.

24:62-65 The odd thing about the story here is that the servant took Rebekah back to Isaac rather than to Abraham. Isaac was living in Beer Lahai Roi, while Abraham was living in Hebron. And the servant called Isaac “my master,” rather than Abraham. This might seem to indicate that Abraham had died. However, Isaac was forty years old when he married Rebekah (Gen. 25:20), making Abraham 140, who did not die until age 175. Likewise, there was no mention of his death. So we see that even though Abraham had not died, the narrator seems to be suggesting that Isaac was the new Abraham and Rebekah was the new Sarah. This especially seems to be clear with Rebekah taking the tent of Sarah.

When Rebekah saw Isaac in the distance, she covered her face to show that she was the bride. Israelite women were not normally veiled (Gen. 12:14; 38:14). However, they would wear a veil on their wedding day.

24:66-67 Isaac took Rebekah into his mother’s tent because it would not have been right for her to go into his tent before they were married. The fact that Rebekah was given Sarah’s tent shows Rebekah’s connection to Sarah. Once they were married, Isaac slept with Rebekah. Isaac’s connection to Rebekah became a comfort to him in the loss of his mother. This again continues to develop the idea that Rebekah was the new Sarah. ^[130]

L. The Death of Abraham (25:1-18)

The death of Abraham not only records the end of his life, but this event occurs when it does because Isaac had been married off—a sign that the line would continue.

25:1-4 The fact that Keturah was not mentioned until after the death of Sarah means Abraham did not marry her until after Sarah had died. His marrying of another woman after Sarah’s death is made more possible by the fact that he lived forty more years after Sarah’s death (Gen. 23:1; 25:7). Even so, many scholars suggest that this marriage happened while Sarah was still alive. Not everything in the life of Abraham is arranged chronologically. If it were, then the death of Abraham should be included after the birth of Jacob and Esau since he lived 15 years after their birth.

This genealogy may have been included to show that Abraham was truly the father of many nations and to specifically introduce the Midianites, who come into prominence later in Exodus and on. It shows that Yahweh was faithful in giving Abraham many descendants, though Isaac and his branch of the family would be the recipients of Yahweh’s special blessings.

25:5-6 Abraham gave all of his possessions to his son Isaac, showing that Isaac received the firstborn title. The sending away of the sons was to make Isaac’s position more secure. The “land of the East” to which Abraham sent his sons (other than Isaac) was evidently Arabia. It lay to the east and south of Canaan. However, sending the sons away and especially to the east—the direction of exile after being judged (Gen. 3:24; 4:16; 11:2; 13:11)—seems to suggest that these sons were a threat to the Abrahamic promises and that Abraham should have never fathered them (like Ishmael). This puts his marriage to Keturah in a bad light along with Hagar.

25:7-11 Abraham was 170 years old when he died, having walked with Yahweh for ninety-five years. The phrase “gathered to his people” implies reunion in Sheol (grave), the place of departed spirits, with friends who had died previously. It presupposes continued personal existence after physical death (Gen. 15:15; Heb. 11:13).^[131]

From an Israelite perspective, a natural death at the end of a long and satisfying life was not thought of as punishment but as a great reward (Gen. 35:29; Ex. 20:12; Jud. 8:32; Ps. 21:4; 91:16). In contrast, an early death or death in exile represented Yahweh’s punishment (Ps. 102:23; Is. 65:20; Deut. 28:58-68). In Gen. 46:30 Jacob said he was ready to die after seeing Joseph alive. He was satisfied, and he regarded his life as complete. However, when he believed Joseph to be dead, he anticipated that his own death would be a bitter one as a result (Gen. 37:35). Similarly, Numbers 16 records several examples of premature death, which came through the judgment of Yahweh. In Num. 16:29, 30, the narrator indicates that this was the only kind of death that would be interpreted as the judgment of Yahweh. The thought of a premature death was abhorrent to the righteous Israelite, who feared being cut off from his people and from the worship of His God (Ps. 88).^[132]

25:12-18 These verses form the seventh toledot and show that Yahweh had fulfilled His promises regarding Ishmael (Gen. 16:10-12; 17:20). Ishmael, like Nahor and Jacob, fathered twelve sons. The inclusion of the fact that Ishmael lived “in defiance of all his relations” shows the fulfillment of Yahweh’s prediction to Hagar (Gen. 16:12).

III. The Life of Jacob (25:19–37:1)

This division begins the eighth toledot. Although it says it is “the account of Isaac,” it is really the narrative of Jacob’s life and faith in Yahweh. But it is not just of Jacob but is also of Esau, who also came from Isaac. Esau’s role in the story as the one whom Jacob deceived, the reconciliation of Jacob back to Esau, and Esau’s genealogy are major sections of this toledot. The Jacob story is less episodic than the Primeval period and the Abraham story and more integrated from act to act. Jacob is far more complex and ambiguous in his characterization than Abraham was. Yahweh appears even less frequently in the Jacob story, only a couple of times in visions, than He did with Abraham.

The family line of Abraham continues with his son Isaac. What is interesting about Isaac is that he does not get his own toledot (“the account of Abraham”) and there is very little mentioned about him compared to his father Abraham and his son Jacob. Isaac is only the major character in Genesis 26 and is a minor character in Genesis 25, 27, and 28. The rest of the story is dedicated to Jacob, and Isaac is mentioned only briefly at Jacob’s return to Canaan in Genesis 35. The narrator “seems” to be less interested in his life than in Abraham and Jacob. From the little that is told about him, he seems to be much like his father. As mentioned previously, he demonstrated the same unwavering faith in Yahweh as his father did at his sacrifice. However, unlike his father, he was far more passive and allowed others around to dictate or manipulate his life. Perhaps this is why there is not much to say about him.

“The figure of even a great man may be dwarfed by comparison with that of a distinguished father or of a famous son. Thus the character of Isaac is overshadowed by the majesty of Abraham and the dramatic interest of Jacob. There was a third factor, which diminished the importance of Isaac; he was the husband of a clever and masterful wife. No matter how exciting the scene in which he may appear, he is always assigned to a minor part. At least, by contrast with these other actors, his role in life was prosaic, uneventful, obscure.”^[133]

Whereas the story of Abraham focused more on the barrenness of his wife and the threat Ishmael posed to the promises of Yahweh, the Jacob story focuses on the struggle between the two legitimate sons to secure the birthright and on Jacob’s struggle with Laban. The conflict is in whether Jacob would receive the Abrahamic Covenant through his faith in Yahweh, like his fathers before him, or would instead seek his own blessings through his deceptions. Unlike Abraham, Jacob spends most of his life demonstrating very little faith as he seeks to gain blessings through his own devices. The story reaches its climax as Jacob is running away from the life and family he had ruined with Laban, while the place to which he had to return was the life and family he had ruined with Esau (Gen. 31). The story finds its resolution when Jacob wrestles the angel and claims the promises of Yahweh, when we learn that Yahweh had caused Esau to forgive Jacob (Gen. 32-33), and when Jacob finally buries his idols, making himself a part of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 35:1-15). The story concludes when Jacob has his own righteous son, Joseph, who would save the Abrahamic family, and his other son, Judah, who would continue the Abrahamic line.

The main focus of this account is Yahweh’s promise of guidance, protection (Gen. 28:15; 31:42; 32:9, 12; 35:3), and blessing given to Abraham (Gen. 24:7), which is then passed on to Isaac and Jacob (Gen. 28:3-4; 31:1-5; 35:11-12). Genesis 25:19-35:22 forms a concentric parallel, which emphasizes Yahweh’s blessings of fertility.

A Oracle sought; struggle in childbirth; Jacob born (25:19-34)

   B Interlude: Rebekah in a foreign place; pact with foreigners (26:1-35)

      C Jacob fears Esau and flees (27:1-28:9)

         D Messengers (28:10-22)

            E Arrival in Haran (29:1-30)

               F Jacob’s wives are fertile (29:31-30:24)

               F’ Jacob’s flocks are fertile (30:25-43)

            E’ Flight from Haran (31:1-55)

         D’ Messengers (32:1-32)

      C’ Jacob returns and fears Esau (33:1-20)

   B’ Interlude: Dinah in foreign place; pact with foreigners (34:1-31)

A’ Oracle fulfilled; struggle in childbirth; Jacob becomes Israel (35:1-22)

A. Esau Disdains His Birthright (25:19-34)

The birth of Esau and Jacob further testify to the faithfulness of Yahweh to the Abrahamic Covenant. However, just as Ishmael threatened the promises of Yahweh found in Isaac, Esau’s rash and worldly desires threatened the promises of Yahweh found in Jacob. The focus in this section is on the origin of the struggle between the brothers and on Esau’s revealing his true character when He disdained his birthright. Yahweh responded to this by giving the birthright to Jacob. The chiastic parallel emphasizes Esau’s disdain for his birthright.

   B Esau came in from the field; he was tired (25:29b)

      C Let me eat some of that red stew (25:30)

         D First sell me your birthright (25:31)

            X I depart; I die! Of what use is a birthright to me? (25:32)

         D’ Swear to me first. So he swore to him and sold his birthright to Jacob (25:33)

      C’ Jacob gave Esau bread and stew; he ate and he drank (25:34aa)

   B’ He rose and went his way (25:34ab)

A’ Thus Esau despised his birthright (25:34b)

25:19-21 Just like Sarah, Rebekah was barren. Yahweh allowed this so that the chosen family would recognize her children as the fruit of His grace and a supernatural seed rather than simply the fruit of nature. The fact that Isaac prayed and Yahweh opened Rebekah’s womb emphasizes this point. And the fact that Isaac was forty when he married Rebekah (Gen. 25:20) but had no sons until he was sixty (Gen. 25:26) shows that there was a long time of barrenness. However, unlike the Abraham story, which was mostly about the barrenness of Sarah, the narrator spends less time on the barrenness and moves directly to the struggle of the brothers, which becomes the focus of the story. Isaac’s prayer on behalf of his wife is one of the only times that he is not passive in the relationship. Yahweh answered his prayer and allowed Rebekah to conceive.

25:22-23 Rebekah became pregnant with twins, who struggled in the womb with each other to the point that Rebekah could not take it anymore. This foreshadows the constant struggle that Esau and Jacob would have throughout their life. This time Rebekah prayed to Yahweh to know what to do. The switch from prose to poetry emphasizes the importance of the words of Yahweh. Yahweh told her there were two nations in her womb—one would be stronger than the other, and the older would serve the younger. The idea of multiple nations coming from Isaac is not new to the promises, but that there would be a division between them is. Although with twins one is not truly older than the other, the idea that one comes out before the other gives the impression of one being older than the other. Though Yahweh would give Jacob, the younger, the firstborn blessing, it is not clear here that Yahweh was choosing Jacob at this moment to receive the firstborn title. Yahweh was announcing what would happen, not necessarily choosing one. This parallels the second-born Isaac’s receiving the firstborn title.

25:24-28 The first of the twins to come out was Esau, who had thick, red hair all over his body. His hair must have been thick because later Jacob would cover his arm in goat’s hair, which is very thick and coarse, to deceive Isaac into thinking he was Esau. The name Esau (’esav) does not mean “hairy” but instead sounds like the Hebrew word for “hairy” (se’ar). In the ancient world, all the way up to the middle period, there was prejudice against people with red hair as being wild and uncivilized. Jacob came out second, grasping the heel of his brother. Jacob (ya’aqob) is similar sounding to “heel” (‘aqeb). The name (since it is a verb) may mean “may he protect,” as in a rearguard or dogging the heels, which carries the idea of a dog following close behind the herd to guide them and protect them. Jacob’s name does not carry of the idea of deception. It was not until later that Esau would ascribe a negative meaning to Jacob’s name (Gen. 27:37).

Esau became a hunter-warrior for the family, as well as Isaac’s favorite because he was a hunter and Isaac loved the taste of meat. Jacob was the complete opposite, a smooth-skinned shepherd who preferred to stay home, making him Rebekah’s favorite. The fact that Jacob is said to be even-tempered in contrast to Esau implies that Esau was rash and made decisions based on emotion, which will be seen later.

25:29-30 Jacob cooked some lentil stew. The Hebrew word “cook” (zid) sounds like the word for “hunter” (tsayid). The irony is that Esau the hunter would become the hunted. The sound play between these two words means to “set a trap by cooking.”^[134] Esau was so hungry that he was willing to sell his birthright for stew. This was most certainly an overreaction, especially in a family as wealthy as his. Esau demanded that Jacob “feed” him, which is the Hebrew word la’at and is used of feeding animals. This puts Esau in a negative light. Esau called the stew “the red stew,” which is why he was also called ’edom, which means “red.” This would become the name of Esau’s descendants. Edom was the place where they lived, named after the reddish nature of the hills. The narrator used the word red to describe the stew that Esau demanded in order to convey the nature of Esau and his descendants. They were a lustful and profane people who lived for the moment.

25:31-33 Jacob’s quick reply to ask for the birthright shows he had been thinking about and planning this for a while. Typically in the ancient Near East, the biological firstborn son would get the firstborn title when the father died. The firstborn title entailed two things. First, the son would get the majority of his father’s inheritance (double portion) including money, animals, and land. Second, he would receive the headship of the family, clan, or tribe, granting him authority over all the other males, including his younger brothers. For Yahweh, the birthright (firstborn title) is more than these two things; it is the blessing of carrying on the family line through which He would bring the messiah. It bears both the blessings and responsibility of representing Yahweh to the world and thus being a blessing to the world. It is the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:1-3).

Esau showed his rash and emotional decision-making nature when he gave up his entire future for a bowl of stew. Not only that, he could not think ahead far enough to see the value of a birthright. He was evidently too hungry to wait for the time it would take to prepare a meal for himself. Jacob demanded he swear an oath so that it would be binding.

“It is quite apparent from the Nuzi tablets that instances of the transference of birthright, such as occurred in the Patriarchal narratives, were not uncommon in Hurrian society. One example concerns a certain Zirteshup, whose father disowned him but later restored his status… Another instance of the transference of birthright from the Nuzi tablets is the exchange by one Kurpazah of his birthright in consideration for three sheep given to him by Tupkitilla, his brother. In the light of this example, Esau’s willingness to exchange his birthright for Jacob’s mess of pottage (Gen. 25:29-34) is perhaps more understandable.” ^[135]

25:34 The rapid sequence of the verbs gave, ate, drank, got up, and went out shows that Esau most likely ate in silence due his unhappiness for having to pay such a great price for the stew. In rare fashion, the narrator makes a moral comment on the action of Esau. Esau gave greater value to immediate gratification and temporary earthly pleasure and satisfaction over the birthright of the Abrahamic Covenant, thus disdaining the birthright and the covenant responsibility of Yahweh’s promises. The word “disdain” is the same word used of those whom Yahweh would curse when they disdained Abraham (Gen. 12:3). Thus, in fulfillment of Yahweh’s promises to Abraham and in response to Esau’s actions, Yahweh rejected him as the firstborn and gave it to Jacob instead. Although Jacob’s moral character was not that great, at least he desired things greater than the physical and material.

B. Isaac and the Philistines (26:1-33)

This section shows that Yahweh was faithful to renew His covenant with Abraham’s descendants and continued to bless them just as He had promised. The fact that Isaac demonstrates a lack of faith immediately after the renewal of the covenant and repeats the same sins of his father shows the grace of Yahweh and that the Abrahamic Covenant was truly unconditional.

Here the narrator shows the passivity and peacefulness of Isaac as he encounters the people around him. Isaac allows himself to be pushed around, giving up without a fight the wells he had dug. But eventually he keeps a well and lays claim to more territory that Yahweh had promised him. In fact, he would gain greater wealth and blessings than Abraham before him (Gen. 26:12-14). This shows that Yahweh would fulfill His promises despite the personality of the patriarch. The passivity of Isaac seen in this story also serves to illustrate the abnormality of the strife between Jacob and Esau and how it would tear the family apart. If Isaac could accomplish so much and gain so much wealth, then why did Rebekah and Jacob see the need to fight and deceive others for the blessings? If the source of blessing was obvious to foreigners, then how much more should it have been to those who lived in the family?

Some scholars question whether this story belongs in Genesis or is reliable because it is so similar to the two encounters Abraham had with foreigners (Gen. 12:10-20; 20) and seems out of place. These two stories help to balance each other out in the chiastic parallel of the Jacob story. This is also not the only seemingly out-of-place story in Genesis. These two stories (Gen. 26; 34) are linked in their context by the common themes of strife and deception. Both describe the patriarch’s relationship with the surrounding people of Canaan, among whom they are foreigners. Genesis 26 also serves as a link to the Abraham story by showing that Isaac was like his father; Abraham is mentioned eight times in this chapter (Gen. 26:1, 3, 5, 15, 18[2x], 24[2x]).

The fact that Isaac and Rebekah could live in the land for such a long time (Gen. 26:8) without anyone realizing they were married shows that there were no children in the family yet. Thus it is clear that this event happened before the birth of Jacob and Esau.

26:1-6 Just as with Abraham (Gen. 12:10), there was a famine in the land. However, unlike with Abraham, Yahweh came to Isaac and told him not to go to Egypt but rather to Gerer, where there were no relationships between the city and Abraham. Yahweh renewed the promises of the covenant to Isaac and promised to take care of Isaac. This was the first time Yahweh had spoken directly to Isaac, making it a significant revelation from Yahweh. This was also the first time Yahweh had specifically promised someone “so I may be with you.” This looks forward to the revealing of Yahweh’s name in Exodus 3, which carries the idea that Yahweh is always with us. What is interesting is that Yahweh said all of this would happen because of Abraham’s obedience, not Isaac’s. This continues to show that the covenant was unconditional because of Abraham’s demonstration of faith. Thus, the lesson being conveyed is that Yahweh’s faithfulness in the past can be counted on in the present and the future. What He had done for the fathers, He would also do for the sons. The question to each person is whether they would make themselves a part of the covenant blessing through their faith in Yahweh.

In Gen. 26:5, the terms “my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws” are legal designations for sections of the Mosaic Law and presuppose the existence of the law. Some Rabbinic teachers taught that Abraham had fulfilled the Mosaic Law before it was even given. However, this would make Genesis 15:6 sound like Abraham’s obedience to the law was what saved him and would contradict Paul’s teachings in Galatians 3 and Romans 7. It makes more sense that the author (Moses the Lawgiver) described Abraham’s obedience by using terms the Israelites were familiar with. Thus, he depicts Abraham as the model of obedience to Yahweh’s commands, whose example Israel should follow.

“In choosing Abraham and not Moses, the author shows that ‘keeping the law’ means ‘believing in God,’ just as Abraham believed God and was counted righteous (Gen 15:6). In effect the author of the Pentateuch says, ‘Be like Abraham. Live a life of faith and it can be said that you are keeping the law.’”^[136]

The Philistines were an Aegean people who came across the sea from the region of Greece and settled along the western coast of Canaan in the 1200s BC. Though there is evidence of earlier migrations, these Philistines are seen as a small kingship rather than the large pentapolis they would become by the time of the books of Samuel and Kings. They were also relatively peaceful compared the ever war-waging Philistines of history and later in the books of Samuel and Kings. Mostly likely, these were an earlier Aegean people known as the Caphtorim (Deut. 2:23).

26:7-11 The name Abimelech is a title rather than a personal name and means “royal father.” He may have been a ruler other than the one Abraham dealt with, especially since he made no reference to this happening to him earlier with Isaac’s father. By repeating the mistakes of his father, Isaac showed that he had not learned from his father’s mistake. He showed the same fear of foreign rulers that Abraham had and appealed to the customs of the time rather than depending on Yahweh’s sovereign protection. However, Yahweh had just promised him that He would protect and bless him.

Yahweh’s protection is evident in that Rebekah had been with Abimelech for a “long time” (Gen. 26:8), yet no one had slept with her (Gen. 26:10). Once again, the promises of Yahweh had been put at risk because of the potential of the wife being taken by a foreigner. And just as before, Abimelech showed himself to be more righteous than the patriarch of Yahweh’s covenant promises, who was supposed to be a blessing to the world.

26:12-14 Just as his father before him, Yahweh blessed Isaac tremendously, and the extent of his blessings were greater than they were with Abraham. Whereas Abraham had gained wealth and provision, the narrator makes the point that Isaac had begun to settle down in the land and even plant crops that produced a hundredfold of what he had planted. Here the reconnection between humanity and the land was beginning to happen through the Abrahamic Covenant and looks forward to Israel occupying the land after the exodus. This is only the third time the narrator has mentioned that the blessings had become a reality (Gen. 24:1; 25:11).

26:15-18 Whereas earlier Abimelech and others wanted to join Abraham because of his success, here the Philistines were jealous; they filled in the wells Isaac had dug and drove him away. The narrator begins to reveal the character of the Philistines, which would become even more characteristic of them in the books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings. So, Isaac reopened the wells that his father had dug, perhaps because they too had been filled in by the Philistines. By renaming them what his father had named them, he shows that they truly belonged to his family and thus to him.

26:19-22 Several times the Philistines claimed a well that Isaac had dug, and without a word Isaac withdrew and moved on to a new location. Isaac’s passivity came out as he said nothing to claim his right to the well, especially in light of the treaty his father had made (Gen. 21:27-31). Finally, Isaac moved far enough away that he was able to keep a well without quarreling.

26:23-25 In the face of constant attacks, Yahweh came to Isaac again and reminded him of His covenant promises and that He would take care of Isaac. Isaac showed that he believed Yahweh by building an altar and worshiping Yahweh there, just as his father before him had done.

26:26-33 Abimelech came back to Isaac, this time with the desire to make a treaty with him. No matter how hard they had tried to make things for Isaac, Yahweh kept protecting and prospering him (Gen. 12:1-3). Considering the passivity of Isaac, this abrupt change in his response to Abimelech shows his total frustration with the Philistines. Abimelech had seen something different in Isaac and his God and wanted to be a part of it. So, Isaac made a treaty with Abimelech, and they departed on good terms. The respect Isaac earned from Abimelech with their treaty not only shows that Isaac followed his father in bearing the covenant, but it also reveals his success, character, and faith. Yahweh rewarded Isaac by providing water through the well he had dug previously.

C. Jacob Takes Esau’s Blessing (26:34–28:22)

This section shows the dysfunction of Isaac’s family and their lack of faith in Yahweh’s ability to continue the Abrahamic Covenant through them. The focus is on the fact that, despite Yahweh’s having promised Jacob the blessing, Jacob could not wait for Yahweh but tried instead to seize it for himself. However, Yahweh continued to use the family despite their lack of faith and continued the blessing through Jacob. The section ends with Yahweh’s coming to Jacob and promising him the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant because of His faithfulness to His promises and despite Jacob’s lack of faithfulness. The concentric parallel emphasizes the blessing of Isaac.

A Isaac and the son of the birthright (Esau) (27:1-5)

   B Rebekah sends Jacob on the stage (27:6-17)

      C Jacob appears before Isaac and receives the blessing (27:18-29)

      C’ Esau appears before Isaac and receives the anti-blessing (27:30-40)

   B’ Rebekah sends Jacob from the stage (27:41-45)

A’ Isaac and the son of the birthright (Jacob) (27:46-28:5)

26:34-35 The Hittites were recognized as a part of the Canaanites (Gen. 10:5; 15:16-21; 23:3; 28:1). They were thus seen as wicked and cursed by Yahweh (Gen. 9:24-26) and so not to be included in the covenant promises. By marrying more than one (polygamy) Hittite, Esau showed that he had no regard for the purity of the covenant or the will of Yahweh. The report of Esau’s marriages to Hittite women (Gen. 26:33-35 and 28:6-9) frames the narrative of Jacob’s taking the blessing from Esau. By doing this, the narrator shows why Esau was unfit to have the blessing and partially why Yahweh chose Jacob. The question is why Isaac didn’t find wives for his sons like his father had done for him. This shows not only the disobedience of Esau but the passivity of Isaac.

27:1-4 Even though Isaac would not die for many years yet, he chose to give his blessing to his son Esau. The reference to his poor eyesight hints at the deception that was to come. Isaac autonomously showed total disregard for the prophecy of Yahweh that the older should serve the younger by calling Esau in for the blessing (Gen. 25:23). The fact that Isaac specifically mentioned the “tasty food that I love” shows that he was allowing himself to be ruled by his appetite and not by theology or obedience to Yahweh. Also, the fact that he had overlooked Esau’s marriages and poor character shows his favoritism. This especially stands out because it was uncommon to summon only one son for the blessing (Gen. 49; 50:24-25). Usually all the sons would be summoned and the firstborn would receive a double inheritance, after which the others would receive their inheritance. Why was Jacob not also summoned, and why did Isaac intend to give Jacob no blessing? Isaac told Esau that there was no blessing left for him after he had unintentionally given everything to Jacob (Gen. 27:37), which was not how blessings worked in the ancient Near East. This means Isaac had planned to give everything to Esau.

27:5-10 The fact that the narrator refers to Esau as his son (Gen. 27:5) and Jacob as her son (Gen. 27:6) shows how divided and dysfunctional the family really was. Though Jacob was capable of his own deception (Gen. 25:31), he was not the initiator in this deception; Rebekah was. Without hesitation she developed the plan, commanded Jacob to get a goat, and prepared the meal. Why did she not have Jacob prepare the meal? Did she not trust him to do it right or act quickly enough? Though Rebekah was sincere in her desire to give the blessing to Jacob and may have even done it in accordance with Yahweh’s earlier command, the way she went about it showed a lack of faith in Yahweh.

27:11-17 When Jacob did hesitate and expressed concern over her plan, it was not based on moral principles but on his fear of getting caught and receiving a curse. Rebekah responded by stating “let the curse fall on me.” This does not even make sense since if the blessing was not transferable to Esau (Gen. 27:37), neither could a curse be transferable. Rebekah and Jacob would have known this, so her assurances were empty. Even so, Jacob obeyed his mother and went along with the deception, showing his lack of trust in Yahweh as well. Rebekah put the goat skin on Jacob’s arms and neck. This means either that Esau was incredibly hairy or that Isaac was failing tremendously in his touch as well as his eyesight.

27:18-26 The fact that Isaac asked which son had come shows that he was immediately suspicious of Jacob. When Isaac expressed confusion on how Jacob got the stew so quickly, Jacob responded with an overly spiritual answer of God’s provision. When Isaac recognized the voice of Jacob, Jacob spoke significantly fewer words for the remainder of the conversation. Isaac was convinced that it was Esau standing before him when he touched the goat skin on Jacob’s arm. When he asked Jacob one more time if he was Esau, Jacob spoke only once more to say “I am.” The smell of the clothing of Esau was the final proof Isaac needed in order to bless him.

27:27-29 The switch from prose to poetry emphasizes the importance of the words of Isaac’s blessing. Isaac blessed Jacob with an abundance of rain and crops. The reference to “grain and new wine” is the image of a banquet and the idea of plenty and abundance that Yahweh would provide as a blessing of the covenant. This blessing would be repeated in Deut. 7:13—when Israel entered the Promised land—and with the prophets it would become the sign of the messiah (Gen. 49:10-11; grain: Matt. 14:13-21; 26:26; Jn. 6:25-59; wine: Jn. 2:1-11; 6:53-59; 18:1-8; Matt. 26:27-29). He also blessed Jacob with headship over all his brothers (plural), which is interesting since Jacob had only one brother. This could look forward to Joseph, who would rule over his brothers, or to Israel as a nation ruling over the surrounding nations who had descended from Abraham.

Everything in the blessing is new compared to the previous blessings in Genesis. Only the “curse and bless” refers back to the Abrahamic promises (Gen. 12:3). The passive participles of “cursed/blessed” instead of “I shall bless/curse” and in reverse order implies multiple enemies, whereas previously Yahweh had emphasized the opposite.^[137] This shows that Isaac was not as familiar with the Abrahamic promises as he should have been.

27:30-36 Esau barely missed Jacob, and, seeing that everything was normal with his father, he began to prepare the meal. Confused, Isaac did not know whom he was talking to. When he realized that he had been deceived, he began to shake violently. The Hebrew word for “trembling” by itself is used of Joseph’s brothers’ fear when they found their grain money back in their sacks (Gen. 42:28) and of the Israelites’ fear when Yahweh met them at Mount Sinai (Ex. 19:16). Here, it is stressed by the adjective “very great.”

Esau responded to Isaac with his own wailing. The hopelessness is emphasized with his begging for a blessing and Isaac’s inability to give him one. As mentioned above, this shows the extent of Isaac’s favoritism in that he wanted to give all the blessing to Esau (not knowing it was Jacob) and leave nothing for Jacob.

Esau changed the pun on Jacob’s name from “guarding the heel” (Gen. 25:26) to “tripping the heel,” giving the name the sense of being “cheated” or “deceived.” However, the precise meaning is unclear, for it occurs only here, in Jer. 9:4, and in Hos. 12:4 as a description of Jacob’s behavior. Technically, Esau had no right to be upset with Jacob, for he had already given up the blessing to Jacob earlier in their lives (Gen. 25:29-34). He also showed that he did not really value the blessing.

27:37-41 Isaac ended up giving Esau a blessing that foreshadows his descendants’ (Edomites) serving Jacob’s descendants (Israelites) until they finally threw off the oppression of Israel. The Edomites would end up settling south of Canaan and the Dead Sea in a mountainous and desolate terrain. The Edomites were repeatedly conquered by Israel and revolted throughout their history. Later, Saul defeated them (1 Sam. 14:47), and David made them his vassals (2 Sam. 8:14). They tried unsuccessfully to revolt under Solomon (1 Kings 9:14) and were subject to Judah until King Joram’s reign, when they rebelled successfully. During Amaziah’s reign, Judah again subjugated them (2 Kings 14:7), and they again achieved independence during Ahaz’s reign (2 Kings 16:6). John Hyrcanus conquered Edom about 129 BC, forcing them to be circumcised and incorporating them into the Jewish nation. Later, through Antipater and Herod, they establish the Idumean dynasty over Judah that lasted until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.^[138]

As a result of this incident, Esau hated Jacob, showing his true nature in his desire to kill his own brother (Gen. 4:8; 1 John 3:12; Jude 1:11). Esau’s desire to please his father led him to wait until his father’s death before taking revenge on Jacob.

27:42-45 Fearing Esau’s wrath, Rebekah told Jacob to go to her brother Laban in Haran to find shelter for a little while until Esau’s anger subsided. However, what she thought would be a little while ended up being twenty years due to the deception of her own brother, to whom she was sending Jacob for protection. Just as she deceived Esau out of the blessing, her brother’s deception would prevent her from seeing her son. Rachel feared losing both her sons in one day. If Esau killed Jacob, then Isaac would be obligated to execute Esau for murder, leading to the death of both sons.

27:46 Rebekah used her dislike for Esau’s wives as an excuse to gain Isaac’s permission for Jacob to go to Haran (Paddan-Aram) to find a wife. Knowing Isaac’s favoritism of Esau, she could not say that Esau wanted to kill Jacob, which would have caused Isaac to defend Esau and explain it away. She appealed to what they agreed upon, their dislike for the Canaanite wives. Nor did she call them Esau’s wives, as this would attach a positive feeling towards them. Rather, she only references them as “the Canaanite daughters.” She also did not tell him what to do but allowed him to make his own decision.

28:1-5 As Abraham before him, Isaac commanded Jacob to go to the house of Bethuel and find a wife because he must not marry among the Canaanites (Gen. 24:3-4). The Aramean women, from whom Jacob would take a wife, had the reputation of embracing their husband’s faith, whereas the Canaanite women, whom Esau had married, would seduce their husbands to join their wicked pagan lifestyle.

The blessing of Isaac in Gen. 27:27-29 is very general and does not refer to Yahweh nor the Abrahamic Covenant. However, the blessing of Isaac in Gen. 28:1-4 specifically mentions the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant and Yahweh as the bearer; in nearly every phrase is found the Abrahamic promises (Gen. 12:2-3, 7; 13:15, 17; 15:7-8, 18; 17:1, 6, 8, 16, 20; 22:17; 24:7) and repeats Isaac’s blessing (Gen. 26:3-4, 24). This may show that Isaac had finally and fully realized that Jacob was to be the true bearer of the covenant and had now taken on the responsibility of his patriarchal duties as representative of the Abrahamic Covenant, fulfilling the prophecy of Gen. 25:23. This account is another demonstration of Yahweh’s ability to use the sins of people to accomplish His purposes while also punishing the sinners for their sins.

The sad irony here is that even though the blessing Jacob had received had given him everything, he now had to flee his home, family, and the fruit of the blessing, leaving with nothing. He would live in a foreign land outside the covenant land and blessing and be financially dependent on and subject to the deceptions of Laban ,with no family to defend his rights.

28:6-9 Esau demonstrated his total ignorance of the Abrahamic Covenant and the feelings of his father by the fact that he just now realized how his father felt about the Canaanite woman he had married. Because he wanted to please his father—and probably hoped for a future blessing—he went to a descendant of Abraham in order to marry a woman who was acceptable to his parents. However, he failed to recognize that Ishmael had been separated from the Abrahamic Covenant, which shows even more how out of touch he was with the religious and spiritual heritage of his family line. He also was also, in order to win Isaac’s favor, marrying the descendant of the man who had mistreated Isaac as a child. In addition, he was adding even more women to his polygamist family.

28:10-15 Jacob’s move eastward and imminent exit of the Promised Land shows that he was moving away from the presence of Yahweh and outside the blessings of the Promised Land. This will be seen by the fact that Laban would be able to cheat him repeatedly in the years to come. The fact that Jacob encountered angels at the border of the Promised Land as he exited and then later returned (Gen. 32:22-32) mirrors the Garden of Eden, the borders of which were guarded by heavenly beings (Gen. 3:24), and shows that Yahweh had chosen the land of Canaan to metaphorically be the new Garden of Eden, where He would dwell with Abram and his descendants as the new Adam and Eve. Yahweh’s desire is to use His chosen people to restore the Garden of Eden and then expand it to the rest of the world.

Jacob, on his own in the wilderness, lay down for the night with a rock for a pillow. The phrase “around his head” may refer to placing the rock around his head for protection, as seen in other passages (1 Sam. 26:11-12; 1 Kgs. 19:6). That night in the wilderness, Jacob had a vision of a stairway to heaven with angels going up and down it. The word “stairway” refers to a stone staircase, like the steps of a ziggurat, rather than a ladder or sloped hill that some have suggested. However, unlike the ziggurat of the pagan religions, humans had not built this one, nor were humans ascending it to become like gods. Rather, angels were the ones ascending and descending, bringing the will and blessings of Yahweh to humanity and taking the prayers of humanity to Yahweh (Heb. 1:14). The ancients viewed the ziggurat as a gateway to heaven, the top being the house of the gods. Here, Yahweh was showing Jacob that it is not humanity who ascends the tower to seize the blessings of Yahweh, but it is Yahweh who descends to bestow His blessings on those whom He chooses. Despite all of Jacob’s efforts and deception, he still had not obtained the blessings of the covenant. Instead, it was Yahweh who was bestowing the blessings upon him out of His own grace. Yahweh came to him instead to give him the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant, despite Jacob’s lack of faith in Yahweh and the deception of his father. Yahweh’s calling Himself “the god of Abraham and Isaac” reminded Jacob that He is the God of the Abrahamic Covenant and the blessings that come with it. Yahweh promised this to Jacob not because Jacob deserved it but because He is a merciful God, honoring His promises to Abraham. Yahweh gave Jacob a glimpse of heaven and showed him that the kingdom of Yahweh was open to him through the Abrahamic Covenant.

28:16-19 Jacob saw this stairway as the true gateway to God and so named the place Bethel, which means “house of God” (Gen. 28:17).^[139] The type of pillar Jacob built and the pouring out of oil on it are associated with the consecrating of cultic items (Ex. 40:9-13; Lev. 8:10-12; Num. 7:1). Jacob may have seen this as a cultic item that contained the divine Spirit of Yahweh and represented Yahweh Himself. This is seen in the fact that Jacob seemed to be connecting the presence of Yahweh too closely with this specific location—naming it the “house of God.” These types of standing stones were forbidden by Yahweh in the Law (Ex. 23:24; 34:13; Deut. 16:21-22; 1 Kgs. 14:23).^[140] Jacob was leaving the land of promise because of his inability to wait on Yahweh for the blessings. This is the same place to which Abraham had come when he entered the land of Canaan and built an altar to Yahweh.

28:20-22 Jacob’s vow of obedience was not in response to who Yahweh is or out of his love for Yahweh; rather, it was a conditional vow—“only if God does this for me will I obey Him.” Once again, Jacob showed that he desired the things of Yahweh but only on his terms. He had missed the point of what Yahweh was teaching him through the vision.

D. The Marriages of Jacob (29:1-30)

In this section, Jacob reaps the consequences of the deception he sowed in Canaan with his brother Esau. Here, he will be deceived by Laban. The irony is that rather than exercising the headship with which he had been blessed, he will become enslaved to Laban in a foreign land. Not only that, but he will also be blinded by his appetite for Rachel rather than seeing Leah as the godlier woman, just as his father had been blinded by his appetite for meat and ignored the will of Yahweh. Yahweh brings Leah to Jacob for him to marry, but because Jacob is ruled by his own lust and desire, he misses Yahweh’s will and pursues Rachael instead. This will lead to many problems within his family for the rest of his life.

29:1-8 After Jacob left his home, he made his way to Haran, to the home of his uncle Laban, in hopes of finding a place to live and work. It was at a well (see note on Gen. 24:10-14) that Jacob encountered Rachel, one of the daughters of Laban. The shepherds pointed Rachel out to Jacob when she arrived. The shepherds explained to Jacob that they do not get water until everyone has arrived. The stone over the well would take more than one man to roll away.

29:9-14 When Jacob saw Rachel, he decided to impress her and removed the stone himself. The Jacob who had stayed in the tents with his mother most of his life and then lost his family was now overjoyed to the point of tears upon seeing a relative. Upon finding out that they were related, Rachel went home to tell her father Laban, who then brought Jacob to his home. Laban’s warm welcome helps show that Yahweh had taken care of him and also sets Jacob up for the unexpected deception that was about to come.

29:15-20 After Jacob had stayed with Laban for a while, working for him to earn his keep, Laban decided that Jacob should be paid for his work. Laban had two daughters: the older was Leah, whose name means “cow,” and the younger was Rachel, whose name means “ewe.” These names would not have been seen as insulting and are fitting of their profession as shepherdesses. Some translations say Leah had “weak” or “dull” eyes, but this is not the best understanding of the Hebrew word raḵ. It should be understood as having “soft” or “tender” eyes, meaning she had appealing eyes—a reference to a tender heart and good character. This fits her character throughout the rest of the story. However, she did not measure up to her incredibly attractive sister, who is described as having a lovely figure. Jacob noticed only the good-looking Rachel and fell in love with her. It is interesting that the text says nothing about Rachel’s interest in Jacob.

Since Jacob had nothing to offer Laban as a dowry for Rachel, he agreed to work seven years for her. This would have been significantly more than most people would have ever offered. Casual workers received between a half and one shekel per month for their pay. This would have totaled between forty-two and eighty-four shekels total for the seven years, which was seen as significantly higher than most people would pay.

Laban agreed to the deal but stated that he would give her to him, not actually specifying who “she” was. According to the Law, single men who became indentured slaves were to be released after six years (Ex. 21:1-6; Deut. 15:12-18), making Jacob’s service a violation of the Law, especially considering the fourteen years total he would work. Yet to Jacob the seven years seemed like nothing because he was so in love with Rachel. Jacob was easily cheated by Laban because Jacob was no longer a part of his family tribe, who would have protected his civil rights in the negotiations with Laban.

29:21-24 At the end of the seven years, Jacob demanded to be given his wife, for whom he had worked for so long. The terseness of his comment to Laban and the absence of any politeness, such as “please,” reveals that their relationship for the last seven years had likely not been on the best of terms. Laban agreed and threw a wedding celebration. Normally, wedding celebrations lasted a week. There would be a ceremony and celebrations on the first day, and the couple would consummate their marriage that night. That would be followed by six more days of celebration. On the first night, however, Laban gave Jacob Leah instead of Rachel. The bride would have been veiled throughout the ceremony, and, after consuming alcohol and entering the tent with his bride at night, Jacob would have been deceived easily. The text never states why Leah went along with the deception, especially since Jacob had never really paid attention to her. Most likely, to go against the will of the father in a patriarchal society would incur punishment and maybe even banishment from the tribe. This shows Laban’s lack of consideration and compassion for his own daughter as he used her to gain a greater profit.

29:25-30 In the morning, Jacob discovered that he had been deceived and went to Laban to complain. Ironically, Jacob ended up being deceived in the same way he had deceived his father. And just as Jacob had put himself before the firstborn, now the firstborn of Laban was being put forth first. Jacob was reaping what he had sown, yet he was focused on the fact that he had been wronged. Laban’s argument was that the younger was never given in marriage before the older. The fact that Jacob did not know of this custom suggests Laban was lying. And if this were true, then why did Laban not mention it seven years ago when Jacob specifically requested Rachel? The concentric structure of Gen. 29:20-30 emphasizes the deception and its consequences.

A Jacob’s payment for his wife (29:20)

   B Consummation of the marriage to Leah by deception (29:21-24)

      C Jacob’s accusation against Laban (29:25)

      C’ Laban’s defense (29:26)

   B’ Consummation of the marriage to Rachel by negotiation (29:27-30a)

A’ Jacob’s payment for his wife (29:30b)

Laban agreed to give Rachel to Jacob for seven more years of service. Jacob was expected to finish out the wedding week with Leah, which would be followed by a wedding week celebration with Rachel, and then he would work seven more years to pay off his debt for Rachel. The Mosaic Law later prohibited marrying two sisters at the same time (Lev. 18:18). Bigamy and polygamy were never Yahweh’s will.

From Leah’s perspective, this would have been incredibly humiliating—having her husband sleep with her, all the while he would have thinking she was her sister; then having him look at her the next morning with shock and disgust and immediately run out on her; then having to sit next to him for a week at her own wedding while he stared at her sister; and then being tossed aside as her sister took her place. It was for this reason Yahweh would have compassion on Leah and allow her to have children (Gen. 29:31).

Throughout this, however, there is also a sense that Yahweh used Laban’s deception to provide Jacob with the godlier wife (Gen. 50:20), though Jacob missed it and plowed on in his lust into polygamy.^[141] In the next chapter, the narrator will develop the godly character of Leah but point out that Rachel would bring idols into the family (Gen. 31:30-32). Now Jacob’s family was going to be torn apart by the sisters’ competition for his love because of his selfish desires. The mention of the servants Zilpah, who was given to Leah (Gen. 29:24), and Bilhah, who was given to Rachel (Gen. 29:29), introduces the characters who would become additional wives of Jacob.

E. The Growth of Jacob’s Family (29:31–33:24)

In this section, Jacob becomes a passive character as his two wives become the focus of the story in the competition to have children. The irony in Jacob’s family was that Leah was able to have children but did not have Jacob’s love, while Rachel had Jacob’s love but was not able to have children. Between this predicament and Jacob’s favoritism, Jacob, his wives, and children quickly grew into a dysfunctional family. The dysfunction grew because of their own selfish desires.

Yet through the dysfunction of the family the narrator subtly highlights the fact that Leah was the godlier of the wives, recording that Leah was using the name Yahweh, while Rachel used ’elohim; this distinction shows their true attitudes and relationship with Him. Yahweh shows favor to Leah by providing her with more children than the other three women combined. The emphasis in this section is on the fact that the family grew because Yahweh blessed them as He said He would through the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:1-3) and to Jacob in the desert (Gen. 28:10-15). The story culminates in the birth of Joseph, which would cause Jacob to return to the Promised Land, with the son who, in the next division in Genesis, would become the savior of the family.

29:31-35 Yahweh enabled Leah to have children, both out of His compassion for her being unloved and because it was Leah from whom he desired the nation of Israel to come. “Yahweh sees” is often used of Yahweh acting on behalf of the weak or oppressed (Gen. 6:5; 7:1; 18:21; 31:12; Ex. 2:25; 4:31). Leah gave birth to her first four sons. The name Reuben means “see, a son,” and the name Simeon means “hearing.” Together, the names emphasize that Yahweh had seen and heard her in His providential care. The meaning of the name Levi is debated, but it sounds like the verb lavah, which means “to join,” with the idea that Jacob would be joined with her. The name Judah means “he [God] will be praised.”

“Jacob had planned to take Rachel as his wife, but God intended him to have Leah. Thus in two major reversals in Jacob’s life, we can begin to see the writer’s theme taking shape. Jacob sought to marry Rachel, but Laban tricked him. Then Jacob sought to build a family through Rachel, but she was barren; and God opened Leah’s womb.”^[142]

The names Leah gave her first three sons express her deep desire to gain the love of her husband. But notice that in all her sons’ births she used the relational name Yahweh and not ’elohim. In contrast to Rachel, who did not use the name Yahweh until the birth of Joseph, this shows that Leah had a more intimate understanding of who Yahweh is than Rachel did. This is emphasized with the birth of Judah, where Leah resigned herself to the fact that Jacob did not love her and then chose to be thankful and praise Yahweh for the numerous children He had given her. After four children, Leah was no longer able to have children. Did she choose to stop, or did Jacob stop sleeping with her? The text does not provide the answer.

30:1-7 Rachel’s reaction to Yahweh’s kindness was jealousy. She demanded that Jacob give her children or else she would die. Rachel’s reaction was more desperate than that of Sarah or Rebekah (Gen. 16:2; 25:21) even though they had gone longer without children than she had. Though polygamist marriages often resulted in dysfunctional families, Jacob’s was by far the most dysfunctional yet. Jacob rebuked Rachel by stating that children are a gift from God and therefore only He could provide children. Rachel shows no evidence of praying to Yahweh. And like Sarah (Gen. 16:2), she appealed to the customs of the time rather than praying and trusting in Yahweh, as her mother-in-law, Rebekah, had. She handed over her maidservant to become Jacob’s wife and provide her with children.

Bilhah gave birth to Dan. Unlike with Sarah and Hagar, there was no conflict between Rachel and her maidservant, for the conflict was already between her and her sister. The name Dan means “he vindicated” or “he judged.” Dan’s name communicates the triumph Rachel felt over her sister rather than her desire to have children or any praise of Yahweh. Though Rachel claimed she had cried out to God, the narrator gave no evidence of this. Notice that Rachel did not use the name Yahweh as Leah had. The name of the second son, Naphtali, means something like “my struggle.” Once again, Rachel expressed her victory over her sister. What victory was she seeing, when she had fewer children than Leah, and those not even of her own body? Did she see Leah in some way as preventing her?

30:8-13 Leah, not able to have children anymore, began to fall into the competition that Rachel had created, and she also gave her maidservant Zilpah to Jacob in marriage to produce another son. The name Gad means “good fortune” and reflects Leah’s feeling that good fortune had come her way. Then Zilpah had a second son. The name Asher means “happy one.”

30:14-16 Rueben was about five years old at this time, and he collected mandrake plants and brought them to his mother. The mandrake plant has roots that can look like a human body and produces yellow plum-size fruit. Mandrakes have a strong, pleasant fragrance and were believed to arouse sexual desire and increase fertility for the conception of children.

When Rachel saw these, she demanded Leah give her some. Rachel shows her desperation in her impolite demand but also reveals that she was trusting in superstitious magic rather than Yahweh for children. Leah expressed her bitterness that Jacob was no longer sleeping with her, which shows how much he was favoring Rachel over her. Rachel’s willingness to give up a night with Jacob in exchange for the mandrakes shows how desperate she was and how much she believed that the mandrakes would make her fertile.

When Jacob came home, Leah declared that he must sleep with her because she had paid for him. Just as Jacob’s relationship with Laban for his daughters seemed to be nothing more than a commercial relationship, the same was happening with his wives. Because Jacob played favorites, he had unintentionally pitted the two sisters against each other as they sought their self-worth. Not only that, but he had now been reduced to a stud to provide children rather than a relational husband. It was in this dysfunctional setting that all the children would be raised.

30:18-21 Yahweh once again allowed Leah to have more children. Yahweh’s provision of children shows that although Rachel and perhaps Leah saw fertility in the mandrakes, it is really Yahweh who provides children (Ps. 113:9). Leah, who gave up the mandrakes, bore three children, while Rachel, who possessed them, remained barren for three more years.

The name Issachar means “man of reward” or possibly “there is reward.” The name Zebulun means “honor.” The meaning of the daughter’s name, Dinah, is unknown and is the only named daughter of Jacob. Counting Dinah, Leah had more children than the three other women combined—and the perfect number of children, seven. This shows Yahweh’s favor toward Leah. It would be through Judah—a son of Leah, not of Rachel—that Yahweh would continue the chosen line leading to Jesus.

30:22-24 “Then Yahweh remembered Rachel” is a turning point in the story. Just as Yahweh remembered Noah (Gen. 8:1), which led to the flood waters receding and the revealing of the land, it was Yahweh’s remembering Rachel that led to her conceiving and Jacob’s return to the Promised Land. The name Joseph means “may he add,” expressing Rachel’s desire for more children. This was the first time Rachel used the name Yahweh—now that she had what she wanted. The birth of Joseph becomes significant to the story as well, for he would be the one who would add grain and life to the family of Jacob. Though Judah would become significant in the long term, it was Joseph who would become the immediate savior of the family in the final division of Genesis.

F. Jacob Flees Laban (30:25–31:55)

What started off as Jacob’s finding safety with Laban for a couple years (Gen. 27:44) has turned into several years of servanthood. With the end of his servanthood and the birth of Joseph to his favorite wife, Jacob now wants to return home. But Laban does not allow this. So, Jacob resorts to his own efforts to free himself. Despite this, Yahweh is with him and blesses Jacob because of His covenant promises.

30:25-30 Joseph’s birth to Rachel initiated Jacob’s desire to return home. Jacob aggressively asked Laban’s permission to take his family and leave. Later, in the Law and the laws of surrounding cultures, if a slave was given a wife by his master, he would be required to leave her and the children behind when he was freed after his six years of service (Ex. 21:3-6). If he wanted to remain with them, he had to remain a slave. If this law was in effect here, then Jacob was asking for more than he was entitled to.

Laban did not want Jacob to leave, though not necessarily because of his daughters; rather, because everything Jacob had done had succeeded and prospered. Laban knew that Jacob had made him wealthy. However, Jacob was prospering because of Yahweh, not due to his own efforts (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; 28:14). Laban cleverly stated that Jacob could name his wages; after that, Laban would pay him and Jacob could leave. Laban owed him nothing but his two daughters, according to their agreement (Gen. 28:18, 27). Therefore, if Jacob wanted to leave with more than Leah and Rachel, which he would need to do in order to survive on their won,then he would have to work longer. Jacob responded by saying that Laban had far more than he would have ever had if Jacob had not been with him all these years. Surely he was entitled to a percentage of the animals since he had prospered Laban so much.

30:31-36 Laban’s question “What should I give you?” does not mean he agreed with Jacob but that he was willing to make a deal with Jacob. Jacob, knowing that Laban would not give him anything, decided to make a proposition. Jacob proposed that all the speckled or spotted sheep, every dark-colored lamb, and the spotted or speckled goats would be his. In a flock, sheep are mostly all white, and goats are mostly all black or brown. Jacob had requested the significantly lower percentage of type of sheep or goat as his wages. The typical wage for a hired shepherd was twenty percent of the flock, and it was very unlikely that the speckled animals would reach such a percentage.^[143] Laban agreed, then he removed all the speckled or spotted sheep, every dark-colored lamb, and the spotted or speckled goats and gave them to his son to make it more difficult for Jacob.

30:37-43 Jacob decided that he would increase the number of his flock through his own devices. He took branches and stripped the bark off them. Then he set the branches in front of the animals’ water troughs. The idea was that when the animals mated, they would be staring at the striped branches, which would cause their offspring to have striped coats. This indicates a belief in a superstitious folk remedy. Jacob did show some understanding of breeding by taking the stronger animals and placing them in front of the striped branches and removing the weaker animals from the striped branches when they bred. He also separated the striped animals from the solid-coat animals so that they would not breed with each other. The success of Jacob’s plan was due ultimately to the grace of Yahweh (Gen. 31:10-12).

31:1-13 Jacob’s brothers-in-law saw Jacob as a threat to their inheritance as his flocks begin to increase in size, and they turned Laban against Jacob. Seeing this, Jacob decided to flee with his family. Jacob and his wives left Laban for two reasons. First, Yahweh had come to Jacob in a dream and told him to leave and go back to his home (Gen. 31:3, 11-13). Second, Laban had mistreated them all for so many years (Gen. 31:6-7, 14-17), and now that they had their own wealth and were free from Laban’s debt, they were free to leave.

Not knowing where his wives stood—with him or their father and brothers—Jacob played up how Laban had wronged him but was careful not to slander their father. Jacob stated how he had been cheated and humiliated by Laban but stayed away from the details of the marriage since that could create tension among him and his wives, focusing instead on the lack of wages and his tending to the flocks.

Three times in these verses Jacob acknowledged Yahweh’s involvement in his life and gave credit to Him for the idea about breeding the flocks and the increase in the size of his flocks. What is interesting, however, is not once did the narrator record Jacob’s seeking, praying to, or acknowledging Yahweh in his life while living with Laban. Had Jacob begun to turn to Yahweh at the end of many years of being cheated by Laban, or was he merely invoking the name of God to give legitimacy to his plight?

31:14-16 Leah and Rachel showed that they had no love for their father and that they were siding with Jacob. What inheritance they felt cheated out of is not clear, since they had each received a slave woman, which would have been significant wealth. They may have been implying that their husband had been enslaved by their father for fourteen years without pay, which had affected them. They also felt cheated by the way Laban had used them to deceive Jacob, merely to gain a profit.

31:17-21 Jacob took his family, fled Laban, and began to move back toward his home in Canaan. Before they left, Rachel stole the household gods that belonged to her father. These gods are called teraphim, sometimes translated as “household gods.” They are small figurines (2 to 3 inches long) and were sometimes carried on the body as charms, many of which archaeologists have discovered. They may have been the images of family ancestors, whom they were expected to honor and consult. Devotion to these teraphim was thought to bring blessing and protection to the family. Rachel may also have hoped they would make her a fruitful mother.^[144]

The fact that Rachel stole these gods shows that she had been synchronizing her faith in Yahweh with her faith in the pagan gods. She took the idols for protection rather than trusting in Yahweh. This also says something about Jacob; it is unlikely that her continued devotion to these pagan gods had gone unnoticed. Either he had overlooked it because he favored her, or she had brought him into the same practices. Either way, he had not acted in the faith that was characteristic of Abraham.

Jacob hid the fact that he was leaving Laban and left in the middle of the night. Since Laban had moved his flocks three days’ journey from Jacob, Laban had unknowingly given Jacob a three-day head start.

31:22-30 Laban pursued Jacob and caught up in seven days. Yahweh appeared to Laban, however, and warned him not to harm Jacob. Yahweh, true to His promises, threatened to curse Laban if he disdained Jacob (Gen. 12:3). On the other hand, Yahweh also told him not to bless Jacob because that was not his right as one outside of the Abrahamic Covenant.

When Laban spoke to Jacob the next morning, his first accusation against Jacob was that he had taken his daughters by force and not let him say goodbye. The hypocrisy and contradiction in Laban’s argument is seen in the fact that he accused Jacob of taking his daughters by the sword as if they were prisoners, while it was he who had held them captive all these years. Likewise, he declared that he would have thrown a party for them, but in the last party he threw for them he used them to gain a profit. The irony here is that Laban accused Jacob of deceiving him, when that was exactly what he had been doing to Jacob. Both men had resorted to selfishness and deceit throughout their lives, and it had ripped their families apart.

Laban shared that he had allowed Jacob to leave only because Yahweh had come to him and warned him not to harm Jacob (Gen. 31:7, 29). Laban had seen over the years the power and protection of Yahweh over Jacob, so now he had obeyed Yahweh because he had come to respect Him as a powerful God.

Laban’s second accusation was that Jacob had stolen his gods, not knowing Jacob had no knowledge of this and that it was really his daughter Rachel he ought to have blamed. Laban seemed to be more concerned about his idols being stolen than about his daughters leaving home.

31:31-35 Jacob did not contest his flight as breach of etiquette but did attack Laban for mistreating him and wanting to steal his wives from him. But then, in his anger, Jacob made a rash vow and swore that whoever had the idols would be put to death. The irony here is that, because of his rashness, he had just sentenced his favorite wife to death were she to be discovered. “It is curious that Rachel, and not Leah, should have almost always turned out to be Jacob’s greatest hindrance in life.”^[145]

The tension built as Laban searched each tent, going into Rachel’s last. But Rachel showed her cleverness by hiding the idols in a bag and sitting on them, then using the excuse that she could not stand because she was on her monthly period. By being on her period, Rachel and everything she was touching had become unclean. Laban would not risk searching under her for fear of becoming unclean himself, which would require a week of purification rituals. So, he looked around her tent and found nothing. Laban looked like the fool because he was unable to prove the only legitimate accusation he had against Jacob.

31:36-42 Now that Laban had no evidence for his own accusation, Jacob laid into him with his own complaints about how Laban had been mistreating him all these years but that he had nevertheless worked hard for him, and Laban’s flocks were blessed as a result. In fact, Jacob declared that the more he thought about it, the more he realized that Laban had been stealing from him. Jacob acknowledged that Yahweh was the only reason Laban had not cheated him completely.

31:43-55 Laban showed that he did not hear anything Jacob had said, still claiming that everything Jacob had belonged to him. Laban’s entitlement went so far as to claim Leah and Rachel as his own, ignoring the fact that he had given them to Jacob as wages for fourteen years of service.

Laban wanted to make a Mizpah treaty, swearing that neither would trespass the pillar of stones that they would set up between them, lest they be killed by the other. Basically, this treaty stated, “We will live in peace as long as you stay on your side.” The Mizpah treaty was not a promise between friends but a warning between men who did not trust each other. To keep each other true to the terms of the covenant they had just made, Laban, as a polytheist, called upon the gods of Nahor, and Jacob, as a descendant of Abraham, called upon Yahweh. Laban also expected that Jacob would not take other wives in addition to his daughters.

G. Jacob and Esau Are Reconciled (32:1–33:20)

Jacob had now hit rock bottom. A broken relationship with Laban behind him and a broken relationship with Esau ahead of him, Jacob has nowhere to turn. For the first time, he truly turns to Yahweh. Yahweh would now show Jacob who He really is, reconciling Jacob and Esau despite what they had both done to each other in the past.

It is clear throughout Genesis 28–31 that Jacob has shown very little, if any, faith in Yahweh. Never during this time had he ever gone to or acknowledged Yahweh in his life. The only time Jacob even made note of Yahweh was when Yahweh came to him. Jacob showed no evidence of a relationship with Yahweh and may even have been involved in pagan idolatry. Yet it is also clear that despite this, Yahweh, in His grace and faithfulness to the Abrahamic Covenant, had protected and blessed Jacob in his life.

32:1-2 The angels of Yahweh appeared to Jacob on his way back to Canaan to assure him that Yahweh was with him and protecting him. The name Mahanaim apparently means “two camps” or “double host.” Perhaps the two camps were those of Yahweh and of Jacob. Jacob had encountered angels when he left the land of Canaan (Gen. 28:11-22), and now he saw them again as he returned to the Promised land.

“The events of this chapter are couched between two accounts of Jacob’s encounter with angels (vv. 1, 25). The effect of these two brief pictures of Jacob’s meeting with angels on his return to the land is to align the present narrative with the similar picture of the Promised land in the early chapters of Genesis. The land was guarded on its borders by angels. The same picture was suggested early in the Book of Genesis when Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden and ‘cherubim’ were positioned on the east of the garden to guard the way to the tree of life. It can hardly be accidental that as Jacob returned from the east, he was met by angels at the border of the Promised Land.”^[146]

32:3-8 Jacob sent messengers ahead to meet Esau with the intent of letting Esau know that he was on his way back home. The messengers’ return was not comforting, for they did not bring a message back from Esau but reported only that Esau was coming and with an army. Was Esau coming to wage war or to receive his brother as if he were royalty? Jacob became afraid and divided his people into two camps so that if one got attacked, the other could get away. Jacob was trying to protect himself—his standard response to trouble. Despite Yahweh sending his angels, Jacob was still filled with fear.

32:9-12 For the first time in his life, having no home, fearing Esau, and having nowhere to turn, Jacob called out to Yahweh for help. Jacob’s prayer (his first recorded in the Bible) reflects his fear and need for Yahweh’s help, as well as his own humility. In his prayer, he reminded Yahweh of His covenant. If Yahweh let him and his family die, then He would not have honored the promises of His covenant. Surprisingly, Jacob also confessed his unworthiness and lack of any claim upon Yahweh’s favor. What is also interesting is that although he had done nothing to grow his relationship with Yahweh, he now claimed the promises that Yahweh had made him fourteen years ago (Gen. 28:13-15).

32:13-21 Though Jacob hoped for Yahweh’s help, he still tried to do what he could to appease Esau’s anger. His hope was to pay Esau off with a large portion of his blessing, which he figured Esau would claim. What is also seen here is the tremendous blessing of Yahweh, for when he first left Canaan Jacob had nothing, but now he had been blessed by Yahweh with tremendous wealth.

32:22-32 Jacob sent his family away to cross the Jabbok. The Jabbok was probably just a few miles east of the Jordan Valley. It joins the Jordan River about midway between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea. There is a play on words with the Hebrew word vayye’aveq, which means “struggled” and sounds like the Hebrew names ya’aqov (Jacob) and Yabboq (Jabbok). The account here is strange and obscure, raising more questions than it answers.

That night an angel appeared to Jacob representing Yahweh, and Jacob wrestled him throughout the night. The narrator called the opponent “a man,” reflecting Jacob’s perspective at the beginning of the encounter. Later in the struggle, Jacob realized the angel’s true identity. The fact that it was night means Jacob would not have known who his opponent was. He most likely would not have wrestled him if he had known who he was. The statement that the angel saw that he could not defeat Jacob is odd and certainly not factual. That the angel simply touched Jacob’s hipbone to dislocate it shows his superior strength and power over Jacob.

The point here is not that Jacob was somehow able to “overcome” the angel (Hos. 12:4) but that Jacob demonstrated his desire to have the blessings of Yahweh. Yahweh was also using the experience to demonstrate how Jacob kept trying to wrestle Yahweh for the blessings that Yahweh was eager to give him. Jacob had always tried to live life without Yahweh, so to make Jacob dependent upon Him, Yahweh popped his hipbone out of its socket. His physical handicap would remind him of his dependency upon Yahweh.

The angel knew Jacob’s name but forced him to confess it, which would be a confession of his true character. It was then that the angel gave him a new name, emphasizing the new man he was becoming and was to be. The name Israel means “God fights.” The point was that Jacob did not need to fight and deceive to get what he wanted; Yahweh would be his provider. This is emphasized by the dislocated hipbone. This new name was both a promise and a call for faith. Throughout Israel’s history, Yahweh forbid Israel to have their own horses and chariots because He was to be their horses and chariots (Deut. 17:14-16; 2 Kgs. 6:15-19). The battles of Israel in the Bible were not won with their armies but with Yahweh using His creation (nature) to defeat the enemy.

“It was when Jacob was alone, having done everything he could to secure his own safety, that God came to him (v. 24). The ‘man’ was the Angel of the Lord (vv. 28-30). Note that God took the initiative in wrestling with Jacob, not vice versa. God was bringing Jacob to the end of himself. He was leading him to a settled conviction that God was superior to him and that he must submit to God’s leadership in his life (cf. Rom. 12:1-2).”^[147]

“The name Israel denoted a spiritual state determined by faith; and in Jacob’s life the natural state, determined by flesh and blood, still continued to stand side by side with this. Jacob’s new name was transmitted to his descendants, however, who were called Israel as the covenant nation. For as the blessing of their forefather’s conflict came down to them as a spiritual inheritance, so did they also enter upon the duty of preserving this inheritance by continuing in a similar conflict.”^[148]

The reason the angel did not want to stay past dawn or give his name is unknown. Perhaps it is because no human can see the face of Yahweh and live (Ex. 33:20). Despite this, Jacob named the place Peniel, which means “face of God.” Either Jacob truly believed he had seen God, or it is figurative for how much of Yahweh’s character had been revealed to him. The phrase “face to face” is used in the Bible only of God-human relationships (Ex. 33:11). The Hebrews’ refraining from eating the sinew that is attached to the socket of an animal’s hip reminds them of who they are and of their dependency upon Yahweh.

33:1-2 Jacob still showed his favoritism for Rachel by the way he divided his people. Jacob placed Rachel and Joseph in the rear of the camp where they would be safe. In contrast, he put Leah and her children in the front. If Esau did attack, Leah’s family would die first, giving Rachel’s family a chance to run away.

33:3-17 The next day, Jacob met Esau and bowed down before him. This was backwards from what was supposed to happen according to the blessing of Isaac (Gen. 27:27-29). The blessing was not being fulfilled, for Jacob had not been trusting Yahweh for its fulfillment. Despite this, Yahweh was still taking care of Jacob by having brought Esau to a place of forgiveness over the years of their separation. Yahweh had stayed with Esau throughout the years, blessing him and softening his heart just as much as He had with Jacob. Jacob had done nothing to affect the situation in his favor. The fact that Yahweh had chosen Jacob to carry the covenant did not mean He had forsaken Esau in a relationship.

33:18-20 On the one hand, Jacob showed that he was more in tune now with Yahweh’s covenant will and involvement in his life by having moved his family into the land of Canaan and erecting an altar to Yahweh. By naming the altar “the God of Israel is God,” Jacob worshiped Yahweh as he said he would and used his new name (Israel)—the identity that Yahweh had given him—acknowledging that he was now on a new path. This was the first time Jacob initiated the building of an altar and worshiped Yahweh without Yahweh’s having to come to him first.

However, he also set up camp near Shechem, a Canaanite city, which is reminiscent of Lot’s choice to live near Sodom (Gen. 13:12). Jacob had promised Yahweh that he would return to Bethel to live, which would have been more appropriate, being a location removed from all other Canaanite cities (Gen. 38:18). Though the story seems to have ended well with the reconciliation of the two brothers, the mention of Shechem hints that not all was well in the land.

H. Dinah and the Hivites (34:1-31)

In this section, the narrator shows how Jacob’s favoritism had destroyed his relationship not only with his wives but also with his children. As a result, their morality had been compromised, seen in Dinah’s willingness to hang out with the Canaanites and the sons’ willingness to kill all the men of a city out of vengeance. This story also sets up the story of Joseph, showing how he was despised by his brothers because of their father’s favoritism.

34:1 Dinah is introduced as the daughter of Leah, the unloved wife of Jacob. The implication is that Dinah was also unloved, which would explain Jacob’s mild reaction to her violation later in the story. Dinah’s being unloved by her father may also explain why she was rebellious and went out to meet the women of the land. The reference to the “women of the land” is a reference to the Canaanite women, who were repulsive to Abraham, Isaac, and Rebekah (Gen. 24:3, 37; 27:46; 28:1, 6, 8), but here, Dinah was going to join them. Furthermore, she went alone, which is extremely unwise in this culture. Girls of a marriageable age would not leave a rural encampment to go unchaperoned to a foreign city. This reveals Dinah’s character, in that she preferred the Canaanite culture to her family and, like Lot, moved toward the city.

34:2-4 Shechem was the son of Hamor, who was the ruler over a Hivite city. The Hivites were a sub-group of the Canaanites. The repetitive references to Shechem’s violation of Dinah communicates the intensity of the violation. Yet afterward he loved her and spoke tenderly to her, which shows that he really did want to marry her. When he went to his father, he demanded that his father get her as his wife. He did not say please, and he called her a child, not even using her name, presenting him as harsh and demeaning of Dinah.

34:5 Jacob’s lack of emotions upon hearing about the violation is somewhat shocking, considering how emotional he had been at other times (Gen. 29:11, 18; 32:7; 33:4; 37:34-35). He did not even see it as important enough to inform the family right away. His apathy is made even more evident when set alongside the anger of the brothers upon hearing about Dinah’s violation.

34:6-7 In contrast, Jacob’s sons were rightfully indignant and outraged by the violation. Unlike Jacob, the sons saw it as a violation of Israel as well. Why had Jacob not responded in the same way? The sons and the narrator come together in the statement that “such a crime should not be committed.” This is the first time that the name Israel has been used of the chosen people of Yahweh. The fact that it is used in the phrase “Shechem had disgraced Israel” shows that Shechem’s violation was not just against Dinah but also against the chosen people of Yahweh (Gen. 12:1-3).

34:8-12 Shechem’s father Hamor came to negotiate the marriage of Dinah with his son. Hamor showed how willing he was to make this happen by offering to become one people group through multiple intermarriages. He argued that it would be economically beneficial to Jacob’s family because they would have free reign of the land. Shechem then declared that he would offer anything the sons asked for. However, this intermarriage was forbidden by Yahweh, later stated in the Law (Deut. 7:3).

34:13-17 The sons immediately started the negotiations with the intention to deceive Hamor and Shechem. They did not require money as much as they required that every male of the Hivites to become circumcised. Though this is what Yahweh required of those who would choose to join Israel, this was not the way it was to be done. The narrator reveals in Gen. 34:17, 26 that Dinah had not been returned to Jacob and was being held in the city, mostly likely against her will. This reveals the desperation of the brothers, as Hamor and Shechem had leverage over them. This was not a legitimate negotiation, therefore, as the brothers feared what might happen to their sister if they did not respond in a way that Hamor and Shechem approved. Their deception becomes somewhat understandable considering this fact.

Circumcision was the sign of Yahweh’s covenant relationship with His people and of His promises to bless them and use them as a blessing to others in the world. Jacob’s sons used it to insincerely invite the Shechemites into that covenant just so they could slaughter them. This is like using the gospel of the cross to invite people into church just to slaughter them once inside. Simeon and Levi were truly ungodly and wicked.

34:18-24 The fact that Hamor agreed to this condition shows how much he wanted to please his son and make the marriage happen. The fact that the entire city agreed to the condition shows the power and influence that Hamor had over the city.

34:25-29 Three days later, while the Hivites were still crippled with post-circumcision pain, Simeon and Levi entered the city and slaughtered every male. Simeon and Levi were the second- and third-born sons of Jacob and full brothers of Dinah.

“[The Hivites] have largely brought down that violence on themselves by seeking to impose their will on Jacob’s family. With Dinah in Shechem’s hands, the option of polite declining is closed to her guardians. And once the brothers refused to submit to the Hivite version of a shotgun wedding, they were left no avenue to the retrieval of their sister except force. Hence also the need for “deceit.” Considering the numerical superiority of the troops behind the ‘prince of the land’—‘two of Jacob’s sons’ faced whole city—no wonder the brothers resorted to trickery to make odds even. And the order of presentation supports the reading of the slaughter as an act enforced and purposive rather than expressing blind fury. First comes the attack on the townsmen, next the killing of Hamor and Shechem, and only then the extrication of Dinah: to rescue their sister in this orderly movement implies they had to deal with all possible resistance, let alone future retaliation.”^[149]

If they had killed only Shechem and maybe even Hamor, their actions could be seen as justice. However, they slaughtered every male and plundered the city, also taking the women and children as slaves. This certainly was not being a blessing to the world (Gen. 12:1-3). The brothers were right in their desire for justice; however, they were wrong in the way they went about it. Yahweh had said He would curse those who cursed Abraham’s descendants (Gen. 12:3). Rather than trusting Yahweh for vengeance, they took matters into their own hands, just as their father Jacob had so many times before. From their first act of deception to their getting carried away in the killing and looting of the Hivites, they showed themselves to be lacking self-control.

What makes their actions even more grievous is that they used circumcision—the sign of Yahweh’s covenant blessings with His chosen people (Gen. 17:1-14)—to deceive and murder the Hivites. What was supposed to be a sign of bringing people into the blessings of Yahweh was used instead to take people’s very lives and destroy many others. They showed their disregard not only for others’ lives and for justice but also for the covenant relationship of Yahweh.

34:30-31 Unlike with Dinah’s violation, Jacob became very angry with his sons over what they had done. Unfortunately, he was angrier over his tarnished reputation than over the unrighteous acts of his sons. Jacob was more concerned with how he would look among the other people groups and how they would treat him as a result. This shows that he was not trusting Yahweh to protect him and was not as concerned about morality as one would expect him to be. The sons’ response was bitterness toward their father because he did not get angry or seem to care when Dinah was violated. They viewed him as treating her as a prostitute since he was willing to give her in marriage to Shechem for a dowry. Still, despite his anger with them, he did not discipline them in any way. Many years later, Jacob judged them for their actions (Gen. 49:5-7).

This story reveals the immoral and dysfunctional nature of Jacob’s family. The narrator also reveals the deep rift between Jacob and his sons due to his favoritism of Rachel over Leah and her children. Jacob had failed to be a blessing to his own family, and thus he had failed to be a blessing to the world (Gen. 12:1-3).

I. Israel Fulfills His Vow (35:1–37:1)

This final section brings a close to the story of Jacob. About ten years have passed since Jacob returned from Paddan-Aram, and he still has not returned to Bethel to fulfill his vow there (Gen. 28:20-22). Yahweh appears to Jacob and commands him to fulfill his vow. This section shows, for the first time, Jacob’s renewing his life and family to Yahweh and actually pursuing Yahweh in a relationship. Perhaps it was his daughter’s desire to hang out with the Canaanites or the vile sin of his sons against the Hivites that woke him up to the dysfunctional nature of his family and the need to get right with Yahweh and pursue obedience. After many years pursuing his own path, Jacob’s story ends on a positive note of his rededication to Yahweh.

35:1-7 Yahweh came to Jacob and commanded him to go to Bethel, which Jacob had promised he would do. This is the first time a patriarch has been directly commanded to build an altar. The language makes a comparison of this to Yahweh’s command to Abraham to offer his son as a burnt offering (Gen. 22:2). Though this test was not as extreme, it may have been difficult for Jacob to complete because of his fear of what the Canaanites would do to him (Gen. 34:30). Like Abraham, Jacob immediately responded by having all the pagan gods in his family buried and having his family cleansed and their clothes changed. The rings they removed may have been part of the loot they had obtained from the Hivite slaughter or have been associated in some way with the pagan gods (Num. 31:48-54). Jacob’s call for them to rid themselves of their gods shows that he had been aware of them the whole time. Burying the gods signified that the gods were now dead to the family and pointed to their desire for renewed devotion to Yahweh (Jos. 24:14, 23-24; Judg. 10:16; 1 Sam. 7:3-4). Yahweh responded by placing fear in the hearts of those who surrounded Jacob; He was honoring His promise of protection.

35:8 This is the first time Rebekah is said to have a maidservant. What is odd is that the maidservant’s death is mentioned, but Rebekah’s was not. Perhaps the reader is to assume that she died while Jacob was in Haran with Laban. Perhaps she is not mentioned because her death happened while Jacob was away.

35:9-15 By reaffirming Jacob’s name change to Israel, Yahweh was reminding Jacob of the new life to which He had called him. It is as though Yahweh was erasing or cleansing Jacob and his family from the events at the Hivite city and their failure to move to Bethel, and He was starting all over with them. Yahweh’s constant pursuit as well as forgiveness are seen yet again. The blessing of Yahweh here echoes His blessing in Gen. 17 and Gen. 28:3-4.

“The importance of God’s words to Jacob in vv. 11-12 cannot be overemphasized. First, God’s words ‘be fruitful and increase in number’ recalled clearly the primeval blessing of Creation (1:28) and hence showed God to be still ‘at work’ in bringing about the blessing to all mankind through Jacob. Second, for the first time since 17:16 (‘kings of peoples will come from her’), the mention is made of royalty (‘kings,’ v. 11) in the promised line. Third, the promise of the land, first given to Abraham and then to Isaac, was renewed here with Jacob (v. 12). Thus within these brief words several major themes of the book have come together. The primeval blessing of mankind was renewed through the promise of a royal offspring and the gift of the land.”^[150]

35:16-20 Jacob was not disobedient to Yahweh in leaving Bethel. Yahweh’s instructions to go to Bethel and “live there” were evidently directions to dwell there while he fulfilled his vow. Yahweh did not command permanent residence there.

Rachel’s death during childbirth, though tragic, would not have been shocking since it was not uncommon in ancient times for women to die during childbirth. Because of her agony, she named her son Ben-oni, meaning “son of my pain.” Jacob renamed him Benjamin, which means “son of my right hand.” The right hand of the patriarch or king was seen as the hand of authority, and to sit there indicated a position of power and even inheriting the headship. Jacob’s naming him this gave Benjamin great authority and prominence in the family. This is especially interesting since he was the last born but was also from Rachel. This would continue to drive a rift between the sons of Leah and the sons of Rachel.

35:21-22 It is after the birth of Benjamin and the death of Rachel that Reuben slept with Bilhah, the maidservant of Rachel and concubine of Jacob. Reuben’s act of sleeping with his father’s concubine would have been seen as an attempt to seize power from his father. In the ancient Near East, when a king died, the son would sleep with his father’s wives to secure the throne for himself. Likewise, a man who wanted to assert his superiority over another man or father might do so by having sexual relations with that man’s wife or concubine while he was still alive (2 Sam. 3:7-8; 16:21-22). Ancient Near Easterners regarded this act of physical domination as evidence of personal domination. Perhaps what caused Reuben, the firstborn child, to do this was the significance of Jacob’s naming of Benjamin. Maybe he was also trying to prevent Bilhah from succeeding Rachel as Jacob’s favorite wife. Not only would this have been a challenge to his father’s authority, but it was also an immoral act (Gen. 19:33-38; Lev. 18:8; Deut. 22:30; 2 Sam. 16:21-22; 1 Kgs. 2:13-25) and punishable by death (Lev. 20:11). Jacob once again showed himself as a passive father when he heard of it and did nothing. Was Jacob indifferent to Reuben’s abuse of Bilhah like he was to Dinah? Or did he care but was incapable of exercising authority over his sons? He would deal with Reuben, however, at the end of his life, when he gave the blessings to his sons (Gen. 49:2-4).

35:23-26 Now that Benjamin had been born, the complete list of Jacob’s sons is recorded, according to their four mothers. These sons would become the fathers of the twelve tribes of Israel (Jacob), which Yahweh would one day bring out of Egypt and make into a great nation, fulfilling the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant.

35:27-29 Jacob returned to his father’s inheritance. Jacob presumably visited Isaac in Hebron on various occasions following his return from Paddan-aram. However, on this occasion he moved his family to his father’s encampment and evidently remained there as Isaac’s heir.

“The end of the Jacob narrative is marked by the death of his father, Isaac. The purpose of this notice is not simply to record Isaac’s death but rather to show the complete fulfillment of God’s promise to Jacob (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.”^[151]

36:1-43 These verses form the ninth toledot about Esau’s genealogy. This genealogy first shows Yahweh’s faithfulness in multiplying Abraham’s seed as He had promised, even if they were not from the chosen line of Isaac and then Jacob. Second, it shows that Esau, like Lot and Ishmael, had chosen to reject the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant and live outside the land of promise and blessings. Third, the lengthy record of Esau’s descendants also presents the hope that he may be reconciled back into Jacob as one nation just as they were reconciled relationally in Genesis 33. Even though Paul used Jacob and Esau as an example of Yahweh’s sovereignty to choose whom He will, Paul did look forward to the day in which those who previously rejected the gospel would find mercy (Rom. 11:25-32), and Rev. 7:9 sees a countless number of believers from every nation and tribe standing before the throne of Yahweh. Fourth, the genealogy also serves to provide connections with the descendants of Esau referred to later in the history of Israel.

IV. The Life of Jacob’s Family (37:2–50:26)

This division begins the tenth and final toledot. Although it says it is “the account of Jacob,” it is really the narrative of all the sons of Jacob. Though the story focuses on Joseph’s life, it is not the main idea being developed. The main point is Yahweh’s provision for the family of Abraham as He promised (Gen. 12:1-3). Yahweh uses Joseph and Judah to accomplish this task. Likewise, Reuben, Simeon, and Benjamin also become major characters in the family history of Jacob. The fact that the Joseph story ends in Genesis 47 shows that Joseph was not the focus. The book ends with Jacob’s blessing all his sons, which would become foundational in the establishment of the tribes of Israel and the redemption that Yahweh would unfold for them.

The story of Joseph centers on the conflict around Yahweh’s promise to Joseph that he would be ruler one day in order to save the Abrahamic line (Gen. 37:5-11). From that point on, many conflicts in Joseph’s life threaten the fulfillment of that promise. The story reaches its climax when Joseph is thrown into prison and then forgotten by the cupbearer for two years (Gen. 40:23). It finds its resolution when Yahweh lifts Joseph out of prison to interpret the dreams of Pharaoh and he is made ruler, where he begins to save the land of Egypt and Canaan from the famine (Gen. 41). The story concludes when Joseph is reconciled to his brothers and brings them to Egypt, whereby the Abrahamic line is saved (Gen. 42–26). The concentric parallel emphasizes the reconciliation of Joseph with his brothers.

A Introduction: Beginning of Joseph story (37:2-11)

   B Jacob mourns “death” of Joseph (37:12-36)

      C Interlude: Judah signified as leader (38:1-30)

         D Joseph’s enslavement in Egypt (39:1-23)

            E Joseph savior of Egypt through favor at Pharaoh’s court (40:1-41:57)

               F Journey of brothers to Egypt (42:1-43:34)

                  G Brothers pass Joseph’s test of love for brother (44:1-34)

                  G’ Joseph gives up his power over brothers (45:1-28)

               F’ Migration of family to Egypt (46:1-27)

            E’ Joseph savior of family through favor at Pharaoh’s court (46:28-47:12)

         D’ Joseph’s enslaving of Egyptians (47:13-31)

      C’ Interlude: Judah blessed as ruler (48:1-49:28)

      B’ Joseph mourns death of Jacob (49:29-50:14)

A’ Conclusion: End of Joseph story (50:15-26)

The stories of the patriarchs find their conclusion in Jacob’s blessing of his sons, who become the twelve tribes of Israel (Gen. 48–49), safe in Egypt just as Yahweh had promised (Gen. 15:12-16). As Judah and Joseph were the focus of the story, so they are also the focus of the blessings of Jacob. Judah was not the firstborn son but the fourth (Gen. 35:23), yet he had now become the firstborn by title due to the sins of his older brothers—Reuben’s sexual sin (Gen. 35:22; 49:3-4) and Simeon and Levi’s act of violence (Gen. 34:30; 49:5-7). However, Jacob would favor Joseph as his firstborn son of Rachel, and his favor was symbolized in a special coat that he bestowed upon Joseph.

“Just as Abraham had two sons and only one was the son of promise, and just as Isaac had two sons and only one was the son of the blessing, so now Jacob, though he has twelve sons, has two wives (Leah and Rachel); and each has a son (Judah and Joseph) that can rightfully contend for the blessing. In the narratives that follow, the writer holds both sons, Joseph and Judah, before the readers as rightful heirs of the promise. As the Jacob narratives have already anticipated, in the end it was Judah, the son of Leah, not Joseph, the son of Rachel, that gained the blessing (49:8-12).”^[152]

The story of Jacob’s family (Gen. 37–50) is the most continuous story (not episodic at all) in Genesis and emphasizes the human condition more than any other division in Genesis. Joseph is the dominant character, surpassing Yahweh in character development, yet he is also the most enigmatic character of Genesis. Yahweh never appears to anyone in the story; He communicates three times through dreams (Gen. 37:5-9; 40:8-11, 16-17; 41:1-7) and speaks only one time (Gen. 46:3-4). Compared to Gen. 1–11, the divine omnipresence and morally unambiguous Yahweh is replaced with divine reticence and human ambivalence in Gen. 37–50.

The Joseph story plays an important role within the whole story of the Torah. First, it links the history of the patriarchs with their settlement in Egypt. It explains how the patriarchs, who were living in the land of Canaan, came to be living in Egypt at the beginning of the book of Exodus. Second, it begins to unfold the theme, seen throughout the Torah, of partial fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises. Abraham was promised the land of Canaan and that he would become a great nation (Gen. 12:1-3), but by the end of Genesis, he still had neither. This is how each book in the Torah ends. Third, the fact that Joseph as a Hebrew slave could rise to power in Egypt is spectacular proof of Yahweh’s divine overruling and providence in the life of Israel as He promised (Gen. 12:1-3). The narrator’s repetition of the phrase “Yahweh was with Joseph” (Gen. 39:2, 3, 21, 29) points to this fact and to the true nature of Yahweh and the meaning of His name. Fourth, Joseph’s rise to power and salvation for the Near Eastern world from the famine is the closest the patriarchs have come to being a blessing to the whole earth (Gen. 12:1-3). At the peak of Joseph’s power, the narrator gives a glimpse of what is intended for the role of Israel over all the nations—that Israel would be a blessing to them.^[153]

A. Joseph Rejected by His Brothers (37:2-36)

In this section, the narrator reveals the full extent of the dysfunction in Jacob’s family. As the tension in the family increased—to the point that Jacob’s sons sought to kill their own brother and then sell him into slavery—one wonders how this could ever be the family of Abraham and the people whom Yahweh had chosen to be a blessing to the whole world (Gen. 12:3). Yet Joseph’s dreams reveal that Yahweh was at work in the family, and despite the brothers’ desire to kill Joseph, he ended up surviving in the house of Potiphar in Egypt. The dreams also point to the fact that Yahweh was going to use Joseph in some way to be a blessing to the world, this being the purpose of the Abrahamic Covenant.

37:2 Joseph was seventeen years old, and he was shepherding the flocks with his brothers. What is interesting is that the text mentions only his brothers who belong to Zilpah and Bilhah. Joseph brought back to their father a bad report of his brothers. The Hebrew word for “tales” or “report” is always used in a negative sense of an untrue report, and here it is qualified by the adjective “evil” (Num. 13:32; 14:36-37).^[154] However, some scholars have suggested that the story has the feel of wisdom literature in that Joseph is presented in a good light though not perfect. He was faithful to his father in the little things by doing what was right even if it did not make him popular. Therefore, Yahweh would give him authority over greater things. Though one might see Joseph as a spoiled brat in Genesis 37, it is unlikely that he would have become such a godly and responsible caretaker in just a couple of years by Genesis 39.

37:3-4 Since Joseph was the son of Rachel, Jacob’s love and favoritism had transferred to Joseph, which excluded Joseph from the love of his brothers through no fault of his own. Jacob displayed this favoritism by giving Joseph a tunic, which he did not give to any of his other sons. It is not clear what this tunic was like because the meaning of the Hebrew word that describes it is uncertain. The idea that it was a coat of many colors comes from the Greek translation of the First Testament (the Septuagint). The term for the coat is used only one other time, in 2 Sam. 13:18-19, as the robe of a princess, which communicates royalty and authority. Some scholars connect the word to an Akkadian term meaning a long-sleeved or richly ornamented robe. Whatever it was, it singled Joseph out as special and maybe even as having more authority over the tribe than his brothers. The brothers’ hatred is emphasized by repeating the phrase “they hated him” three times (Gen. 37:4, 5, 8).

Joseph, as one of the youngest in the family, was seventeen years old, making Reuben the oldest—at least thirty-one years old—and all the other brothers somewhere in between. These men are to be seen not as a bunch of children who don’t like each other but as grown men who hated their brother, who in that culture was also considered a grown man.

Here, the narrator refers to Jacob as Israel. The reason behind the narrator’s choosing to use Jacob or Israel is not always clear, though there do seem to be some indicators. First, Jacob is used more frequently than Israel since that is his name. Second, the name Jacob always refers to the individual, while the name Israel can be used of the individual or the people (Gen. 46:8; 47:27; 48:20). Third, when the name Israel is used of the individual, it alludes to his position as patriarch over the tribe. The name Jacob seems to be used of him when he is demonstrating a weakness in his character (Gen. 37:34; 42:4, 36; 47:9), while the name Israel is used when his character is godlier (Gen. 45:28; 48:2). Fourth, in the scenes where Joseph is present, Israel is used (Gen. 37:3, 13; 46:29, 30; 48:2, 8, 11, 14, 20, 21; 50:2).^[155]

37:5-11 Joseph had two dreams, which become the whole basis for the conflict that drives the Joseph story. When he told his brothers, they hated him even more because of the nature of the dreams. The first dream was of the brothers’ sheaves of grain bowing down to Joseph’s sheaf of grain. The second dream was of the sun (Jacob), the moon (Leah), and eleven stars (eleven brothers) all bowing down to him. In the ancient Near East, dreams were a common means of divine communication and prediction. They believed that sleep put one in direct contact with the other world, where both the dead and the gods dwelt. Therefore, dreams were a gift from the gods.^[156] While the later dreams in this story were interpreted with Yahweh’s help (Gen. 40:8; 41:16, 25, 28), there is no mention of Joseph’s dreams coming from Yahweh or of His giving the meaning here. Yet as the story continues to develop, it is clear that these dreams came from Yahweh. The meanings of these dreams are understood clearly by the family (Gen. 37:8, 10). What is interesting is that it was the brothers and Jacob, not Joseph, who interpreted the dreams here. An isolated dream can be misinterpreted, but two dreams with the same meaning confirm the interpretation (Gen. 41:25). Similarly, the significance of two dreams (versus an isolated dream) shows that it is firmly decided by Yahweh and will come quickly.

“This revelation at the beginning of the story shows God as the Director behind the entire account. This is the first dream in the Bible in which Yahweh does not speak (cf. 20:3; 28:12-15; 31:11, 24). It forms a transition in the dominant means of God’s revelation from theophany in Genesis 1–11, to dreams and visions in Genesis 12–35, and now to providence in Genesis 36-50. These three stages resemble the three parts of TaNaK (i.e., the OT). In the Torah (‘Law’), God speaks to Moses in theophany; in the Nebiim (‘Prophets’), he speaks in dreams and visions; and in the Ketubim (‘Writings’), he works mostly through providence.”^[157]

Joseph told his family his dreams either out of arrogance or out of innocence. Arrogance could be seen in the fact that some see him as already spoiled by his father, thus he told them about a dream that was obviously about his rulership in order to lord it over them. The fact that he told them again after seeing their reaction the first time might emphasize this all the more. Innocence could be seen by his overall character throughout the story since nothing bad is ever mentioned about him. He could have told them to show that Yahweh had chosen him, causing them to be more willing to accept him. Knowing his good character with Potiphar, which is seen in the same general timeframe as his receiving the dream, it seems unlikely that he would be displaying a character of arrogance with his brothers. His second recounting being specifically to his father might also show his innocence since it is very unlikely that he would show such arrogance to the patriarchal figure, especially the one who favored him. Being the man of Yahweh he is portrayed as throughout the story, he probably told the dreams to his family because he really believed they were from Yahweh, so that would simply have been the natural thing to do. Notice that even though Jacob rebuked Joseph publicly, he could not help but ponder the significance of the dreams.

37:12-17 This time when the brothers went out into the fields, Joseph did not go with them, much like Jacob who stayed at home with his mother when he was growing up. The specific mention of the brothers being near Shechem should automatically arouse suspicion in the reader. Perhaps Jacob, recalling his sons’ previous encounter with the Shechemites (Gen. 34), did not trust them to act righteously. His sending of Joseph shows not only his trust in Joseph but also his ignorance of the danger into which he was sending Joseph since he would be alone with his brothers far from home. Jacob was so worried about the threat from the Canaanites but was oblivious to the threat from within his family. Shechem was 30 miles north of Hebron, but upon discovering that his brothers were not there, Joseph traveled another 14 miles to Dothan. Though it was common for shepherds to lead their flocks many miles from home in search of fields to graze, the distance increases the danger for Joseph, who was far from home and from help.

37:18-20 The brothers’ hatred had grown to such a point that they were willing to kill their own brother, like Cain before them (Gen. 4:1-17). Their plotting to kill Joseph communicates the intentionality of their hearts rather than an emotional loss of control in the moment. The statement “Here comes that dreamer” shows that the brothers resented the dreams as much as the dreamer. Given the fact that those in the ancient Near East believed dreams came from the gods, it is possible that the brothers were challenging Yahweh intentionally—to thwart His will and therefore His plans by killing Joseph. Even if they did not fully realize that the dreams came from Yahweh, their reference to the dreams still shows that by seeking to kill Joseph they were also indirectly seeking to thwart the will of Yahweh who had sent the dreams.

“The brothers’ hate is therefore a rebellion against the matter contained in the dreams, against the divine power itself, standing behind them, who had given the dreams. The expression usually translated by ‘the dreamer’ [v. 19] means much more than our English word, namely, the one empowered to prophetic dreams.”^[158]

37:21-22 Reuben, the firstborn, stepped forward to prevent the wrongful bloodshed of their brother. The narrator states that Reuben had the desire to rescue Joseph from them. However, for some reason he did not stick around to truly protect him. Did Reuben desire to rescue Joseph because it was morally right or because he was more concerned about himself and getting back into his father’s favor (Gen. 37:30)?

37:23-24 When Joseph arrived, they stripped off his clothes—wording used of skinning animals (Lev. 1:6). A cistern was a deep, teardrop-shaped hole that had been carved into the bedrock to collect rain during the rainy season for drinking water (see note on Gen. 24:10-14). If a cistern developed cracks over time, it was converted to a winepress cellar or dungeon (Jer. 38:6-18). As this one was empty (Gen. 37:24), the brothers had chosen a dungeon for Joseph. Though Joseph appears to be silent here, the narrator later reveals that Joseph cried out with appeals for mercy (Gen. 42:21).

37:25-28 Judah’s lengthy speech to his brothers makes him the main character in this scene. Judah’s actions are mixed, for he started by saying there was no profit in selling their brother, that they could make money by selling him into slavery. They could be rid of him and have money. At the same time, however, he stated that it was morally wrong to kill one’s own brother. His morals did not allow him to kill his brother, but at the same time he was willing to allow his own brother to become enslaved. There were certain lines he was not willing to cross.

The irony here is that the brothers, who were of the chosen seed of Yahweh (Abraham-Isaac), sold one of Isaac’s seeds (Joseph) to an Ishmaelite, a descendant of Ishmael, whom Yahweh had rejected as a chosen seed. They gave one of their own to a people from whom they were supposed to be separate and different. The terms Midianites and Ishmaelites seem to be used interchangeably (Judg. 8:24).

“They had not only sold their brother, but in their brother they had cast out a member of the seed promised and given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, from the fellowship of the chosen family, and sinned against the God of salvation and His promises.”^[159]

Twenty shekels was the typical price for a male slave between five and twenty years old during this time period (Lev. 27:5).^[160]

37:29-35 When Reuben returned and saw that Joseph was gone, he cried out, “The boy isn’t there! Where can I turn now?” Rueben was not horrified that his brother was gone but feared what would happen to him now that his brother was gone. This makes it clear that his desire to rescue Joseph was not about his love or care for Joseph but about looking good to his father and, as the oldest brother, not reaping the brunt of his father’s anger.

The brothers took Joseph’s coat and covered it in the blood of a goat to deceive their father into thinking that Joseph was dead. A major irony here is that Jacob had deceived his father with the clothes of his brother Esau and the skin of a goat (Gen. 27:9-17). Jacob responded to the death of his favorite son with great mourning. His public mourning lasted longer than was custom for the culture. He declared that he would go to the grave mourning. This is the first time that going to sheol (“the grave”) is mentioned in Genesis.

“Sheol is the place of the dead in the OT, where the spirits of the departed continue in a shadowy and rather unhappy existence (cf. Isa 14:14-20) and where relatives could be reunited with each other (cf. 2 Sam 12:23). Though Sheol is not beyond God’s power (Amos 9:2), the psalmists pray for deliverance from Sheol, and it is possible that the OT believer hoped for something better than life in Sheol in the world to come (cf. Pss 16:10; 30:4[3]; 49:16[15]). The catastrophe of losing Joseph may be seen by Jacob as proof of divine judgment that will lead him to go down with the wicked to Sheol.^[161]

37:36 Despite the ill intentions of Joseph’s brothers, Yahweh intervened and brought Joseph to Egypt to begin fulfilling His desire for Joseph to be ruler. The name Potiphar is a shortened form of the Egyptian name Potiphera, meaning “he whom Ra [the sun god] has given.” The title “the captain of the guard” (Gen. 40:3-4; 41:10, 12) might mean he was either Pharaoh’s personal bodyguard or the head executioner, as in supreme court, in Pharaoh’s court. Either way, he had great authority and influence in Pharaoh’s court.

B. Judah and Tamar (38:1-30)

Though this scene seems out of place in the story, it shows that this final toledot (Gen. 37:2–50:26) is not just the Joseph story but the story of Jacob’s family. Judah is a major character in this story, and the narrator develops his change of character to explain at the end of Genesis who he had become and how Yahweh could use him in saving the line of Abraham. The central problem of childlessness ties it into the overall story of Abraham and to Yahweh’s promise to give Abraham’s descendants multiple children (Gen. 12:1-31; 15:5; 17:6, 20; 22:17; 26:4; 28:3; 32:1235:11). It is through Tamar that this line would continue.

38:1-5 Judah moved to Adullam, which was in the foothills northwest of Hebron. The events of this scene span twenty years, assuming Judah’s sons married in their mid to late teens. This means this story is happening during the same time Joseph is in Potiphar’s house, in prison, and in Pharaoh’s house, since the brothers discovered him in Egypt twenty-two years later (Gen. 37:2; 41:46-47; 45:6).^[162]

Judah acquired a Canaanite as his wife, which has been made clear by now as being unacceptable for those of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 24:3; 27:46-28:1). The Hebrew word for “take,” for the taking of his wife, is used of illicit taking (Gen. 3:6; 6:2; 12:15; 34:2; Judg. 14:1-2). Not only does this show his own moral compromise but also a lack of keeping the Abrahamic seed pure. Judah had three sons, who are significant to the setup of the story.

38:6-10 Judah’s son Er took as his wife a Canaanite, Tamar, as his father had. However, Er was so evil that Yahweh killed him in judgment. The Hebrew word for “evil” is Er spelled backwards. Judah gave Tamar to his second son to ensure the levirate rights of his daughter-in-law (Deut. 25:5-10). In the levirate marriage, a brother was required to marry the wife of his deceased brother. This requirement ensured that the widowed woman and her children had a male provider responsible for them. It also ensured that the inheritance of the deceased husband/brother stayed within the family. Deuteronomy required that if the woman had no children, then the brother of the widow’s deceased husband was required to provide a child through the widowed woman. This child would then take the name and inheritance of the deceased husband/brother, thus maintaining the family name and line. In addition to this being part of the Mosaic Law, it was a common custom in the ancient Near East before the giving of the Mosaic Law.

Onan’s refusal to give Tamar a child, thus providing no descendant for his deceased brother, reveals his selfish heart in that he wanted for himself what had belonged to his brother. Were he to provide an heir for his brother, the inheritance would go to his deceased brother’s line. Yahweh judged him harshly not only for his lack of love for others but also for his unwillingness to continue the Abrahamic line and Covenant. This is especially offensive to Yahweh since He had repeatedly promised the patriarchs multiple descendants on multiple previous occasions (Gen. 12:1-3; 15:5; 17:6, 20; 22:17; 26:4; 28:3; 32:1235:11).

38:11 Judah was so out of touch with Yahweh and the moral behavior of his sons that he assumed the blame for their deaths lay with Tamar as a cursed woman. Judah sinned against Tamar by not providing her with a husband. Judah thus shows his own apathy toward continuing the Abrahamic line and Covenant.

38:12-19 After the death of his wife, Judah began to spend more time in Timnah with his flocks. Tamar knew that Judah had no intention of providing her with another husband for a levirate marriage and an heir, so she chose to go to him directly, as a prostitute. There is evidence among ancient Assyrian and Hittite peoples that the levirate responsibility could pass to the father of the widow’s husband if there were no brothers to fulfill it. Thus Tamar was simply trying to acquire that to which she had a legal right.^[163] The fact that she knew Judah would sleep with her as prostitute reveals his character. Tamar shows how desperate she was to secure her place in the tribe and to become a part of the Abrahamic line and Covenant, which Judah took for granted.

Judah promised her a goat as payment for her “services” but could not pay that immediately, so he offered his staff, seal, and cord as guarantee of payment. Tamar took these items—not to guarantee herself payment but to exempt herself from the punishment that would come for what she had done. Whereas being with a prostitute was seen as foolish (Prov. 7), having intercourse with one’s daughter-in-law was later punishable by death (Lev. 20:12). Just as with Jacob’s deception (Gen. 27:9-17) and his sons’ deception (Gen. 37:29-35), a goat and clothing were used in Tamar’s deception of Judah.

38:20-23 Judah sent a servant to find and pay the prostitute. The Hebrew word translated “cult prostitute” is derived from a verb meaning “to be set apart; to be distinct.” The term refers to a woman who had not married but was dedicated to pagan temple service as a cult prostitute, with whom men would have intercourse as an act of worship to the gods. Either Hirah thought incorrectly that Judah had been with a cult prostitute or Judah thought he had slept with a cult prostitute. Either way, it once again speaks to Judah’s character. When she could not be found, Judah gave up and let her keep his pledge, lest he become a joke. The Hebrew word for “joke” is used for contempt for the rich and arrogant (Ps. 123:3-4; Neh. 3:36).

38:24-26 Three months later, it was discovered that Tamar was pregnant. Judah, seeing her as an adulteress, condemned her to be burned. Judah could legally demand the death penalty (Deut. 22:23-24), but to demand death by burning was extreme and reserved for a priest’s daughter who had been involved in sexual immorality (Lev. 21:9). The irony here is that Judah was condemning Tamar for prostitution when he himself was guilty of the same act.

Tamar defended herself by revealing the seal, cord, and staff that Judah had given her. Judah’s statement that Tamar “is more righteous than I am” seems odd since she had deceived and prostituted herself to her father-in-law. His point was not that she had acted righteously but that she had desired the right things. It was important to her not only to have children and continue the line but also to be a part of the Abrahamic Covenant. Though her means were not righteous, she desired to be part of Yahweh’s plan more than Judah had. However, as a Canaanite, one cannot expect her to have acted righteously until she had become a part of the Abrahamic Covenant and come to know Yahweh.

“Judah’s response to his sins against God and Tamar seems to have been genuine repentance (v. 26). He confessed his wrong and repented by ceasing from further sexual relations with her, his daughter-in-law. It is evidently because his repentance was genuine that Jacob did not exclude him from receiving a special blessing as he did Reuben, Simeon, and Levi. Because he humbled himself God raised him to be the chief of the house of Israel and blessed the children that he fathered even though they were a result of his sin. (Compare God’s blessing of Solomon even though he was the fruit of the unlawful union of David and Bathsheba.)”^[164]

38:27-30 Perez, whose name means “a breach or one who breaks through,” was the first of the twins born to Tamar. He becomes the ancestor of David and the Messiah (Matt. 1:3). The point of recording the birth of the twins is to emphasize that birth order does not determine who will continue the Abrahamic line—rather, it is the one whom Yahweh chooses.

“As the Jacob narrative began with an account of the struggle of the twins Jacob and Esau (25:22), so now the conclusion of the Jacob narrative is marked by a similar struggle of twins. In both cases the struggle resulted in a reversal of the right of the firstborn and the right of the blessing… The brevity and austerity with which the narrative is recounted leaves the impression that the meaning of the passage is self-evident to the reader. Indeed, coming as it does on the heels of a long series of reversals in which the younger gains the upper hand on the elder, its sense is transparent.” ^[165]

Tamar became a great woman of righteousness, for it was she who saved the tribe of Judah within the Abrahamic line from dying out. Also, her actions revealed to Judah his lack of righteousness so that he might begin to be redeemed through the work of Yahweh. It is this story that explains why, when the brothers arrived in Egypt and stood before Joseph, Judah was so different from how he had been in Genesis 27.

It is obvious by now that the family of Jacob had become corrupted by the influence of the surrounding Canaanites. In His mercy, Yahweh would remove them from this influence so that they would not continue in their corruption. This is why He chose Joseph—to take them away from the Canaanites for a time.

C. Joseph in the House of Potiphar and Prison (39:1–40:23)

This section shows that despite the trials Joseph faces, he stays faithful to Yahweh, and Yahweh is with him and blesses him (Gen. 39:2, 3, 21, 23). Yahweh’s blessings allow Joseph to be promoted both in Potiphar’s house and in prison. Though one may see this setback as a lack of faithfulness on Yahweh’s part, Yahweh uses them to prepare Joseph and put him in the right place to meet the cupbearer, who will eventually bring him into the palace of Pharaoh.

39:1-6a Even though Joseph was a slave in the house of Potiphar, the narrator makes the point that Yahweh was with Joseph as he had been with Isaac and Jacob (Gen. 26:3, 24, 28; 28:15, 20; 31:3). The narrator emphasizes this point three times here (Gen. 39:2, 3, 5). It is with this statement that it begins to become clear that Joseph’s dreams had come from Yahweh. Although he was still so far from their fulfillment, Yahweh’s presence in Joseph’s life made him very successful. Potiphar saw this and placed Joseph in charge of everything in his house. Joseph rose in position in the house of Potiphar, and just as Yahweh had entrusted Joseph with so much, so did Potiphar.

39:6b-10 Joseph was righteous in character as well as intelligent and handsome. Whenever the Bible mentions the physical beauty of an individual, it is usually an indication that it will lead them into temptation or sin (Gen. 6:2; 12:11; 26:7; 29:17; 1 Sam. 9:2; 16:12; 25:3; 2 Sam. 11:2; 13:1; 14:25; 1 Kgs. 1:6; Dan. 1:4; Est. 2:7).

Potiphar’s wife began to pursue and sought to seduce Joseph into having sex with her, but Joseph resisted. Joseph was in a difficult position because as a slave he had to obey her, but as servant of Potiphar, her husband, he had to refuse. Joseph gave her three reasons for having to reject her advances: it was an abuse of the great trust placed in him, it was an offense against her husband, and it was a great sin against Yahweh. Notice that, unlike the serpent and Eve (Gen. 3:1-7), Joseph focused on all the blessings that had been given to him rather than on the one thing that had been withheld from him. Despite his objections, she sought to wear him down by tempting him day after day. Yet Joseph remained strong because he chose to submit to the will of Yahweh rather than hers. Joseph’s righteous character and self-control in the area of sexual desire are contrasted with the lack of self-control seen in Judah in the previous chapter.

39:11-18 Desperate to have Joseph and maybe even angry that she had been rejected, she sent the house servants away and then grabbed Joseph in an attempt to force him to submit to her will. This time Joseph fled the scene in such haste that she ripped his outer garment from him. Angry and scorned, Potiphar’s wife decided to falsely accuse Joseph of violating her. Without the presence of the other servants, it became the word of a prominent woman against the word of a slave. In fact, when they came back, she attempted to win them over by accusing her husband and their master of bringing Joseph in just to humiliate them. She may also have been playing on any jealousy they might have had toward Joseph for his success. This was the second time Joseph’s garment had gotten him into trouble (Gen. 37:3-4).

39:19-20 When Potiphar came home, she falsely accused Joseph of trying to violate her, even though she had been the physical one in the situation. By laying the garment beside her, she was insinuating that Joseph had disrobed voluntarily. She also blamed Potiphar for bringing the slave into their house.

The narrator never mentions why or with whom Potiphar was angry. Attempted rape was a capital offense and brought the immediate death penalty, especially for a slave (Deut. 22:23-27). Potiphar did not execute Joseph, however, but instead threw him into the king’s prison. This would be unheard of for a slave guilty of rape—unless Potiphar did not believe his wife’s accusations. The integrity and character of Joseph must have impressed Potiphar, and there may have been some doubt over the faithfulness of his wife. Knowing that he could not take the word of a slave over that of a prominent woman without risking his own career, and maybe even his life, he chose to throw Joseph into prison rather than execute him. However, the narrator is not so much interested in this point, only that Joseph was thrown into prison—the place where the royal prisoners were thrown—because it was there that he would meet the cupbearer, an encounter that would lead to his eventual restoration and promotion.

39:21-23 Because Joseph’s good character had not changed and he had been faithful to Yahweh, Yahweh continued to bless him, and soon he rose in the ranks of the prison under the warden. With both Potiphar and the warden, Yahweh honored His promises in the Abrahamic Covenant when He stated that He would bless Abraham’s descendants and would be a blessing to those who blessed His people (Gen. 12:1-3).

“The Genesis account presents Joseph as a very unusual young man, possessed of a strong and sterling character, of a high morality and fidelity to God and his superiors. He was also characterized by gentleness in human relations. Remarkably, Joseph’s spiritual and moral strength does not appear to be based on or related to God’s periodic and direct revelations, as was true of Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham. Presumably then Jacob must have put a lot of character building truth into the young man’s life at an early time. It does not appear that he could have obtained such information from any other source. If this is the case, Jacob did a much better job with Joseph than with his other sons.”^[166]

The previous narratives of the patriarchs were about Yahweh’s faithfulness despite the lack of faith or understanding of the patriarchs, whereas Joseph demonstrates an uncompromising and unwavering faith in Yahweh despite all circumstances.

“This story about Joseph reverses a well-known plot in the patriarchal narratives. Whereas before it was the beautiful wife…of the patriarch who was sought by the foreign ruler, now it was Joseph, the handsome patriarch…himself who was sought by the wife of the foreign ruler. Whereas in the earlier narratives it was either the Lord (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 of the writer had been on God’s faithfulness in fulfilling his covenant promises, in the story of Joseph his attention is turned to the human response.” ^[167]

“The Joseph narratives are intended then to give balance to the narratives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Together the two sections show both God’s faithfulness in spite of human failure as well as the necessity of an obedient and faithful response.”^[168]

40:1-4 “After these things” marks the passing of a considerable amount of time (Gen. 15:1; 22:1; 39:7; 48:1). The narrator does not make clear how much time has passed before the new prisoners arrived, only that Joseph’s total time in prison was thirteen years (Gen. 37:2; 41:46).

Soon after, Pharaoh’s cupbearer and baker did something to offend Pharaoh and were thrown into prison. The fact that the cupbearer and the baker were still alive means they were close enough to Pharaoh that they had merely offended him or that he had not yet decided their fate. The Hebrew word for “enraged” communicates the idea of a passion that is quickly roused, is powerful, and then dies away.^[169] The “cupbearer” has been commonly misunderstood as one who tasted Pharaoh’s wine to see if it was poisoned. The Hebrew term for “cupbearer” corresponds to the Egyptian word wb’, which refers to an official, usually a foreigner, who became an advisor to the king and wielded political power.^[170] Nehemiah held this position in Persia and was a trusted advisor of the king. The cupbearer’s role as a trusted advisor to Pharaoh can be seen in his later advice to Pharaoh to seek a Hebrew prisoner accused of rape for the interpretation of his dreams. It is also possible that the cupbearer was the one who looked into the wine cup to divine the will of the gods. Such a diviner would have a high position. The “baker” may come from the Egyptian word retehti, which referred to the head of the bakers. Notice that even in jail, where he was given authority, Joseph was placed under the authority of the cupbearer and baker.

40:5-19 Yahweh, as the God of dreams (Gen. 40:8), sent the cupbearer and the baker dreams for Joseph to interpret; this would open future doors for Joseph’s release from prison. The cupbearer and the baker were depressed because, as they were cut off from the royal palace, no one around them could interpret their dreams. As mentioned earlier (Gen. 37:5-11), dreams were seen as gifts and messages from the gods. The interpretation of the dreams was a complex science entrusted to only the learned scholars and specialists. While the dreamer might believe that the gods had spoken to him, he had to rely on the experts for a detailed explanation.^[171] Joseph was quick to point out to them that the interpretation of dreams did not belong to the learned scholar but to Yahweh Himself.

Notice that the two dreams center on grain—the symbol of life in the ancient Near East—and wine—the symbol of blessings and the abundance of life (Gen. 27:28; Deut. 7:12-14; 33:26-29; 2 Kgs. 18:32; Ps. 104:13-15; Prov. 3:9-10; Joel 2:19, 24: Jer. 31:12). These symbols would become the signs of the Messiah (grain: Matt. 14:13-21; 26:26; Jn. 6:25-59; wine: Jn. 2:1-11; 6:53-59; 18:1-8; Matt. 26:27-29). The meanings of the dreams were that the cupbearer would be restored in three days and the baker would be executed in three days. Joseph asked the cupbearer to remember him after he was restored to his former position.

40:20-23 On the third day, the dreams were fulfilled in the very way Joseph had said they would be. Perhaps one of the most depressing lines in the book of Genesis is the statement that the cupbearer did not remember Joseph. What makes it truly depressing is that the next verse (Gen. 41:1) states that two years went by. Joseph had been forgotten for two years.

“How nobly Joseph comported himself amidst all these trials and hardships! He might have sulked and become embittered; but instead of this his spirit was unconquerable by reason of its trust in God. He steadfastly refused to be unfaithful to his God, whatever might be the consequences. In duty he was loyal, in temptation he was strong, and in prison he was faithful. When this spirit actuates our life, difficulties become means of grace and stepping-stones to higher things. On the other hand, if difficulties are met in a fretful, murmuring, complaining, disheartened spirit, not only do we lose the blessings that would otherwise come through them, but our spiritual life suffers untold injury, and we are weakened for the next encounter of temptation whenever it comes. There is scarcely anything in the Christian life which reveals more thoroughly what our Christianity is worth than the way we meet difficulties by the use of the grace of God.”^[172]

D. Joseph’s Rise to Power (41:1-57)

In this section, Yahweh uses Pharaoh’s dreams to finally fulfill the dreams He gave Joseph years before (Gen. 37:5-11) and raise him to a position of rulership. However, the dreams are not completely fulfilled, since Joseph’s brothers are not bowing down to him yet.

41:1-7 Two years passed, and then Pharaoh had two dreams. Just as Yahweh had given the cupbearer dreams in order to make Joseph known, He now gave Pharaoh dreams to reveal Joseph as a future ruler in Egypt. The Nile in Egypt was both the basis and the symbol of Egypt’s power. “Egypt was the gift of the Nile.” From ancient times to the present, the Nile has been the lifeblood of Egypt. No other country in ancient or modern times has been so dependent on its waterways as ancient Egypt. The cow was another symbol of Egypt, was the embodiment of the gods, and, along with the bull, was one of the most revered animals in the country. Grain also represented Egypt, for Egypt was the breadbasket of the ancient Near East and later the Roman Empire. Egypt was where everyone else in the ancient Near East went when famine struck their own land. All these symbols represented the heart and life of Egypt. The number seven is symbolic of completion and sometimes of fate.

41:8-13 Neither the magicians nor the cupbearer in Pharaoh’s court could understand the meaning of Pharaoh’s dreams. The idea presented here is not that none of them gave interpretations but that none of their interpretations were satisfactory to Pharaoh. This provided the opportunity not only to reveal Joseph to Pharaoh but also to bring glory to Yahweh. After two years, the cupbearer finally remembered Joseph.

41:14-16 Pharaoh summoned Joseph to be brought before him, which meant shaving his beard, since Egyptians did not wear facial hair, and changing his outer coat to make him presentable. Pharaoh gave credit to Joseph for interpreting dreams, but twice Joseph humbly gave credit to Yahweh as the giver and interpreter of dreams (Gen. 41:16, 25). Though Joseph was being humble about himself, he was at the same time offering something better: access to Yahweh, the divine dream giver and interpreter.

41:17-32 Pharaoh recounted his dreams to Joseph and asked him to do what no one had yet been able to do. Joseph responded with four divine insights about the dreams. First, the fact that the dreams came one right after the other meant they concerned the same thing. Second, the seven cows and seven sheaves of grain represented seven years. Third, there would be seven years of abundant crops followed by seven years of famine. Fourth, the duplication of the dreams meant this was all going to happen promptly, and there was no changing what would happen.

41:33-36 Joseph cleverly advised Pharaoh to find a wise man to oversee the gathering of the abundant grain during the first seven years in order to feed the people of the land during the second seven years, knowing that Yahweh had already revealed to him that he was that man (Gen. 37:6-7, 9). Yahweh had placed Joseph in Egypt for this very reason, to save not only the people of Egypt and Canaan but his own family, the Abrahamic line, through whom the entire world would be blessed (Gen. 12:1-3). Pharaoh recognized the wisdom in Joseph’s advice and appointed him as the second-most powerful man in the land. In this position, he would oversee the gathering of the grain during the years of abundance in order to save the people of Egypt. Yahweh’s prophecy to Joseph when he was seventeen years old was now coming true (Gen. 37:6-7, 9).

“Pharaoh recognized Joseph as one who had unique supernatural powers (v. 38; cf. Dan. 5:14). He probably did not identify the ‘spirit’ in Joseph as the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity. There is no evidence that Pharaoh understood or believed in the God of Israel. Most likely he thought some deity had manifested himself or herself through Joseph.”^[173]

“At any time the king would—and did—appoint outsiders. In fact, the noteworthy careers, as preserved for us in tomb inscriptions, broke through all departmental limitations. Men of humble origin could rise to the top once their gifts were recognized; and we find that they were called to a succession of posts which would seem to us to have required entirely different preparatory training.”^[174]

41:37-45 Pharaoh recognized that the Spirit of God was in Joseph. He made him vice-regent over the land so that all the people of Egypt had to submit to him. The gift of the royal signet ring symbolized the grant of authority to Joseph (Esth. 3:12; 8:8). Many Egyptian paintings show the Pharaoh placing gold chains around the necks of servants he was rewarding. Whether the gold chain was an essential part of the office of vice-regent or just a reward of honor is not clear here.^[175]

Joseph’s marriage to the Egyptian woman was by Pharaoh’s orders. Marriage into one of the top royal Egyptian families sealed Joseph’s promotion. The patriarchs avoided marriages with Canaanite women, but marriage to a non-Canaanite was less serious. However, Egypt would become Israel’s enslavers, and Yahweh would later command Israel not to go back to Egypt for anything. The name Asenath may mean “she belongs to the goddess Neit.”

41:46-49 At the age of thirty, Joseph had finally come to a place of power as his dreams had foretold. Joseph executed his plan of storing up a fifth of the grain during the good years with great efficiency, amassing an overabundance of grain. The same integrity, discipline, and efficiency that he had demonstrated in Potiphar’s house in prison he now brought to the governance of Egypt.

41:50-52 Joseph had two sons by Asenath: Manasseh and Ephraim. The name Manasseh means “he who brings about forgetfulness,” referring to Joseph’s troubles being behind him and that he anticipated a better future. The name Ephraim means “to bear fruit” and may even have the idea of double fruitfulness, which is interesting because Ephraim would later receive the double land inheritance (Gen. 48:12-20). The theme of fruitfulness is connected with this family line (Gen. 49:22; Deut. 33:13-17; Hos. 13:15).

“‘Forget’ does not mean here ‘not remember’ but rather to have something no longer (cf. Job 39.17; 11:16. See, too, the Arabic proverb, ‘Whoever drinks water from the Nile forgets his fatherland if he is a foreigner’). The phrase refers, therefore, more to an objective external fact than to a subjective, psychological process.”^[176]

41:53-57 Joseph served Yahweh, Pharaoh, and the people faithfully in gathering and storing the grain during the seven years of abundance. He then began to sell this grain to the people during the seven years of famine. It would be this provision of grain—within Joseph’s oversight—that would reunite his brothers to him and bring about their reconciliation. Yahweh intended to use Joseph to save the Abrahamic line not just physically but also relationally and spiritually.

“Trials may be viewed from two standpoints, and it will make all the difference to our spiritual life and peace which of these two points of view we take. From the human side Joseph’s suffering was due to injustice on the part of Potiphar, and ingratitude on the part of the butler. From the Divine side these years were permitted for the purpose of training and preparing Joseph for the great work that lay before him. If we look only at the human side of trial we shall become discouraged, and it [sic] may be irritated and angered, but as we turn to look at it from the Divine side we shall see God in everything and all things working together for our good.”^[177]

E. The Brothers of Joseph Go to Egypt for Grain (42:1-38)

This section tells how Joseph’s brothers are forced to go to Egypt to get food because of the famine in the land. It is in Egypt that they meet Joseph, without knowing it, and bow before him. The chiastic parallel emphasizes the brothers’ imprisonment.

A Joseph knew his brothers and remembered (42:7-9a)

   B Joseph accused them of being spies, but they explained their situation (42:9b-13)

      C Joseph set out a test whereby they could prove they were honest men (42:14-16)

         X Joseph put them in prison (42:17)

      C’ Joseph set out a new test for the brothers to prove they were honest (42:18-20)

   B’ Brothers confess their guilt concerning their brother (42:21-22)

A’ Joseph understood and wept (42:23-24)

42:1-5 The famine had affected Jacob and his family, so they were forced to go to Egypt to get grain. Jacob emerges as a major actor in this scene, revealing that he was still the head of the family to whom his sons submitted. Jacob took decisive action as he rebuked his sons for not going to Egypt to get grain to feed their families. Jacob sent ten of his sons for the grain in order to buy and bring back as much as possible. Here, they were called Joseph’s brothers, foreshadowing their subservient role in the next scene. However, Jacob did not allow Benjamin to go with the brothers because he feared losing his only remaining favorite son, as he had lost Joseph.

42:6-7 The narrator makes the point that Joseph was the ruler of Egypt and that the brothers came and bowed down to him just as his dream had said (Gen. 37:5-11). The irony here is that at the beginning of the story, Joseph’s brothers had said they would never bow down to him, and they hated him for his dreams (Gen. 37:8). Joseph immediately recognized them but pretended not to know them. The Hebrew word for “he pretended” is a play on the word for “they plotted” (Gen. 37:18) with only one letter difference. This echoes Genesis 37, where the brothers plotted against Joseph, and sheds light on why Joseph was hiding his identity from them.

The brothers did not recognize their brother Joseph for many reasons. It had been twenty-one years since they had last seen him, and they probably did not expect him to be alive anymore, let alone a ruler over Egypt. Also, Joseph, as an Egyptian official, would have had the hair on his head and body shaved and would have been wearing some kind of wig or headdress and had his eyes lined with dark paint. As foreigners the brothers would not have been allowed to make eye contact, having their heads bowed. Joseph spoke the local language through an interpreter (Gen. 42:23). Joseph spoke harshly with them and asked them where they had come from.

42:8-13 After Joseph recognized his brothers, probably many memories and emotions came flooding back as he remembered his dreams and how his brothers had treated him because of them. Joseph accused them of being spies to look for weaknesses in the land so that their nation could attack his. The brothers denied they were spies and proclaimed as their defense that they were all brothers of the same family. This expressed more truth than they realized as they stood before Joseph who was also their brother. By affirming that they were brothers, they hoped to prove that they were not spies, since spies from the same family would not travel together and risk the whole family being caught. Joseph kept accusing them of being spies in order to unnerve them and break their resistance. They informed Joseph that one of their brothers was dead and that the youngest was with their father.

42:14-24 Joseph required that they prove their story by sending one to bring back the youngest while the other nine remained in prison in Egypt. Also, Joseph certainly wanted to see his only full-blooded brother, whom he had not known well since Benjamin had been just a small boy when he was sold into slavery. Joseph then decided to imprison all the brothers for three days. On the third day, Joseph showed mercy by allowing all but one to return home. Maybe he thought about Jacob and Benjamin’s needing grain and that more than one brother would be necessary to carry it back.

It is interesting that after all these years the brothers assumed this was happening to them as punishment for what they had done to Joseph. Nothing about what was happening to them would make them connect this suffering to the sin of what they had done to Joseph. Was this their reasoning every time something bad happened to them over all the years? This shows that they had begun to change and were not as callused as they had been in Genesis 37, for there was real guilt and remorse here. Reuben immediately blamed them for what they had done to Joseph, reminding them that he had tried to stop them, trying to escape the guilt. Why did not he offer himself up for Simeon instead if he was the head who was supposed to watch over his brothers?

Joseph, hearing their discussion, began to weep from the emotions of realizing that they did feel guilt and remorse. He then took Simeon, the second-born, as prisoner. The narrator does not clarify why Joseph was treating his brothers this way. Was he seeking revenge? Testing them? It is up to the reader to figure it out as the story goes on.

42:25-28 Joseph commanded that their money be returned to them and placed in each man’s sack of grain. Later, on their journey home, they opened a sack and discovered the money. The brothers were filled with even more fear when they discovered that their money for the grain was in the sacks of grain they had bought in Egypt. They began to think Yahweh was punishing them for their sins.

42:29-36 When they arrived home, they told their father Jacob what had happened. When Jacob and his sons saw that all their sacks contained their money, they were filled with fear. Jacob accused them of making him childless, seeing Joseph and Simeon as already lost and fearing Benjamin would be taken away to never be returned.

Rueben tried to be a leader by offering to take Benjamin under his watch and pay the price if anything happened to Benjamin while they were back in Egypt. However, Rueben showed his selfishness in offering his sons, not himself, as a sacrifice. One must wonder what kind of person Reuben was, that he would be willing to pledge the death of his sons over his own life. The scene ends with Jacob’s refusal to let Benjamin go; Jacob cared more about the life of Benjamin than the life of Simeon.

F. The Brothers Are Reconciled to Joseph (43:1–45:28)

It is in this section that the dreams of Joseph (Gen. 37:5-11) are fully fulfilled, not just with his brothers bowing down before him but with Joseph’s forgiveness of his brothers, which allows him to save them from the famine. Just as Jacob and Esau were reconciled, so now Joseph is with his brothers except that Joseph will end up bringing them to Egypt to live with him. This was Yahweh’s whole purpose for raising Joseph into a powerful position: to be a blessing to his family and to the world. At the same time, Judah rises to take the headship of the tribe, not in a power grab but in a demonstration of self-sacrifice for his brothers. It is in this section that Judah and Joseph really step to the forefront as two men who had become true godly leaders.

43:1-7 After their grain was all gone, the brothers went back to Jacob to try to convince him to let them return to Egypt with Benjamin to get more grain. Whereas earlier the brothers had glossed over Joseph’s warning of killing them if they did not return with Benjamin, now Judah told Jacob of the warning to emphasize the danger of trying to return to Egypt without Benjamin. The brothers defended themselves before their father for why they had told Joseph so much about themselves amid Joseph’s accusation of being spies.

43:8-14 Judah pushed his father to decide by appealing to his paternal instincts. Earlier, Jacob had said they should go to Egypt to buy grain so that they may live (Gen. 42:2). Now Judah made the same point and emphasized that he would save him “and our children as well.” Judah then offered his life up for Benjamin if he did not return with Benjamin. Notice that, in contrast to Reuben, Judah was willing to sacrifice himself rather than his son. Judah shows himself to be a self-sacrificing leader. At this, Jacob allowed them to return to Egypt with Benjamin.

43:15-25 When Joseph saw that the brothers had returned with their brother Benjamin, he responded by sacrificing an animal and throwing a feast for them. This shows that seeing Benjamin was what Joseph was interested in all along. But the brothers were filled with fear, wondering why Joseph had gone from treating them harshly to inviting them into his home. They thought he was trying to entrap them, so they immediately confessed having found the grain money in their bags after the previous visit. Joseph’s servant assured them that everything was all right and that he had received their money, so whatever was in their bags must have been given to them by their God. After the servant brought Simeon out to them, he washed their feet, took care of them and their animals like honored guests, and informed them that they would share a meal with Joseph. At this point, the brothers were likely very confused about what was going on.

43:26-30 When Joseph arrived at his home to meet them, the brothers gave him gifts and then bowed to him, fulfilling again Joseph’s dream (Gen. 37:5-11). Joseph asked them about their father and treated them very well, as if they were guests. When Joseph saw Benjamin, he was overwhelmed with emotion. Benjamin was sixteen years younger than Joseph, making him now twenty-three years old (Joseph was thirty-nine years old here; Gen. 41:46; 45:6). He was the only full-blooded brother Joseph had, and he had never really gotten to know him.

43:31-34 Joseph then seated them at a separate table from himself, as was Egyptian custom. The narrator then informs the reader that the Egyptians viewed eating with foreigners as disgusting. The Hebrew word for “disgusting” is often translated as “abomination” in religious texts that describe practices that were abhorrent to Yahweh (Lev. 18:22, 26, 29). Other customs that were disgusting to the Egyptians are recorded in Gen. 46:34.^[178]

“The caste system in Egypt required that Joseph as a member of the upper class eat at a table separate from his Egyptian companions. The Hebrews sat at a third table since they were foreigners (v. 32). The Hebrews and other foreigners ate animals that the Egyptians regarded as sacred. The Egyptians also followed strict rules for the ceremonial cleansing of their food before they ate it. This made the Hebrews ‘loathsome’ to the Egyptians.”^[179]

Joseph’s inviting them to eat with him would have been a significant gesture of hospitality to them, for eating a meal with someone in the ancient Near East was the equivalent of inviting them into your family.

“…according to the prevailing custom of the East, the very fact that they had been invited to Joseph’s table was in itself an encouraging circumstance. Though the Orientals are for the most part a revengeful people, yet if you eat with them, you are thenceforward sure of having their protection. Even should you have done them the greatest injury, yet you need be under no apprehension from their resentment.”^[180]

Joseph had them seated in birth order, which amazed them. Then Joseph gave Benjamin five times more food than all the other brothers had received. When Joseph was favored by his father and became the source of his brothers’ problems, they wanted to kill him, and they sold him into slavery. Now he wanted to learn if they would do the same to Benjamin. He fed them so much food and wine that they became drunk.

44:1-5 When Joseph sent them back to Canaan, he filled their sacks with an abundance of grain, and he also placed his silver cup in Benjamin’s sack. He then commanded his men to let the brothers get ahead, afterwards accusing them of stealing his cup. Joseph’s calling it a “cup of divination” does not mean he was using it for that purpose. That would be unlikely, given his character and constant affirmation of Yahweh as the source of all knowledge (Gen. 40:8; 41:16, 25, 32). It was most likely a threatening comment to stress the severity of the brothers’ offense.

44:6-13 The brothers thought that the trip had been a success, that they were returning with grain, and that Benjamin was safe and sound. Suddenly they were accused by Joseph’s men of theft. The brothers were confused and defended themselves by reminding Joseph’s men that when they found their money in their sacks the first time, they were honest about it. Then they made a rash vow in their confidence of their innocence, stating that whoever had the cup would be put to death. The irony here is that they had just pronounced a death sentence on Benjamin, the very one whom they had promised to protect. Just as Jacob had unknowingly pronounced a death sentence on Rachel, his favorite wife (Gen. 31:32), now the sons unknowingly pronounced a death sentence on Jacob’s favorite son. But they also stated that the rest of them would become slaves as a result of the action of the one. This is different from when they mistreated Joseph, for now they would suffer for the sake of the others. The servant stated that whoever had it would become a slave. To build suspense, the men searched in order of the oldest to the youngest until Benjamin was discovered. The brothers were devastated.

Joseph was not trying to torture his brothers nor get revenge on them; rather, he was testing them to see if they had changed. He was giving them every reason to hate Benjamin—favoring him at the meal and now framing him for theft—so that they would turn on him and give him up or kill him, just as they had done with Joseph. If they hated Joseph, an innocent boy, enough to kill him, what would they do to Benjamin, who was now a thief and bringing down the death penalty on them all?

“Joseph’s tests of his brothers were important in God’s plan to channel his blessing through the seed of Abraham. God had planned to bring the family to Egypt so that it might grow into a great nation. But because the people who would form that nation had to be faithful, the brothers needed to be tested before they could share in the blessing. Joseph’s prodding had to be subtle; the brothers had to perceive that God was moving against them so that they would acknowledge their crime against Joseph and demonstrate that they had changed.”^[181]

44:14-17 When brought before Joseph, Judah declared their innocence but realized that they had no proof and so cried out to Joseph for mercy. Joseph declared that there would be no mercy, that Benjamin would stay with him as his slave while the rest were free to go.

44:18-34 Judah stepped up and took the lead. He gave an impassioned and eloquent speech that is considered by many scholars the most beautiful speech of the First Testament. Judah began by asking for the chance to speak on his brother’s behalf, and he maintained a deferential mode of address throughout his speech. He began to recount their encounter with Joseph when they first came, leaving out all the details that might annoy Joseph and the warnings and imprisonments that would make Joseph look harsh and unfair. He included fresh details about their family and specifically about their father, hoping these would soften Joseph’s heart toward them. He mentioned their father fourteen times.

He then began to plead for the life of Benjamin through the emotions of his father. Judah showed that he had come to understand Jacob’s feelings for Benjamin and sympathized with Jacob’s loss of Joseph and his fear of losing Benjamin. Perhaps Judah’s own loss of his eldest sons had given him an understanding of and compassion for Jacob. Judah had also come to accept that Jacob’s love for Benjamin was greater than his love for Judah and the other sons of Leah. Judah demonstrated a spiritual change in himself from Genesis 37, where he had callously orchestrated the selling of Joseph into slavery out of envy and anger, now being willing to become Joseph’s slave so that Benjamin might be set free and allowed to return to Canaan to rejoin their father. Judah had made himself the substitutionary sacrifice for Benjamin.

“This remarkable speech is a point-for-point undoing, morally and psychologically, of the brothers’ earlier violation of fraternal and filial bonds. A basic biblical perception about both human relations and relations between God and man is that love is unpredictable, arbitrary, at times perhaps seemingly unjust, and Judah now comes to an acceptance of that fact with all its consequences. His father, he states clearly to Joseph, has singled out Benjamin for a special love, as he singled out Rachel’s other son before. It is a painful reality of favoritism with which Judah, in contrast to the earlier jealousy over Joseph, is here reconciled, out of filial duty and more, out of filial love. His entire speech is motivated by the deepest empathy for his father and a real understanding of what it means for the old man’s very life to be bound up with that of the lad. He can even bring himself to quote sympathetically (verse 27) Jacob’s typically extravagant statement that his wife bore him two sons—as though Leah were not also his wife and the other ten were not also his sons. Twenty-two years earlier, Judah engineered the selling of Joseph into slavery; now he is prepared to offer himself as a slave so that the other son of Rachel can be set free. Twenty-two years earlier, he stood with his brothers and silently watched when the bloodied tunic they had brought to Jacob sent their father into a fit of anguish; now he is willing to do anything in order not to have to see his father suffer that way again.”^[182]

“To Joseph, of course, the speech again reveals even more than the speaker intended: the official version of his own death (‘torn to pieces’), the reason for the delay in the brothers’ return, the pain his testing as well as his fate must have given. Most important, if to a listener ignorant of the family situation and record, the brothers’ attitude as expressed by their leader would appear admirable, then to one in the know it surely manifests nothing short of a transformation, from subnormal to abnormal solidarity. That the sons of the hated wife should have come to terms with the father’s attachment to Rachel (‘my wife’) and her children is enough to promise an end to hostilities and a fresh start. That the second of these children should enjoy his brothers’ affection is amazing. But that Judah should adduce the father’s favoritism as the ground for self-sacrifice is such an irresistible proof of filial devotion that it breaks down Joseph’s last defenses.”^[183]

45:1-8 After seeing that his brothers truly had changed, Joseph sent everyone but his brothers out of his presence. He then wept loudly—to the degree that the Egyptians who had left could hear him—and finally revealed his identity to his brothers. They were so stunned by this revelation that they could not respond. But they were more than shocked; they were afraid. The Hebrew word for “dumbfounded” carries the idea of the paralyzing fear felt by those in war (Ex. 15:15; Judg. 20:41; 1 Sam. 28:21; Ps. 48:5). Joseph’s first thought was to comfort them and assure them that they should not feel guilt or be angry with themselves. It is amazing that he thought of them and their feelings first after what they had done to him. It is clear from this passage that Joseph held no anger or bitterness toward his brothers or Yahweh for what had been done to him or what had happened to him over the years.

“There is nothing more striking in the character of Joseph than the utter absence of revengeful feeling, whether it was against his brothers, or against Potiphar, or against the chief butler.”^[184]

Joseph told them that it was Yahweh, not them, who had brought him to Egypt. Here, Joseph shows an amazing understanding of the divine hand of Yahweh in his life and in bringing him to Egypt to save his family. He did not focus on their wicked intent. Four times Joseph acknowledged the providence and guiding hand of Yahweh in bringing him to this place. Even though Joseph’s dreams (Gen. 37:5-11) had not stated why he was to be ruler, he understood the character of Yahweh enough to see that it was so he could be a blessing to his family and then the world (Gen. 12:1-3). This is the main reason Yahweh lifts anyone into positions of influence.

“Here in the scene of recognition the narrator indicates clearly for the first time what is of paramount importance to him in the entire Joseph story: God’s hand which directs all the confusion of human guilt ultimately toward a gracious goal. After so much has been said exclusively about men’s actions, it is surprising for Joseph in two statements to mention God as the real subject of the whole occurrence; God, not the brothers, ‘sent’ Joseph here. Joseph veils the actual event with this alleviating expression. But it would be wrong to see only distracting friendliness in Joseph’s remarks; rather, Joseph wants to state an objective truth, in which, to be sure, the enigma mentioned above, the question of how this activity of God is related to the brothers’ drastically described activity, remains an absolutely unsolved mystery. The matter must rest with the fact that ultimately it was not the brothers’ hate but God who brought Joseph to Egypt and moreover to ‘preserve life.’”^[185]

45:9-15 Joseph then commanded his brothers to go back to Canaan and get his father and their families and bring them to Egypt so that he could take care of them. He wanted them to come and live in the land of Goshen so that they could be close to him. Joseph did not just forgive them but actively pursued them in a relationship so that he could provide for them and bless them. This is true forgiveness that comes about only through the work of Yahweh. Joseph then embraced Benjamin, and they wept with joy together, and then he kissed and wept over all his brothers. The narrator’s vivid description of their reunion reveals the profuse emotions they all felt, especially Joseph.

45:16-20 When Pharaoh heard that Joseph’s brothers had come, he and his entire household were pleased. This communicates the love and respect that the house of Pharaoh had for Joseph throughout the last nine years of his rulership. Because of Joseph’s integrity and faithfulness to Pharaoh, Pharaoh would now bless the brothers. Pharaoh instructed the brothers to go back to Canaan, to get their father and their families, and to return to Egypt, where he would give them Goshen, the best land in Egypt. Whereas Joseph had offered the brothers Goshen to be close to him, Pharaoh offered them the land because it was the best.

45:21-28 So Joseph sent his brothers to Canaan with everything they would need to make the journey there and back again. The emphasis on Joseph’s giving his brothers clothes may represent his reconciliation with them since it was his tunic that had led to the brothers selling him into slavery. To Benjamin he gave extra favors.

When the brothers related everything to Jacob, he did not believe them, but then he was convinced when they explained everything. The conversation would have been tremendously difficult and awkward as they explained to their father that they had been lying to him all these years. This closing scene offers a hopeful contrast to the two previous occasions in which the brothers had reported news to their father. After telling their father about Joseph’s supposed death, Jacob said, “Joseph has been torn to bits… I shall go down to Sheol in mourning” (Gen. 37:33, 35). After the brothers’ first return from Egypt, Jacob said, “Joseph is no more…[he] is dead” and “you will bring me down in my old age to Sheol with sorrow” (Gen. 42:36, 38). Now he says, “Joseph my son is still alive. I will go down to see him before I die.” (Gen. 45:28).

G. The Family of Jacob Moves to Egypt (46:1–47:31)

In this section, Israel settles in Egypt, and the Joseph story comes to an end. With his wise administration of the land during the famine and his salvation of the Near East from starvation, Joseph had fulfilled the dreams and had also become a blessing to the world.

46:1-4 Jacob (Israel) set out from the Hebron area to Beersheba. Beersheba was 26 miles south of Hebron and was the southernmost city of Canaan (2 Sam. 24:2). Beyond Beersheba was the desert, where cultivation was difficult until one reached Egypt. Jacob was apprehensive about the move to Egypt because, while they needed to go to Egypt to survive the famine, Yahweh had promised to give them the land of Canaan. However, Yahweh had previously told Abraham that his descendants would be taken to a foreign land and that He would bring them back out in the fourth generation (Gen. 15:13-14).

Thus, Yahweh came to Jacob at Beersheba and reiterated the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant, promising to watch over him and his descendants while in Egypt. Yahweh stated again that He would make them into a great nation (Gen. 12:2; 17:20; 18:18; 21:18) but added that Jacob and his descendants would become a great nation in Egypt, not in Canaan. Yahweh promised to be with Jacob and his descendants just as He had been with Abraham and Isaac (Gen. 26:24; 28:15, 20; 31:3, 5, 42; 39:2-3, 21, 23). He would make this promise again to Moses (Ex. 3:12) and to Joshua (Josh. 1:5). Yahweh then promised that He would bring them out of Egypt as a great nation, which looks forward to the exodus. Then He assured Jacob that he would have a peaceful death in the presence of Joseph, with whom he had lost so many years.

46:5-27 Assured of Yahweh’s approval, Jacob took his sons, their families, his grandchildren, and his livestock and possessions and made the long journey to Egypt. The listing of the people in Jacob’s family is comparatively long, which underlines the significance of their move to Egypt. The phraseology of “enter/bring in” (Gen. 6:18-20; 46:6-7) and “descendants” (Gen. 7:3; 46:6-7) echoes key terms from the flood story. The phrase “possessions which they had acquired in the land of Canaan” echoes the description of earlier major migrations of the patriarchs (Gen. 12:5; 31:18; 36:6). The language highlights this as a significant event of faith and salvation.^[186]

It is also significant that the number of Jacob’s family had now reached seventy people (Ex. 1:5; Deut. 10:22). Seventy was the number of nations that had descended from Adam and were scattered in judgment (Gen. 10). Deut. 32:8 states that Yahweh divided the nations of humanity (Gen. 10) according to the number of the sons of God (heavenly angels), also seventy. Thus, the nation of Israel represents in a microcosm the family of humanity as a whole. Israel was to be the new humanity through whom Yahweh would work to redeem them into His image. As the seventy sons of God (heavenly angels) had authority over the nations, so now Yahweh had established seventy descendants of Abraham whom He would form into a chosen nation that would redeem the nations of humanity (Gen. 12:1-3).

46:28-34 Finally, after all these years, Joseph was reunited with his father Jacob. The fact that Joseph got into his chariot and rode out to Jacob emphasizes his desire to see his father. Jacob was content to die in his old age now that he had seen his long-lost son.

Joseph then instructed his brothers that he would make sure Pharaoh understood that they were shepherds and that they had all brought all of their animals. First, this would let Pharaoh know that Joseph had brought to Egypt more than just his family, who would otherwise be a drain on society during a famine. They were able men with their own careers, and they had brought their own animals to sustain them. But it also informed Pharaoh that they needed land, and Joseph’s hope was that Pharaoh would give them Goshen, where the land was good for grazing. This would also keep Israel on the outskirts of Egyptian cities, where they were less likely to intermix and be influenced by the Egyptian gods and culture. Then Joseph instructed his brothers that when Pharaoh asked what they did, they must tell him that not only were they shepherds but they also had taken care of cattle. Joseph emphasized this since the Egyptians viewed shepherds as disgusting but saw cattle as prized livestock. There is no evidence in history of Egypt’s dislike for shepherds, but sheep are completely absent from all drawings and records in Egypt. This dislike might be more for nomadic people, who were shepherds and were often seen as untrustworthy.

47:1-6 Joseph took five of his brothers before Pharaoh to request the land of Goshen. As Joseph had expected, Pharaoh asked what they did. The brothers told pharaoh that they were shepherds. Some scholars have stated that they did not listen to Joseph and revealed that they were shepherds. But Joseph never told his brothers to lie to Pharaoh—simply to emphasize their skill with cattle. Joseph himself had said he was going to tell Pharaoh that they were shepherds (Gen. 46:31-32). The fact that Pharaoh later mentions cattle shows that the brothers did speak as Joseph had directed. Notice that although the brothers spoke to Pharaoh, he replied to Joseph, as was common of courtly decorum. Pharaoh graciously granted them their request and gave them the land of Goshen. Then Pharaoh asked that some of them be put in charge of his own cattle, meaning they would be made officers of the crown, affording them legal protection not usually given to foreigners.^[187]

47:7-10 Then Joseph presented his father Jacob to Pharaoh. Whereas the brothers’ audience with Pharaoh had been stiff and formal, it was more relaxed and intimate with Jacob. Jacob did not call himself “your servant” as the brothers had. Instead, he talked about himself naturally and in the first person. And whereas the brothers came asking favors, Jacob blessed Pharaoh. When Pharaoh asked Jacob about his age, Jacob emphasized the length and the pain of his years, adding that they were not as long as his fathers’, mostly because he had not walked with Yahweh in the same way they had. Jacob portrayed his life as a sojourner, since he had not fully received the land of the promises in his lifetime.

“When we first encountered Jacob he was struggling inside his mother’s womb with his twin brother. As we come to the end of Jacob’s life, he is struggling for his life in a famine-devastated Canaan. In between these first and last moments of struggle have been many trying experiences for Jacob. His life has had more sorrow than joy.”^[188]

“These words [v. 9] appear to be the author’s attempt at a deliberate contrast to the later promise that one who honors his father and mother should ‘live long and do well upon the land’ (Dt 5:15). Jacob, who deceived his father and thereby gained the blessing, must not only die outside the Promised land but also, we learn here, his years were few and difficult. From his own words, then, we can see a final recompense for Jacob’s actions earlier in the book.”^[189]

Jacob’s blessing of Pharaoh is unusual in these circumstances since it implies that Jacob was superior to Pharaoh (Heb. 7:7). Perhaps Pharaoh accepted the blessing since Jacob was older than Pharaoh and may have been seen as wiser, especially being the father of Joseph. Regardless, the narrator shows that Jacob was indeed greater because of the Abrahamic Covenant. Yet Jacob’s blessing on Pharaoh was also a blessing on the world, for Pharaoh was the current ruler over the most powerful kingdom in the Near East—and indirectly over the Near East, as it was the only source of grain during the famine.

47:11-12 Pharaoh settled Jacob’s family in the land of Goshen (also called Rameses), located in the eastern part of the delta region of the Nile River. This region had very fertile and rich soil for the growing of crops and grazing of animals. The use of the name Rameses here and elsewhere (Ex. 1:11; 12:37; Num. 33:3, 5) has led some to assume that these events took place during the time of Rameses I (1347–1320 BC) or Rameses II (1279–1213 BC). However, biblical chronological references (1 Kings 6:1; Ex. 12:40) point to a date for Israel’s move to Egypt near 1876 BC. Likewise, this is a different spelling of Rameses in the Hebrew. And it was not uncommon among later Pharoahs to rename cities after themselves.

“It is possible that the name Rameses (also spelled Raamses) was in use when Jacob entered Egypt even though extra-biblical references have not confirmed this. ‘Raamses’ simply means ‘Ra [the sun god] has created it.’ Second, Rameses may have been the name of this district later, in Moses’ day, when he wrote Genesis. He could have used the modern name when writing Genesis rather than an older one that was in use in Jacob’s day. A third possibility is that Rameses was the district name even later in history (e.g., after Pharaoh Rameses). A later scribe may have substituted Rameses for an older name that was in use when Moses wrote or when Jacob entered Egypt. Other late names appear in Genesis. For example, the town of Dan (14:14), formerly Laish (Judg. 18:29), received the name Dan during the judges period (c. 1350–1050 B.C.). Evidently someone after Moses’ day substituted the modern name Dan for the older name in Genesis 14:14. This may account for references to the Philistines in Genesis too.”^[190]

47:13-17 Joseph first collected a monetary payment for grain from those in Canaan and Egypt since he was the only one in the land who had grain stored up from the previous years. After the people had no more money, they exchanged their horses and livestock for grain. Whether they sold them or mortgaged them is not clear. But mortgaging would have been more practical since Joseph could not take care of all those animals on his own.

47:18-26 The next year, the people came back and sold themselves and their families into slavery to the Egyptian monarchy. Although this seems harsh, it is important to know that slavery in the ancient Near East was not the same as how it occurred in American history. Selling oneself into slavery was similar to filing for bankruptcy and was more like tenured employment. If you did not have money or food, you would starve to death. Being an indentured servant who was provided shelter and food for your family was better than death. And under a benevolent master, it could be quite comfortable. Likewise, most laws in the ancient Near East allowed a man to go free after six years of slavery. Many would even choose to remain a slave, showing that they did not view it as a harsh or abusive life. The self-employed landowner may have had more freedom, but he faced greater risks. Notice that the people, after they had become slaves, declared joyfully that Joseph had saved their lives. As with the animals, Joseph may also have been mortgaging their lands because he gave them grain to sow and allowed them to work the land. They only had to give a fifth of their crops to the monarchy—the rest was theirs to live on. Twenty percent is the equivalent of modern-day taxes. Joseph gave them grain because he did not want to see the lands return to desert.

Joseph’s wisdom caused Pharaoh to become wealthy, fulfilling the earlier blessing of Jacob on Pharaoh. To those who blessed and treated Israel well, Yahweh had promised a blessing (Gen. 12:1-3). At the same time, Yahweh blessed the family of Jacob, just as He had promised.

47:27-31 In contrast, those of Jacob’s family owned their own land, were fruitful, and increased rapidly in number. The narrator, in emphasizing their fruitfulness, alludes back to the garden and the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant. Yahweh was fulfilling the mandate of creation and His promises to Abraham. But he also ties these events into the book of Exodus, which begins by stating that Israel had been increasing greatly in numbers while in Egypt (Ex. 1:7).

As Jacob came to the end of his life, he told Joseph to place his hand under his thigh and swear to bury him in the land of Canaan, the land of the promises of Yahweh. Jacob showed his faith in Yahweh by his desire to be buried in the land of Canaan, the land that Yahweh had promised to Abraham and his descendants. Though his burial in Egypt would have been great, he preferred Canaan. Joseph swore that he would do this.

The narrator sets this scene up as a death scene, even though Jacob did not die until the end of Genesis 50, showing that this is the end of the Joseph story. The scene is similar to Abraham’s making his servant swear to find a wife for Isaac (Gen. 24:1-10) and Abraham’s death (Gen. 25:1-11). The final three chapters conclude the story of the family of Jacob and the greater story of Genesis.

H. The Testament of Jacob (48:1–50:26)

In this final section of Genesis, Jacob, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gives an oracle to Joseph’s two sons and to his own twelve sons. This section should not be called the blessings of Jacob but the testament of Jacob, for his last word to his sons contain both blessings and curses.^[191] The focus is on the fact that the oracles given to his sons were prophetic of who they would become, as the twelve tribes of Israel, once Yahweh brought them out of Egypt (Gen. 15:13-16; Ex. 13-14) and made them into a great nation (Gen. 12:1-3). This section also answers the question of who would get the firstborn title. Jacob does something unique here, splitting the benefits of the title between Judah and Joseph. Judah would receive the headship of the nation, but Joseph, through his two sons, would receive the double land portion (1 Chr. 5:1-2).

48:1-7 Joseph, on learning that Jacob was about to die, took his two sons to see their grandfather. Jacob referred to Yahweh as ’el-shaddai (Gen. 17:1) and to the promises Yahweh had made to him at Bethel when he returned to Canaan (Gen. 35:9-13). But he also echoed the blessing given to him by Isaac (Gen. 28:3-4). Jacob stated that he was going to adopt them as his own by making them equal to all his other sons when it came to the final inheritance. Such adoptions are well attested in the ancient Near East. By doing this, he showed that he was giving the double portion of the firstborn title to Joseph and his descendants (1 Chr. 5:1-5).

48:8-14 Because of his failing eyesight, Jacob asked who the two sons were. Joseph placed Manasseh, the firstborn and in his mid-twenties (Gen. 41:50), at the right hand of Jacob to receive the firstborn headship title. At the right hand was considered the place of honor and blessing (Deut. 11:29; Ps. 110:1; Matt. 25:33; Heb. 1:3). Jacob, however, crossed his arms so that his right hand was on Ephraim, the second born. This continues the pattern of the firstborns not receiving the headship title, as with Cain and Abel (Gen. 4:1-8), Ishmael and Isaac (Gen. 17:15-22), Perez and Zerah (Gen. 27:30), and Jacob and Esau (Gen. 27).

“There is a slight touch of irony here: Jacob had secured Isaac’s blessing by guile and deceit, while Joseph is securing the blessing for his sons by honesty and forthrightness.”^[192]

48:15-16 The switch from prose to poetry emphasizes the importance of the words of Jacob’s blessings. Under the inspiration of Yahweh, Jacob deliberately gave the second-born Ephraim the privileged firstborn blessing and predicted his preeminence. Under Joshua, Ephraim would receive an inheritance along with the other tribes (Jos. 16:5-9; 17:9, 10, 15-18; 1 Chr. 7:28, 29). By the time of the judges and the kings, Ephraim had grown to be very large and influential. When the kingdom of Israel split into the northern and southern kingdoms (1 Kgs. 12:16-17), Ephraim took the lead among the ten northern tribes (Isa. 7:2-17; Jer. 31:9, 20) and flourished to the extent that the tribes in the north used the name Ephraim interchangeably with the name Israel (2 Chr. 17:2; 25:6-7; Isa. 7:8-9; 11:12-13; 17:3; Jer. 31:18-20; Hos. 4:17; 5:3-5; 6:4,10; 8:11; 12:14).

48:17-18 When Joseph saw that his father had switched his hands and given the blessing to Manasseh, he protested, thinking Jacob had made a mistake due to his poor eyesight. However, Jacob made it clear that this was no mistake. Besides, it would have been too late, for Jacob would not have been able to take the blessing back—just as Isaac could not withdraw his blessing of Jacob (Gen. 27:34-38).

48:19-20 Under the leadership of Joshua, Manasseh would be granted land on the west and east side of the Jordan River (Jos. 17:1-12). The eastern half assisted Israel in the conquest of Canaan (Deut. 3:18-20; Jos. 1:12-15; 4:12-13) and joined the other eastern tribes in erecting a monument to testify to the unity of Israel (Jos. 22). During the reign of David, some of the tribe of Manasseh joined him at Ziklag (1 Chr. 12:19-20) and also supported him at Hebron. They also joined Judah during the reign of Hezekiah (2 Chr. 30) and were incorporated into the kingdom of Judah (2 Chr. 15:9; 34:6-7).

48:21-22 Jacob then reminded Joseph of Yahweh’s promise to bring them back to the land of their fathers (Gen. 15:12-16). Jacob then personally willed to Joseph land that he had gained from the Amorites through war. This battle is never mentioned in Scripture.

49:1-2 Jacob blessed all twelve of his sons and foretold what would become of each of them and their descendants. He disqualified Reuben, Simeon, and Levi from leadership and instead gave that blessing to Judah. He granted the double portion to Joseph. Each blessing contained at least one of the following elements: a summary of the son’s personality, a foreshadowing of his potential, and a prophecy of his future. Also, with many of the sons Jacob alluded to an animal to illustrate the personality of that son.

The order of the sons is different from the birth order given in Gen. 29:31-30:24. Here, Zebulun precedes Issachar—maybe because Zebulun’s destiny was better than Issachar’s. Likewise, the order of the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah is different. Here, it is Dan (Bilhah), Gad (Zilpah), Asher (Zilpah), and Naphtali (Bilhah), applying a chiastic structure to the names of the maidservants. It could be that this ordering of names reflects the geographic placement of the tribes north to south in the Promised Land (Num. 32:33-36; Josh. 19:24-48).^[193]

49:3-4 The switch from prose to poetry emphasizes the importance of the words of Jacob’s blessings. Jacob began by declaring that Reuben was his might and strength, the one who should have been Jacob’s protector and the one to continue his name and receive the headship over all the other brothers. Instead, Reuben was like destructive water and, therefore, would not excel. The reference to “destructive water” is used of false prophets who invent prophecy (Jer. 23:32; Zeph. 3:4) and of men who take bribes to murder (Judg. 9:4). Reuben forfeited the title because he sought to take the title by his own means by sleeping with his father’s concubine (Gen. 35:22). Reuben lost the headship title, but he still received an inheritance and land. Perhaps Jacob was finally willing to curse Reuben because he was about to die and was no longer afraid of Reuben.

No judge, prophet, king, or famous person is found among the tribe of Reuben. The only two descendants of Reuben mentioned in Scripture are Dathan and Abiram, who would lead a rebellion against Moses (Num. 16). The tribe of Reuben eventually chose to settle on the east side of the Jordan River, separate from everyone else (Num. 32:1-5; Judg. 5:15-16). Later, they integrated into the tribe of Gad.

“From this first oracle the teaching is clear that the behavior of one individual affects the destiny of his descendants.”^[194]

49:5-7 Jacob referred to Simeon and Levi as “brothers.” This Hebrew word has the sense not of a biological relation but of an ally or confederate (1 Kgs. 9:13; 20:32). Together, they were violent and wicked men whom no one should trust in a covenant. They killed men for pleasure and hamstrung oxen (to cut the back tendon to hobble the oxen; Josh. 11:6, 9). The reference to oxen could be a metaphor for Hamor and Shechem, the leaders of the Hivite city that Simeon and Levi massacred (Gen. 34:25-31). The name Hamor literally means “donkey,” so it would be fitting to refer to the son as an ox. Leaders were often described as bulls. The other possibility is that the reference to the ox could be to Jacob—that the sons hamstrung him by making him an embarrassment and a target to all the surrounding nations (Gen. 34:30).^[195] Jacob cursed them for using the covenant of Yahweh to deceive and slaughter the Hivites (Gen. 34:25-31). Yet Jacob’s words also suggest there were numerous other occasions on which they had demonstrated their wickedness and violence. Because of their wickedness, Simeon (Num. 1:23; 26:14; Josh. 15:32-42; 19:1-19; 1 Chr. 4:38-43; 2 Chr. 15:9; 34:6) and Levi (Josh. 18:7; 21) did not receive the headship title nor any tribal territory, and their descendants would live scattered among the other tribes (Simeon Josh. 19:1-9; 21 18:7).

By the time Israel entered Canaan, the Simeonites were the weakest tribe in Israel (Num. 26:14), and Moses passed them over in his blessing of the Israelites (Deut. 33). Many scholars believe that the Simeonites were those primarily responsible for the pagan prostitutes brought into the camp of Israel (Num. 25). This view is based Moses’ census of the people before they entered Canaan, which showed every tribe had grown in numbers, except for Simeon, which had lost more than fifty percent of its numbers since the first census thirty-eight years earlier (Num. 1 and 26). They may have lost the most people in the plague that Yahweh sent upon Israel for their sins (Num. 25). The Simeonites were not given a separate tribal inheritance (Jos. 19:1-9) but only a few cities scattered through the southern portion of Judah (Jos. 19:1-9; 15:20-63). Later, the Simeonites lost their tribal identity completely among the other tribes (1 Chr. 4:27, 38-43).

Although the Levites also received no tribal territory (Num. 18:20-24; 26:62; Deut. 18:1-2; Josh. 18:7), they received redemption from Yahweh when they stood with Moses after the Israelites had worshiped the golden calf at Mount Sinai and when they executed those who had sinned (Ex. 32:26-28). Yahweh used their natural inclination toward violence to serve His righteous will. After their idolatry at Mount Sinai, the people lost the right to be priests (Ex. 19:3-6), and Yahweh gave the Levites the unique blessing of becoming the priesthood of Israel (Num. 3:5-13; 18:6-32). Moses later blessed them and charged them with leading and instructing Israel in Yahweh’s Law (Deut. 33:8-11; Mal. 2:4-5). Moses and Joshua gave the Levites forty-eight cities in which they lived among the other tribes (Num. 35:1-8; Josh. 21:1-40) to instruct the people in the worship and will of Yahweh (Num. 35:1-5; Lev. 23:32-34). Yahweh declared Himself the Levites’ inheritance (Deut. 10:9).

Even though the first three tribes suffered punishment for their sins, they still retained a place in the chosen family and enjoyed the benefits of the Abrahamic Covenant.

49:8-12 It was to Judah that Jacob gave the firstborn headship title because of his leadership and willing sacrifice for his brothers. Though Joseph would receive the double land portion, Judah received the headship and title of ruler/king over the other tribes (1 Chr. 5:1-2). Jacob used a play on words, stating, “Judah (Yehudah), your brothers will praise you (yoduka). Your hand (yadeka) will be on the neck of your enemies.” Usually Yahweh is the object of praise in the Bible; only three other times are humans said to be praised (Job 40:14; Pss. 45:17; 49:18), but these refer to achievement rather than their essence that prompts praise. Just as it was prophesied that the brothers would bow down to Joseph (37:7, 9; 42:6; 43:26; 43:28), now they would bow to Judah as the leader of the tribes (Gen. 35:22; 43:3-10; Judg. 1:1-2; 3:9; 20:18; 1 Chr. 5:1,2; 28:4; Ps. 60:7).

Jacob compared Judah to a “lion cub” that seizes its prey and dares anyone to try to take it (Num. 23:24; 24:9). The “scepter” and “ruler’s staff” were the symbols of royalty, command, and the right to rule. This right to rule would not depart from Judah and would always be with his descendants. Based on Deut. 28:57, the children come out from between the feet. Feet are a frequent euphemism for the genitalia (Judg. 3:24; 1 Sam. 24:3; Isa. 7:20).

This ruling scepter would stay with Judah “until it comes to Shiloh.” The Hebrew word shiloh is very difficult to understand in this context, with four major possibilities that require the fewest changes to the text to understand the meaning.^[196] First, it is assumed there is no grammatical corruption of the word and that it could be left as is and translated without emendation, “until he comes to Shiloh”—until a Judean ruler controls Shiloh. Shiloh was an important location of the tabernacle during the judges, but it was not an important political center, and it is spelled differently. Second, it could mean “ruler” and is a corruption of “his ruler.” “Until his (the) ruler comes.” It could come from the Egyptian word sr for “prince,” which is written siara in an Akkadian text. It fits the Egyptian setting of Jacob’s blessing but seems unlikely in the context. Third, a strong possibility, it could be broken into two words that mean “until he comes whose it is”—until the owner of the scepter comes, being a reference to the Davidic dynasty if not to the Messiah. However, it makes for a poor poetic line, and it is hard to explain how the corruption would have come about. Fourth, and most likely, no change is made to the consonants, but the vowels are repointed—vowels did not exist in the original written Hebrew. “Until tribute is brought to him” creates a good poetic line and points to further rule over the nations mentioned in the next line (Ps. 72:8-11; Isa. 2:2-4). Ezekiel alluded to this interpretation in his prophecy in Ezek. 19 and 21:27. The third and fourth options are the most likely understanding. In all the views, the prophecy looks forward to a Davidic king and even to the Messiah (Num. 24:17; Dan. 7:13-14; Rev. 5:6). This is the first clear prophecy concerning the coming of the Messiah. This Judahic king would rule not only over Israel but over all the peoples or nations (Gen. 17:16; Ex. 15:16; Deut. 32:8). It is clear that a person is in view here since Jacob went on to describe a future ruler.

The imagery of wine was associated with the blessings, fullness, and joy of life (Gen. 27:28; Deut. 7:12-14; 33:26-29; 2 Kgs. 18:32; Ps. 104:13-15; Prov. 3:9-10; Joel 2:19, 24: Jer. 31:12). The symbol of wine would become one of the two signs (wine and grain) of the Messiah (Jn. 2:1-11; 18:1-8; Matt. 26:27-29). This king is connected to wine in three different ways.

The first connection is that he would tie his donkey to the vine. While horses were seen as military strength in flat terrain, the donkey was seen as a symbol of royalty in the mountainous regions of the ancient Near East (Judg. 10:4; 12:14) since horses were useless in the mountains. When King Solomon (who came from Judah) was made king, David had him placed on a donkey and paraded throughout the city to demonstrate his kingship (1 Kgs. 1:32-40). Later, Jesus did the same when the people of Israel declared Him King (Zech. 9:9; Matt. 21:1-11). No one would tie his donkey to a vine because the donkey would eat up the vine. The idea, therefore, is that the vineyards are so abundant that a donkey eating the vine would not matter. Thus, the abundance of life and joy would be characteristic of his rule and kingdom (donkey).

The second connection is that his garments would be washed in the blood of grapes. This once again carries the idea that the wine would be in such abundance that he would be able to wash his garments in it. Also, he would be clothed in the abundance of life and joy.

Third, his eyes would be dark from wine, meaning his eyes would be filled with an abundance of life, joy, and blessing. Eyes are often associated with character.

His teeth being white as milk means his words would be sweet and filled with blessings, in connection to Yahweh’s promising Israel a land flowing with milk and honey (Ex. 3:8; 33:3; Lev. 20:24; Num. 14:8; Deut. 6:3; 11:9; 26:9, 15; 27:3; 31:20; Josh 5:6; Jer. 11:5; 32:22; Ezek. 20:6, 15).

“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.”^[197]

Judah was the tribe that later camped on the east side of the tabernacle, which is the position of authority. Judah led the other tribes in the march through the wilderness (Num. 2:1-3; 10:14) and in the conquest of the land of Canaan (Judg. 1:1-3). Judah also produced the Davidic line, which made up the monarchy (2 Sam 2:1-11; 5:4-5). Later, when Israel split into two nations, Judah remained loyal to the Davidic line and made up most of the southern kingdom (1 Kgs. 12:20). Through Judah came David and the Messiah, Lion of the tribe of Judah (Rev. 5:6).

At the time of Christ, Herod the Great was ruling over Judea (37–4 BC) and passed the rule to his son Archelaus (4 BC–7 AD) after his death. Though these two were not fully Jewish in their bloodline, they still had Jewish blood. Archelaus was such a sadistic ruler that the Romans removed him from power and replaced him with a full-blooded Roman procurator named Caponius. At this time, the legal power for the Sanhedrin was limited, and the right to adjudicate the capital cases and pronounce the death penalty was taken away. Thus, there was no longer a Jewish ruler who ruled over Israel with the scepter. When this happened, the members of the Sanhedrin covered their heads with ashes and their bodies with sackcloth and cried out, “Woe unto us for the scepter has departed from Judah and the Messiah has not come!”^[198] They believed that the Word of Yahweh had failed, for the scepter had left Judah and the Messiah had not come. Little did they know that Jesus was growing up in the city of Nazareth.

49:13 Zebulun was said to be the harbor of the sea and a safety to ships. This is odd since Zebulun inherited land inland and not on the coast (Josh. 19:10-16). It could be the idea that Zebulun would profit from the sea (Deut. 33:19) since Zebulun was located on the western trade route that went through Israel from Mesopotamia to Egypt. Other than being listed as a tribe that fought in many of the battles of Israel, very little is mentioned about Zebulun in the Bible.

49:14-15 Issachar would be a strong donkey or worker in the fields. Issachar became an agricultural tribe in the lower Galilee region, including the valley of Jezreel, which was a pleasant and productive farming area. Other than being listed as a tribe that fought in many of the battles of Israel, very little is mentioned about Issachar in the Bible.

49:16-18 Dan would be a judge in Israel, and his military victories would benefit the entire nation. This was partially seen during Samson’s life. However, Dan also led Israel into idolatry (Judg. 18:30; 1 Kgs. 12:28-29; 2 Kgs. 10:29), thus the reference to the serpent (Gen. 49:17). The judgment on Dan for this is seen in Revelation, when the twelve tribes are listed for sealing and Dan is completely omitted from the list of the twelve tribes. (Rev. 7:5-8).

49:19 Gad was told that his descendants would experience a troubled life but that they would always strike back. Under Moses and Joshua, Gad, along with Manasseh and Reuben, asked to settle on the east side of the Jordan River (Num. 32:1; Deut. 3:12-17; 29:8; Jos. 22:8). The Gadites, among others, joined the fugitive David and supported his becoming king (1 Chr. 12:1‑15, 37-38). The Gadites also shared in, and were subject to, David’s administration (2 Sam. 23:36; 24:5; 1 Chr. 26:32).

49:20 Asher would enjoy some of the most fertile soil of Israel in the lowlands of the Mount Carmel range in the northern part of the Mediterranean coast of Canaan. Other than being listed as a tribe that fought in many of the battles of Israel, very little is mentioned about Asher in the Bible.

49:21 Naphtali would enjoy the admiration and praise of the other tribes in a special way (Judg. 4, 5). Other than being listed as a tribe that fought in many of the battles of Israel, very little is mentioned about Naphtali in the Bible.

49:22-26 The blessing on Joseph is the longest, most complex, and most grammatically obscure. In the first line, Joseph is compared either to a fruitful vine or a wild donkey, but the interpretation of the Hebrew is unclear. If a fruitful vine, which many translations have chosen, the idea is that Joseph is pictured as a healthy and fruitful vine growing by the wall (Ps. 1:3; 92:12-14; Jer. 17:7-8). If a wild donkey, like the blessing on Ishmael (Gen. 16:12), then he is seen as living an individualistic lifestyle not confined by social convention (Jer. 2:24; Hos. 8:9).^[199] The imagery of archers standing against Joseph is an allusion to the opposition he faced throughout his career, but the attacks against him failed because of Yahweh’s intervention. In Gen. 49:25, the title ’el-shaddai is used of Yahweh once again (Gen. 17:1) in connection to providing blessings of the breast and womb. As mentioned before, it is clear from its context that it carries the idea of Yahweh being the source of fertility and life (Gen. 17:1-8; 29:31; 30:22-24; 35:11, 16-18; 43:14). ’El-shaddai is used here as a word play between shadu (mountain) and shad (breast).

49:27 Benjamin earned a reputation as a tribe for bravery and skill and furiousness in war (Judg. 3:15; 19:16; 20:16; 2 Sam. 2:15-16; 1 Chr. 8:40; 12:2; 2 Chr. 17:17). Ehud, Saul, Jonathan, and Paul came from the tribe of Benjamin. During the time of the judges, Benjamin was attacked by all the other tribes after the injustice done to a Levite’s concubine in a Benjaminite city (Judg. 20). Since Jerusalem, the capital of Judah, was in Benjamin’s territory, Benjamin was drawn closer to Judah (1 Chr. 8:28), and after the division between the northern and southern kingdoms, Benjamin stayed with Judah (1 Kgs. 12:21; 2 Chr. 11).

49:28 The twelve sons of Jacob would become the twelve tribes of Israel. However, Joseph would be represented by his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, making thirteen tribes all together. Thus, the twelve tribes would become a “baker’s dozen.” Since Levi would later become the priesthood and would not be given a land allotment and not allowed to fight in wars as priests, they were not usually counted among the twelve tribes, politically or militarily speaking. However, Yahweh did at times include Levi in the listing of the twelve and so adjusted which tribes were named in the list. This was done in one of two ways. Sometimes Yahweh combined Ephraim and Manasseh into one name and listed them as Joseph. Other times, when Yahweh was judging a tribe for their sins, He completely left that tribe out of the listing, replacing it with Levi to maintain the number twelve (Rev. 7:5-8). The twelve tribes are listed twenty different times in the Bible, in different orders, and sometimes with certain tribes omitted (Gen. 29-35; 46; 49; Ex. 1; Num. 1:1-15; 1:20-43; 2; 7; 10; 13; 26; 34; Deut. 27; 33; Josh. 13-22; Judg. 5; 1 Chr. 2:1-8, 12-27; Ezek. 48; Rev. 7).

“Within Jacob’s words to each of the sons (after Judah), the theme of blessing has been evident in two primary images. First, the reverse side of the blessing is stressed in the imagery of the victorious warrior. The defeat of the enemy is the prelude to the messianic peace. Second, the positive side of the blessing is stressed in the imagery of great prosperity and abundance. Behind such imagery of peace and prosperity lies the picture of the Garden of Eden—the Paradise lost. The focus of Jacob’s words has been the promise that when the one comes to whom the kingship truly belongs, there will once again be the peace and prosperity that God intended all to have in the Garden of Eden.”^[200]

49:29-33 Jacob reminded his sons that he wanted to be buried with his forefathers in the land of Canaan, and then he lay down in his bed and died. Jacob’s insistence on being buried in Canaan shows he understood where he truly belonged.

“He [the narrator] is interested in the fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham, promises of land, descendants, covenant, and blessing to the nations. In the very first chapter, he declares his blessing on mankind. The story of Jacob is dominated by his quest for blessing. Now at the end of his life that quest is completed. He looks back on God’s promises to him and declares that ‘El Shaddai appeared to me… and blessed me’ (48:3). He observes that he has received more from God than he ever anticipated, ‘I never expected to see your face; now God has showed me your descendants as well’ (48:11) He reflects on the fulfillment of the promises. He and his father s have acquired a permanent holding in the land of Canaan (48:4), both the burial place at Macpelah (49:29-32; 50:13) and land captured from the Amorites (48:21-23). As for descendants, he has twelve sons of his own and he adopts his grandsons Ephraim and Manasseh too. Similarly, Joseph lives to see his grandchildren (48:12-20; 50:23). After many a close scrape with death he can look back on life in which ‘God… has guided me from then until now’ whose ‘angel… rescued me from every evil.’

However, the experiences of Jacob and Joseph are merely a foretaste and pledge of the glory to come, just as the believer’s experience of the Spirits a guarantee of a greater inheritance (Eph 1:13-l-4). Genesis portrays all the major patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, as endowed with the gift of prophecy, but none give on their deathbed such a detailed review of Israel’s future, as Jacob does; only Moses, the greatest of the prophets, surpasses Jacob in this respect. In blessing Ephraim and Manasseh, Jacob declares that these two tribes will become ‘a people’ and ‘full of nations’ (48:19). Then in chap. 49 he speaks of what will happen ‘in the latter days,’ that is, in the distant future, when the tribes have settled in Canaan and have come into their inheritance there. He mentions the kind of land they will inherit (e.g., suitable for viticulture, or by the sea). He traces the rise of the great tribes of Judah and Joseph (49:8-12, 22-26), the decline of Reuben and Simeon (49:3-7), and the oppression of Issachar, Dan, and Gad (49:14-19). This long prophecy climaxes with the prediction of superlative blessings on Joseph that will ensure his prosperity in every sphere of life ‘thanks to the strength of the Mighty One of Jacob, thanks to the shepherd of the Stone of Israel’ (49:24-26).”^[201]

50:1-14 Joseph wept over his father’s body and then instructed physicians in his service to have Jacob embalmed. This is odd considering that this an Egyptian rite and not connected to Semitic practices. However, this shows how highly regarded Jacob and Joseph were in Egypt since embalming was reserved only for the most privileged and powerful in Egypt.

Joseph asked Pharaoh’s permission to take his father back to Canaan to be buried there. Joseph mentioned that Jacob made him swear an oath and that Jacob had already prepared the tomb to avoid offending Pharaoh concerning his desire to be buried in Canaan rather than Egypt. Joseph then took his father back to the land of Canaan and had him buried there. The elaborateness of the burial probably had more to do with the fact that Joseph was an Egyptian official than with the renown of Jacob.

“The record of Jacob’s burial in the land is important to the purpose of Genesis. God had promised the land to Abraham and had given the patriarchs small portions of it. The faith of these men that God would fulfill His promises and do for their descendants all that He had promised is obvious in their view of Canaan as their homeland. They counted on the future faithfulness of God who had proved Himself faithful to them personally during their lifetimes.”^[202]

50:15-21 Joseph’s brothers became afraid again of what he would do to them for their selling him into slavery. They feared that the only thing that had prevented him from taking vengeance on them was his respect for their father. Notice that the first time Joseph told them he had forgiven them, they had not yet asked for forgiveness. They reminded Joseph of Jacob’s request that Joseph forgive them, and they implored him to act like their father’s God (Ex. 34:7; Ps. 32:1, 5; Mic. 7:18).

Joseph assured them again that he had truly forgiven them (Gen. 45:5-8). This time Joseph stated concisely how Yahweh operates as a sovereign God over a fallen world. What people intended for evil, Yahweh used for good and to accomplish His purposes. Joseph did not say that Yahweh had intended to transport Joseph comfortably to Egypt and that even though his brothers’ wickedness messed it all up, Yahweh was able to rework the situation to still accomplish His will. Rather, both Yahweh and the brothers sent Joseph to Egypt as a slave. The difference is that the brothers did it for wicked reasons to harm him, and Yahweh did it for righteous reasons to accomplish good. Both free choice and the providence of Yahweh were simultaneously at work in this situation. Yahweh is so sovereign that He orchestrates all things—both the good things of His creation and the evil hearts and wills of humans—toward accomplishing His purposes. The Bible does not totally answer the questions around how or why He does this, just that He does. But it does adamantly stress over and over that He is a good God who has our best interests in mind and that the redemption of humanity and creation is His ultimate goal as He works within an evil and fallen world.

“The statement about the brothers’ evil plans and God’s good plans now opens up the inmost mystery of the Joseph story. It is in every respect, along with the similar passage in ch. 45.5-7, the climax to the whole. Even where no man could imagine it, God had all the strings in his hand. But this guidance of God is only asserted; nothing more explicit is said about the way in which God incorporated man’s evil into his saving activity.”^[203]

“The idea that God overrules the plans of the wicked to achieve His own purposes of good is of course an assumption that pervades the Bible (Prov. 16:9; 19:21). Indeed, it seems to suggest that, through the suffering of the righteous Joseph at the hands of his wicked brothers, life was brought to the world… This principle of salvation finds its clearest expression and ultimate fulfillment in the life, death, resurrection, and exaltation of our lord (Mark 10:45).”^[204]

The amazing thing about Joseph is that he had truly put himself under the sovereignty and providence of Yahweh. No matter how badly he was treated or what was done to him, he believed strongly in the promises of Yahweh (Gen. 12:1-3) and that Yahweh could bring about His will through any circumstances.

“Abraham had two sons but they did not get on together. Isaac had two sons, but they parted forever. Not until Jacob’s twelve sons was the future firmly established. But precisely because they were a large number was there a danger of disunity and division. In the event there was dissension among them, so that they hated and persecuted the best of them. But eventually there was a complete reconciliation, not through the arbitration of a third party, but through the inner transformation of those who hated, for which the sufferer had waited and now in brotherly love acknowledges.”^[205]

“The story of Joseph illustrates patient faith and its reward. It ends the book of Genesis and brings its theme to a literary climax… But the story of Joseph shows us that the road to victory, dominion, mastery, and judicial authority is through service, the humble service of a slave. Through service and suffering, God purges and destroys indwelling sin in the believer (not completely, but sufficiently), builds character in him, and fits him for the mastery of the world.”^[206]

50:22-26 Yahweh blessed Joseph with long life, just as He had Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob before him. He even got to see his children to the third generation, which is a mark of Yahweh’s favor (Job 42:16). As with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at their deaths, Joseph’s last concern was the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises (Gen. 24:1-7; 28:1-4; 47:29-31). And just as his forefathers had, Joseph also desired to be buried in the Promised Land. So he made his brothers promise that they would take his bones to the land of Canaan when Yahweh brought them out of Egypt into the Promised Land (Gen. 15:13-16; Ex. 13:19).

Despite the promises of Yahweh and all the amazing ways by which He had provided for and blessed the family of Abraham, the book ends on a depressing and ultimately unfulfilling note with the death of Joseph and his body being placed in a coffin outside the land of promise. Though Joseph had risen to power, it had been in Egypt rather than Canaan. Likewise, not only had they not taken possession of the Promised Land, but they were no longer in it. The promises of Yahweh were yet to be fulfilled, and so the reader waits to see how this family is brought out of Egypt and into the Promised Land.

“But whereas Genesis goes on to tell of the faithful execution of the wills of Abraham and Jacob, here we simply read that ‘they embalmed him and he was put in a coffin in Egypt,’ the only coffin mentioned in the OT. The story is thus complete and incomplete. The next installment must await the rise of a king who did not know Joseph (Exod. 1:8).”^[207]

“The Book of Genesis, like the Old Testament in microcosm, ends by pointing beyond its own story… Joseph’s dying words epitomized the hope in which the Old Testament, and indeed the New (cf. Rev. 22:20), would fall into expectant silence: God will surely visit you.”^[208]

“The story of Joseph illustrates patient faith and its reward. It ends the book of Genesis and brings its theme to a literary climax… But the story of Joseph shows us that the road to victory, dominion, mastery, and judicial authority, is through service, the humble service of a slave. Through service and suffering, God purges and destroys indwelling sin in the believer (not completely, but sufficiently), builds character in him, and fits him for the mastery of the world.”^[209]

Conclusion

The narrator begins Genesis with the proclamation and demonstration of the ultimate sovereignty of Yahweh as creator and king of all things in the universe. Unlike the pagan gods, He is completely transcendent and all powerful over His creation. As the author of the sky, land, and humanity, He has absolute authority over them to do what He wills with them. At the creation, Yahweh demonstrated His sovereignty by subduing the chaos, forming and filling His creation with order, function, and meaning. Thus, Yahweh could declare all things in His creation good, unlike the pagan gods’ accounts of creation.

Yet the focus of the creation account is not on creation but on the formation of humanity out of the land. It was to humanity that Yahweh gave the unique gift of being made in His image and the authority to rule and subdue the creation in His name (i.e., in His character, according to His likeness). Though transcendent, Yahweh chose, out of His love and desire to have a relationship with humanity, to create a garden/tabernacle in His creation in order to enter creation and dwell with humanity. It was into that garden/tabernacle that He placed humanity, where they would be His priests in a covenant relationship. He then gave them the command to be fruitful and multiply, to expand the garden (to fill the earth with His image and character), and to rule and subdue in His name, which would be their act of worship (work and till). These commands and blessings become the basis for everything that is developed throughout the rest of the book of Genesis and the Bible. Yahweh is a relational God who enters a covenant relationship with humanity in order to bless them—this is the essence of His character. Even when humanity violates their covenant with Him, He will pursue them endlessly in their rebellion in a desire to bless them and redeem them.

However, humanity chose to become autonomous from Yahweh by seeking their own will and determining right and wrong for themselves. The result of their rebellion against the Author of the good creation was the entrance of sin, corruption, and chaos into His creation. Now their relationship with Yahweh, each other, and creation became broken. Death and emptiness entered creation, and humanity was separated from Yahweh, from the garden/tabernacle, and from the tree of life. There was no more shalom. In Genesis 3–11, the narrator develops humanity’s dark heart and constant desire in their autonomy to rebel against Yahweh. Thus, they brought more and more chaos and death into His creation. As a result, Yahweh had to bring judgment on their actions to maintain His creation and righteous will. Ultimately, he confused their language and scattered humanity to prevent them from uniting in their rebellion. Even after this, Yahweh continued to show them grace as He pursued and blessed them.

It was from this scattered people that Yahweh chose Abraham, to make him into a great nation so that He could bless him and the whole world through him (Gen. 12:1-3). Yahweh revealed Himself to Abraham and taught him what it meant to be the image of God. Yahweh made a covenant with Abraham that was not based on the obedience of humanity, like in the garden, but on His own character and His commitment to His people. Through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jacob’s twelve sons, who would become the nation of Israel, Yahweh would restore the garden/tabernacle that humanity once shared with Yahweh, blessing them with fruitfulness in their descendants and in their grain and flocks.

This family, however, was also saturated in the sin of the fall and had to be redeemed from their autonomy as well. Even so, Yahweh would redeem them and use them to bless and redeem others despite their sin. In Genesis, this finds its culmination in Joseph’s rise to power, which Yahweh used to save Jacob’s family and the surrounding nations (Gen. 34:5-11; 50:20) and establish the formation of the tribes of Israel (Gen. 48-49).

“Behind all the events and human plans recounted in the story of Joseph lies the unchanging plan of God. It is the same plan introduced from the very beginning of the book where God looks out at what he has just created for man and sees that ‘it is good’ (tob, 1:4-31). Through his dealings with the patriarchs and Joseph, God had continued to bring about his good plan. He had remained faithful to his purposes, and it is the point of this narrative to show that his people can continue to trust him and to believe that ‘in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose’ (Rom 8:28).”^[210]

By the end of Genesis, Yahweh had proven Himself faithful to His chosen family, yet at the same time the promises of nationhood and land were still unfulfilled. Israel was in Egypt, not Canaan, and they were under the rule of the Egyptians rather than being rulers themselves. Likewise, sin was rooted deep in this family. And even though Yahweh had worked in their lives, changing hearts and bringing restoration, one wonders if this was enough to really restore humanity to the garden/tabernacle. This is the tension between the sovereignty and faithfulness of Yahweh and the sinfulness and rebellion of humanity.

The conclusion of Genesis—with Jacob’s family in Egypt—is the link to the beginning of Exodus, wherein their circumstances have grown worse, for now they were enslaved to the Egyptians and under a pharaoh who did not know Joseph or what he had done for Egypt (Ex. 1:8-11). Yet the author is quick to point out that they have also become a great multitude, just as Yahweh had promised them (Ex. 1:12). This sets the stage for Yahweh to perform His greatest act of deliverance to His chosen people in the history of the First Testament. This act of salvation (Gen. 15:13-16 Ex. 12-14), in addition to the Abrahamic Covenant, becomes the foundation to everything else that Yahweh would do for His chosen people, Israel, so that they could be a blessing to the entire world.