GENESIS jĕn’ ə sis (בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית, using the first word of the book in beginning, LXX γένεσις, G1161, beginning).
This article assumes that authorship of Genesis may rightly be attributed to Moses. No statement in the book makes that claim, nor does any other OT book. The NT makes assertions, as we shall see, that point to Mosaic authorship of the book. With this assumption and the case standing as it does, it is almost impossible to treat the material of this article under the captions usually resorted to, except in a general way. The captions to be by-passed are “background” and “date.” In like manner headings such as “place of origin,” “destination” and “occasion” can receive only brief treatment. For if Moses wrote the book, he would have completed the task at least before 1240 b.c., the latest possible date for Israel’s crossing the Jordan after his death. “The place of origin would have been the Sinaitic peninsula or the Plains of Moab.” No definite “occasion” for writing the book could be fixed. The “purpose” of writing is nowhere stated in the OT. It could be surmised with some validity that the book was written to lay the groundwork for the remaining books of the Pentateuch. The material therefore falls into the following outline:
Outline
1. The importance of the book. Men have waxed eloquent in singing the praises of this, the first book of the Bible, and justly so. It contains first of all great theology, and has been rightly labeled as “the starting point of all Theology” (Fritsch, The Layman’s Bible Commentary). It gives a basically adequate answer to the question how the world originated, how man originated, how sin came into the world, how man fell from grace, how God gave the hope of redemption to fallen man, how sin spread, how a great judgment was visited upon the sinful world in the Flood, how a remnant of the human race was providentially saved, how the human race again spread abroad still proudly asserting itself. All this is presented from a theological point of view. The rest of the book deals with the unique preparations that were made to let redemption grow out of one branch of the human family under the guidance of the Father of all mankind.
Aside from its theological importance there is its importance as great lit. Genesis compares favorably with other works of lit. that give their own national version of Creation and the Flood. The skill of the author in portraying God’s activity in the guidance of creation and of history is inimitable. The charm with which the important characters of sacred history are set forth has entranced young and old through the ages. The manner in which the tale keeps moving from one climax to another is most effective. From the standpoint of good lit., the book has never lost its appeal through the ages.
Of the many things that could yet be said in praise of the importance of Genesis, is the rare combination of depth and simplicity. Subjects most vital to man, involving his deepest needs and aspirations, are dealt with in an almost childlike simplicity, which allows the young mind to catch the essence of the divine revelation with comparative ease. Like all inspired Scripture the first book in the series is still the stream through which the lamb can wade and through which the elephant must swim.
One fact stressing the extreme importance of this book is yet to be noted, and that is the frequent references to it made both by the rest of the OT as well as by the NT. True, many of the references made by the OT writers are not made by page and verse; but they are there and they stand out. To mention one summarizing example from the NT, Luke 24:27 represents the risen Lord as tracing back Messianic prophecy to Moses and all the prophets. Genesis can hardly be set aside in a reference so broad.
2. Outline. No one outline can do full justice to the contents of Genesis. It is almost immediately apparent to him who takes the book in hand that chs. 1-11 comprise a separate unit, even as do chs. 12-50. Various terms have been used to cover this difference, such as “Primeval History” and “Patriarchal History” (Fritsch, The Layman’s Bible Commentary). Or, for that matter an outline may be used which is actually presented by the book itself, an outline which comprises ten headings, built on the Heb. word tôledôt, which is most aptly tr. “history.” So ten histories (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:1) are offered by the book, some dealing with important characters (Terah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph), some dealing with important categories, like heaven and earth or the sons of Adam and of Noah; others with minor characters, like Ishmael, Esau, etc. This outline is the most effective, although it does not penetrate into the depth of issues involved; but it does emphasize that God guided the history of mankind through His dealings with individual characters that He felt free to use for the good of the rest of mankind.
Interesting is another approach made of a recent date (Frey, Botschaft des Alten Testaments) which finds four major subjects treated, labeling them as: The Book of Beginnings (1-11); The Book of Faith (12-25); The Book of Struggle (26-35); and The Book of Guidance (Füehrung) (36-50).
Still other outlines may have their validity, for it is extremely difficult to press the rich contents of so striking a book as Genesis into the mold of an outline that may be helpful. Usually an outline catches some important feature of the contents and fails to do justice to other features.
3. Author. The approach most popular still in our day is practically that of source analysis—many writers producing many sources, which have all been skillfully woven together into one grand whole by an unknown editor (commonly called the Redactor, and referred to as R).
This article will not attempt a portrayal that covers the whole of this approach but without undertaking any direct refutation it will attempt at least to sketch the newer developments that have taken place in this field. Around the turn of the cent. the major sources were designated as J, E, D, and P—J operating mostly with the divine name Yahweh (also spelled Jahweh); E, using the divine name Elohim by preference; D marked by material that is both hortatory and legal in character, as such material appears in Deuteronomy; and P setting forth the kind of material that priests would cultivate and cherish, such as the provisions of Leviticus (Lev 1-16).
Presently it began to appear to scholars that even past the Mosaic Age it would be far more likely for a nation like Israel to preserve the record of its experiences not in books, such as might be kept in a literary age, but in living tradition that was passed on by word of mouth from generation to generation. Attention was directed to tradition as the major source of Israel’s history. This should have set aside the entanglement with the problems of the written sources. Still the so-called achievements in this latter field were kept and operated with as having achieved relative validity. It was not realized that men cannot operate with both approaches simultaneously. But it must be admitted that with this shift of emphasis the richness of the traditions of Israel began to be studied and appreciated as never before.
In the meantime the search after sources had produced findings that gave even the adherents of these hypotheses of sources some serious misgivings. For example the P source had been broken down into component parts labeled consecutively as P, Pg, P1, P2, P3. Similar additional subsources were discovered for J and the rest—an obviously impossible array of sources that even the most astute ingenuity of scholarship could hardly accept seriously. The minor sources were dismissed and new reconstruction of at least JEDPR were and are being attempted.
The inadequacy of this approach again became evident in that entirely new sources were demanded on every side. The original J had been broken up into J1 and J2. J1 really had nothing in common with J2 except possibly the use of the divine proper name Yahweh. So, chiefly championed by Eissfeldt, L (Lay Source) was suggested as a helpful substitute for J1. It was also found necessary to bring another new source into the picture labeled N (nomadic stratum). In addition Noth felt that there was quite a bit of evidence for the similarity that is rather obvious when J and E are viewed side by side; and so he advocated a G source (gemeinsame Grundlage—common foundation) for both. A bit earlier men like Robert H. Pfeiffer had postulated an S source (S or Seir). Some appeared on the scene advocating that a K (Kenite) source is also clearly in evidence. Besides sources such as G2, L2, and J2 were currently approved in many cases.
It must be admitted that some writers roundly reject the validity of the newest sources, and claim that such proliferation defeats its own purpose and causes only confusion. One writer from this camp ventures the assertion that recourse to other than the basic standards like JE and P “has proved to be so much tilting at windmills” (Fritsch, The Anchor Bible).
One trend of source criticism as it still prevails in our day should, in passing, be noted. Much attention is given in such studies to the way in which a book may have originated. Surprisingly little is made of the contents and message of the book. So a thorough and much used textbook of introduction to the OT devotes about 150 pages to critical problems and only casually touches upon a few matters of true interpretation, indicating the meaning and value of the contents of the books treated. In the second place it is rather significant that even so notable a work as the IB, in an introductory article by the general editor makes the admission: “For fifty years no full-scale commentary has been produced in the English language on the whole Bible.” During these “fifty years” source criticism had its day and dominated all Pentateuchal studies. Meager were the fruits it produced in constructive interpretation during its heyday.
This leads to the other side of the question: If the critical approach has yielded so little fruitage and has so many obvious weaknesses with its theory of multiple authorship, also of Genesis, what has the conservative approach to offer by way of substitute? Answer: The possibility of Mosaic authorship advocated in a number of forms. We admit freely, to begin with, that nowhere in the Bible is there a direct and unmistakable claim maintaining the Mosaic authorship of Genesis in particular. But a number of factors point in this direction. That Moses wrote at least certain portions of the books that were traditionally ascribed to him may be noted (see Exod 17:14; 24:4, 7; 34:27; Num 33:2). In Leviticus at least thirty-five times expressions are used like, “And the Lord spoke unto Moses (and Aaron).” If the exact words are referred to, the words that the Lord spoke, the measure of probability is high that they were committed to writing as soon as received. Deuteronomy 1:1 also is significant. Unusually important are the passages: Deuteronomy 17:18; 27:1-8; 31:9, 24, all of which bear reference to written material dating from Moses.
It could be argued feasibly that if Moses resorted to writing in the cases just referred to, he may well have written the rest of the framework that surrounds these portions written by him. It also appears as feasible that the material from Exodus to Deuteronomy demands some such substructure as Genesis, a fact that Moses could well have sensed and taken steps to provide such a broader base, using such materials as were accessible at the time, in the form of ancient traditions that had been well preserved. Such an approach to the problem has as much to commend it as the hypothetical results of modern criticism, a fact which is tacitly admitted even by the trs. of the RSV, which captions the first book, as did the KJV trs.: “The First Book of Moses.”
When passages like John 5:46f. (in which Jesus refers to the “writings” of Moses) are introduced to indicate that Jesus Himself may have asserted in them that Moses was the author of the writings commonly attributed to him, they cannot be dismissed casually with the statement: “Jesus was not at the time discussing the authorship of the Pentateuch.” It all depends on how far one cares to extend the authority of the words of Jesus. That He incidentally combined with His statement a claim that Moses wrote these books could indeed have been done in the interest of reassuring His followers on this additional important question for years to come. It is true that “Moses” in this context could mean the writings commonly attributed to Moses. It is equally true that it might be a pronouncement on the authorship of these writings.
It is quite proper, therefore, for the Wycliffe Bible Commentary to come forth with the assertion (p. 1): “It is safe to claim Moses as the responsible author of the book” (Moody Press, Chicago [1962]). Or one may say, with The New Bible Commentary (ed. Francis Davidson, Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids [1958]): “No reason has yet been produced which categorically requires that the belief in the Mosaic authorship should be abandoned” (p. 75). We hold the theory of Mosaic authorship of Genesis to be fully as feasible as the theory of source analysis.
It cannot be denied that it is eminently reasonable to believe that Moses used available documents or solid traditions currently in circulation, in the compiling of Genesis.
Nor is it unreasonable to hold with the Bible Commission of the Roman Catholic Church, of 1906, that though Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, he may have employed qualified persons as secretaries to work under his direction for the compiling of certain source materials; cf. Echter Bible, etc. Allowance may even be made for post-Mosaic editorial additions or alterations of a later date. By this we mean that the names of towns as they are listed here and there in Genesis, may have been changed to agree with the names that these towns held at a later date, a perfectly legitimate modernizing.
There is also another view on the authorship of Genesis advocated by Aalders which allows for the possibility that an author may have compiled the work “at a comparatively later date” (prob. during the early days of the monarchy) but will have “made use of the extensive Mosaic literature together with some pre-Mosaic material” (The New Bible Commentary, p. 34, Eerdmans Publishing Company [1958]).
4. Unique problems. Quite a number of unique problems are encountered when one enters upon a study of Genesis. Almost the first to stare the student in the face is the problem of the apparent conflict between the modern world-view and that of this book. The difference of approach could even be magnified to the point where the two viewpoints are regarded as utterly irreconcilable. However one need not be unduly alarmed at the prospect. It is now commonly conceded that obviously the writer of the Genesis creation-account cannot have had the intention of providing a scientific theory of creation, cast in terms of modern science. He was so guided by the Spirit of inspiration that he set forth basic truths of revelation in terms that were precise enough as to the truth conveyed, but yet were elastic enough to allow for the possibility of present-day scientific approaches that have been well established. The emphasis in the account of Genesis lies upon the omnipotence and mercy of the Creator. A God who can be loved and worshiped is represented in action in a manner calculated to bring a man to his knees as he beholds what God did to bring this world and man into being. The time factor involved is certainly a subject of secondary importance. In fact, in the manner in which the account is written, it is quite clear that certain processes that may have required the lapse of a large measure of time are allowed for. Without a question the well-ordered nature of God’s creation as well as the wisdom with which all things were made, all stand forth rather prominently. Many scientists can gratefully accept Genesis and many theologians gladly accept the numerous validated findings of science.
Of an entirely different nature are the instances in the Scripture that seem to fail to fit smoothly into the picture of interpretation. There is the question of the historical character of the old patriarchs: Did Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob actually live and do the things recorded here? Did these events actually take place in their lives? That they were uniquely led by divine providence is rather apparent. But does an unusual measure of providential leading make an account unhistorical? More of God’s overruling power may have been manifested in one man’s life than in another. Besides, archeology has done valiant service in demonstrating in the record of the lives of the patriarchs that the background of these lives corresponds precisely with the state of affairs that prevailed in these lands as archeology retraces these records. Unger remarks, “The great service archaeological research is performing in this early period of Biblical history is to demonstrate that the picture of the patriarchs as presented in Genesis fits the frame of contemporary life....Today archaeology compels a more general respect for the historical quality of the patriarchal stories.” He adds that it “has had a momentous role in dealing a fatal blow to radical theories and in compelling a greater respect for the historical worth of the patriarchal narratives” (Merrill F. Unger, Archaeology and the OT, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House [1954], p. 120. See also G. E. Wright, Biblical Archaeology, Philadelphia: Westminster [1957], Ch. III, pp. 40ff.)
A matter that could cause the careful reader of Genesis some measure of difficulty is the fact that after one has read the largely narrative account of Genesis, the style of the record becomes so radically different in vocabulary and subject matter as one gets into material such as Exodus 21-23. Could one and the same man be found to have such diversity of style as is here in evidence? A still different style appears as one explores the material of Deuteronomy. But is not this difficulty alleviated by the simple observation that at these points a total change of subject-matter is to be found? The writer is no longer telling how God dealt with the patriarchs, but is recounting laws that he set forth for the guidance of the nation. Style and vocabulary had to change under such circumstances. So, too, they had to change again when Moses, before his end, addressed touching admonitions to the nation he had guided for so many years, as is the case in much of the material that goes to make up Deuteronomy.
Is not the argument convincing that J largely and almost exclusively used the name Yahweh for the divine being, whereas E used Elohim? Cannot this speak strongly in favor of a clear separation of these two sources? No easy solution to the problem involved has yet been offered by either side in the argument. Criticism can hardly offer a valid parallel where a writer of the Mosaic period can be shown to have known only one name for the Deity. Besides, the obvious fact that names are to be used according to their meaning is totally ignored in this case. Observe, by way of a good parallel, the fine distinction that the NT makes in the use of the two names “Jesus’ and “Christ.” Add to this the many exceptions where J uses Elohim and E uses Yahweh.
Is there not a large measure of agreement among critics as to the major issues of source analysis? Answer: First of all, issues of this sort are not settled by majority vote. The majority often has been wrong. Besides, a large number of passages can be cited from the pen of critics admitting many unsolved problems. Critics are today more than ever before divided over the results of their investigations. Bentzen admits that “the present situation concerning the question of the Pentateuch...is rather in suspense. Especially among the scholars of the younger generation there exists a definite scepticism toward the Documentary Hypothesis” (A. Bentzen, Introduction to the OT, Copenhagen: G. E. C. Gad [1958], Vol. II, p. 23). Nielsen, writing as a representative of an Oral Tradition theory objects to the older literary criticism: “One can and must doubt whether the method by which literary criticism finds difficulties in the text and afterwards solves them is the right one. In other words one may doubt the correctness of the fundamental view and the methods of literary criticism.” (E. Nielsen, Oral Tradition London: SCM Press [1954], p. 94.) Observe also how many findings are couched in cautious terminology, using frequently words such as “could” and “might.”
Somewhat striking besides is the fact that after many sources have been detected by the methods of criticism there are still certain materials left over that cannot be traced to any of the sources or redactors with which men operate, like the famous ch. 14 of Genesis. (Cf. also: Exod 15:1-19; 19:3b-8; and Deut 32.)
Attention also should be drawn to the fact that when the theology of Genesis is set forth the custom prevails to present not the theology of the book as a whole but to fragmentize it into the separate theologies of J, E, P, etc. The total impact of the book is lost, and the hypothetical theologies of unidentified writers are emphasized. The form in which the book has providentially come down to us is ignored, though the editor, or redactor—whoever he may have been—may have been highly praised by the present-day writer for his skill in organizing. It is not the theology of Genesis that is offered, but the hazy theologies of J, E, and P.
There is another unwholesome trend which may be observed in dealing with the book as a whole, the trend which thinks in terms of the incredibility of the history of the early patriarchs. It is taken for granted that one cannot accept as facts the things set forth as having been experienced by the fathers of old. Their encounter with the divine being in assumed human or angelic form, their providential deliverance from danger, the overwhelming instances of divine providence particularly in the life of Joseph—all these are thought to tax belief beyond what confidently may be accepted. Subjective feelings are not the final measure of miracles.
5. Theology of Genesis. This is not a theology of the various so-called sources, but a theology of the book as a whole.
On the doctrine concerning God some distinct points of view emerge and some features obviously are missing. A full-rounded concept of God could hardly be conveyed by one brief book, esp. since the doctrine of God also was subject to more abundant revelation as time went on.
The God who does appear in this book is sole and supreme monarch of the universe and of His people. A latent monotheism is to be discovered in the book. It is a long while until statements like Deuteronomy 6:4 can appear, but Genesis prepares for them. It is equally obvious that this God of the patriarchs is omnipotent: He can create whatever He is pleased to bring into being, and He does all his work by the use of His potent word. He knows all things, though this fact is hinted at rather than fully revealed. He knows of the hiding of our first parents in the garden, and of Sarah’s secret laughter in the tent. He is present also far from the ancestral home, as Jacob to his amazement discovers (Gen 28:16); he is virtually omnipresent.
In His workings God is supremely wise, for all things that He creates bear the stamp of being most excellently adapted to their designed use and purpose. An integrated universe comes into being from His hands. At the same time concern for the well-being of His creatures leads Him to give abundant evidence of His deep mercy and love, esp. toward those creatures who are the crown of His creation, the children of men.
This God reveals Himself to His children. Some measure of mystery surrounds the manner in which He does it. The sacred writers were not given a revelation concerning how revelation in days of old came from God to men, at least not as far as the mechanics of the method were concerned. God did at times appear (one may not be able to say precisely in what guise) and in these theophanies He spoke understandably to the chosen recipients of His revelation. Sometimes His message was conveyed to men in the stillness of the night in a dream (31:11); sometimes the mysterious agent “the angel of the Lord” functioned on such occasions (again 31:11). These experiences on the part of the patriarchs were real and do not savor of an overly lively display of religious credulity.
A rather clear picture of who and what man is also begins to appear in the context of this book. Man is a creature, made according to a preconceived design, with a material as well as a non-material side to His being. He is from the outset a creature that has a free will, for He can assent to, or He can say, “No,” to temptation. God’s image is stamped upon man. True, what the image of God precisely embraces is nowhere defined but it is asserted with emphasis that this belongs to His native endowment (1:27). Equally mysterious is the somewhat representative character of the first man (“in Adam all die,” 1 Cor 15:22). He is the first of human beings in more than in the mere sense of numerical priority. Again this representative character is not set forth in so many words.
This man is represented from the outset as a superior being as he comes forth as God’s handiwork, free from the taint of sin. Being led by the tempter, he allows himself to aspire to be like God, and rises in proud disobedience against the express will of his Creator, taking of the fruit “whose mortal taste brought death into the world and all its woe.” The immediate consequences of this willful act are seen to be an unwholesome fear of God, a desire to shun His presence, and a sense of shame, together with many other distortions of what had been a “good” character. Sin’s capacity for rapid growth is indicated by the record that tells how the first son of our first parents slew his own brother in cold blood. In fact, as the record points out, sin rages up and down through the world, filling it with violence, even to the point where the Creator Himself had to use drastic means—the Flood—to curb this monstrous evil. When a new development sets in and the children of men increase in numbers, soon they are defying the basic ordinance of the Almighty and are building a rallying point in the form of a huge tower. That man stands in need of help from on high is, by this account, represented negatively rather than positively. It soon becomes obvious that sin again is reaching horrible dimensions, when the abnormal development of Canaanite sexual depravity comes to light, or when the incident of Sodom and Gomorrah throws its lurid light on the pages of Sacred Writ.
That there is a grace mighty to save also soon becomes apparent. For hardly had Adam fallen, even before his well-deserved punishment is appointed, when strong evidence appears that God will not deal with men after their sins in ruthless justice, nor reward strictly according to their iniquities. He gives a rich promise, as Genesis 3:15, rightly interpreted, clearly shows. It is promised that one capable of breaking the power of the evil one will in due time appear, born of a woman. An incidental trace of the unmerited grace that God will make operative is to be found also in this that the Creator provides garments for these children of His whom He had to oust from the blessed garden of Eden (3:23). In a similar manner God’s attitude toward fallen man is indicated by the rainbow in the sky after the great Flood, which was a token of grace indicating a stable world-order not again to be visited by a Flood. In fact, God’s undeserved goodness found solid expression finally in the covenant that He made freely with Abraham, not because of Abraham’s superior merit but because of the Lord’s abounding favor (Gen 15).
So there are to be found the basic elements of redemption even at this early date: grace on the part of God; faith on the part of man. For Genesis 15:6 plainly states that when Abraham believed the Lord’s promises, “He reckoned it to him as righteousness,” a passage that figures prominently in the upbuilding of Paul’s theology (Rom 4:3, 9, 22, 23). Genesis comes close to saying that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.
It may also be noted that some clear thoughts on the subject of judgment are set forth in this early record. Abraham knows God as the God who is the fair and unimpeachable judge of all the earth (Gen 18:25). There are no soft notions of an indulgent father of mankind, but a sense of the necessity of divine justice visiting sin’s consequences upon the guilty—thoughts like this are strongly underscored by incidents like the destruction of Sodom (19:1-28).
Even more strongly the concept of divine providence is maintained and exemplified. In that food is expressly provided in creation for man’s needs, divine providence shows its face. The unique manner in which the patriarchs are guided and guarded in their ways conveys the same thought. In fact, perhaps nowhere in Scripture is the evidence of providential guidance exemplified more prominently than in the narrative that centers about Joseph.
6. Content. The record of Creation, it is contended in our day, was handed down from generation to generation in a long tradition. It was perpetuated in a record that went from mouth to mouth. Those who were qualified to give it shape and form did so with masterful skill and great theological insight, being no doubt skillfully guided by the Spirit of God. Was it in final form as it came to Moses, or did Moses perhaps give it some final form? God only knows.
The account as given in the first two chs. has something majestic about it. Being sanctified prose, it still reads almost like a great epic poem. It moves in solemn cadences to a great climax in the record of God’s Sabbath, having just before recorded the sublime story of the creation of man. At the same time, in words coming from the lips of the divine Creator, it maps out with surprising effectiveness God’s mandate to man, to “have dominion” over all created things. This includes man’s control progressively advancing from step to step subduing all creatures under his dominion (1:28). Man had rare duties and rare prerogatives and a nobel destiny outlined for him by God. Man was not left to his own devices to determine what his Creator expected of him. Still the mandate was given with such latitude of movement for man that God could hardly have stressed man’s moral accountability more heavily.
In ch. 2 God’s work of creation, how it proceeded and what it involved, is more fully unfolded. These details could have been inserted at their proper place in the time sequence of ch. 1, but that would have interrupted the marvelous progression that is so much in evidence in ch. 1. There was something of lowliness in the story of man—he was fashioned “of dust from the ground” (2:7). This fact so effectively disclosed at this point counterbalances the story of the high dignity that marked the previous chapter’s account. All this in spite of the fact that man had the distinct imprint of the image of God in his being.
Woman’s position over against man is also more fully outlined in the account of 2:21ff. What had in ch. 1 been stated all too briefly (“male and female he created them”) is now expanded in a report also most instructive and helpful. There is no clash between these two accounts. They obviously are intended to supplement one another.
For man’s moral growth and development God had in deep wisdom provided two trees (2:9) with important directives for man’s instruction in regard to the tree of knowledge. One must regard their nature as being almost sacramental. The full possibilities of the tree of life have not been perpetuated in the traditions relative to this second tree. One still gains the impression that nothing needful for man’s future development had been omitted.
Basic for the understanding of man, as far as man can understand the deep things of human nature, is some instruction about the origin of evil. This is provided in ch. 3. Many questions are left unanswered, perhaps because the mystery of iniquity is too great for mankind to fully comprehend it. The record of the Fall reveals some basic guidelines that dare never be overlooked. Man, as he came from the hand of God, was without moral deficiency. Sin did not originate from within man. A personal tempter brought it into the world. Man let himself be beguiled by the mysterious serpent. At a much later time it is made obvious that in the last analysis this tempter was none other than Satan (Rev 12:9). It is impossible to determine why the tempter is not more clearly identified. Man was not cursed as a consequence of the Fall, although grievous burdens were laid upon him lest he forget the deep tragedy of the whole experience—that the ground is cursed and brings forth thorns and thistles; toilsome labor and death are to be his lot. But, the case is not hopeless. In some strange way Adam was enlightened to see that, from the woman, life would come for mankind; for he designates his wife by the name “of Eve,” which word means “life.” Further indications of hope for fallen man appear also in this that one born of woman is to administer a crushing defeat (“crush the head”) to the tempter in the course of time, a promise reiterated in Romans 16:20. Additional evidence of God’s merciful attitude toward fallen man appears in this that he made personal provision for clothing those who had now become aware of a certain shameful nakedness (Gen 3:21).
Something of a deeply mysterious nature also surrounds the tree of life. It was for man’s own good that he was barred from access to this tree. For to have partaken of it would have meant irremediable involvement in the state of sin and so the loss of the hope of redemption (v. 22). The ch. has the memorable close that shows cherubim guarding the entrance to the Garden of Eden lest man eat of the second forbidden tree and be caught in the toils of hopeless death.
In ch. 4 the slaying of Abel shows what horrible potentialities lie in sin. At the same time, this fratricide was the first step in the direction of separating the human race into two groups—the beginning of the sharp antithesis—church and world. Those who were the lineal descendants of Cain (properly called “Cainites”) from this point on are seen to live a life immersed in this world and its delights and pursuits. In the seventh generation from Adam this group reached a more intense development of worldly values (nomadism, music, mastery of metals, 4:20-24). On the other hand Seth (4:25f.) was the ancestor among whose descendants the worship of the Lord flourished—public worship even at this early date. The people of this group may be designated as “Sethites.” The table of ancestry of the Cainites is given in 4:17-25. The line of descent of the Sethites is presented in ch. 5. Both groups must be noted if one is to understand how the history of the nations unfolds.
Of the successive stories that cover the material of Genesis, the first “story”—that of heaven and earth—runs from 2:4 to 4:26. It is rightly designated as being the story of heaven and earth because the interests of both areas are deeply involved in these two. The second story—that of Adam—runs from 5:1 to 6:8, and indicates in its closing remarks how esp. the Sethites forfeited their identity by letting their children intermarry with the godless Cainites. From that point on, corruption grew so fast it was not long before only one righteous man was left on the face of the earth—Noah.
This then leads to the story of Noah (6:8-9:29), a period of history which was dominated by the lone figure of this venerable patriarch. Within this story is contained the record of the universal Flood, telling particularly how God mercifully spared Noah and his family in the days when He wiped out all living creatures that were left outside the ark. The rainbow as token of God’s covenant mercy overarches this story and brings it to a gracious conclusion.
That we may not forget that all human families, as far as we are able to detect, stem from the stock of Noah, the next story—10:1-10:32—gives the genealogies of the sons of Noah and so traces the whole human family back to a second common ancestor—Noah.
In spite of their ancestral unity, it was not long before a new rift in the races of mankind developed as a result of man’s manifest disobedience to the command of the Lord in that they refused to keep spreading abroad on the face of the earth and sought to concentrate their strength and accomplishments about the great tower as rallying point. The mysterious confusion of tongues resulted, which helped to make obvious how deeply divided sinners had become from one another in spite of their common ancestry. This confusion could well have been allowed by the Almighty in order to prevent the consolidation of future opposition to the divine will.
The story found in 11:10-32 (the descendants of Shem) makes it obvious that the writer is aiming to concentrate on some part of the family of Shem, and that he knew well how the families of the earth were integrated.
With ch. 12, beginning actually with 11:27, there is the special history of the chosen race, although this story is captioned as being that of Terah. In some way, perhaps as a prominent figure among his contemporaries, Terah could at first have outranked Abraham, but there can be no doubt that the Abraham story runs from 11:27 to 25:11. Terah seems to have died comparatively early and to have vanished from the scene at Haran.
The story of the call of Abraham (12:1ff.) is of the utmost importance. It is, of course, basic for the understanding of the sacred history that follows. It towers above the accompanying narratives though it is not even said in what manner God appeared to Abraham. It is stated that in a surprising act of faith, Abraham obeyed the call. (Note: In 12:3 the KJV tr. “in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed” has much to support it, esp. in view of the Messianic implications indicated in Gal 3:15-18.)
Genesis 12:10ff. gives an unbiased and entirely truthful account of Abraham’s sojourn in Egypt with Sarah. It becomes apparent that though Abraham may have manifested surprising courage of faith in accepting the challenge of his call, yet he was far from being a perfect saint. Recent discoveries, however, relieve Abraham of some of his alleged weakness. It appears that in the Hurrian society of Mesopotamia there remained traces of a fratriarchal organization. The other marriage and inheritance laws and customs of the patriarchs also have been brilliantly illustrated by the Hurrian culture evidenced by the documents from Nuzi. There are marriage documents from Nuzi in which a wife, unrelated by blood to her husband, is adopted into the status of sistership. This legal status of sistership for a wife brought with it certain rights and protections. This special status was characteristic of the upper classes of society. The Hittites, it appears, did not recognize this peculiar custom. Apparently the wife-sister relationship was expected to give a woman a status that would make her free from improper approaches and thus make her husband safe in an unfriendly land. Abraham claimed this protection for both her and himself. It did not work in Egypt where Hurrian law was not followed. God in His providence preserved Sarah and Abraham anyway. Abraham tried it again in Gerar with the same result. Possibly he also tried it elsewhere with good results. Isaac later tried it again, prob. before a different Philistine king, with no better success. The whole strange situation is seen to be in accord with Nuzi law and good ethics in the early patriarchal times. The data are given extensively by Speiser (E. A. Speiser, Oriental and Biblical Studies, Philadelphia, Univ. of Penna. Press [1967], pp. 68-72).
Abraham’s nephew, Lot, had associated himself with Abraham in the departure from Ur of the Chaldeans. Nevertheless, as later developments show, his family did not constitute good material for incorporation with the chosen race. A separation had to take place. It ultimately appears that Lot gravitated toward Sodom, apparently finding a certain attraction for the type of life that prevailed in those wicked cities. Remarks like 13:13 indicate that an unusual measure of depravity was beginning to prevail in Canaan. The passage 15:16 points in the same direction.
There were more facets to Abraham’s character than we might first suppose. He even filled the role of a deliverer from the perils of war, and as a warrior of no mean ability himself. He displayed fine family loyalty for his nephew, going to battle for him (ch. 14).
Chapter 15 records how God made a covenant with Abraham, promising him many descendants and also revealing to him that before better days came, a troubled and painful future awaited his descendants down in the land of Egypt. The shift of location down into Egypt did not come upon Abraham’s descendants as a total surprise. Both the stay in that land plus the affliction there incurred, together with the disclosure that God would ultimately deliver the nation—all these coming events were communicated already to Abraham.
In this connection the sacrifice that was made according to 15:7-11, 17 is merely the record of the sacrifice by which the covenant was sealed in a formal fashion. The “smoking fire pot” (15:17), and “a flaming torch” (15:17), constitute one single picture and symbolize light, for light is the symbol of God’s presence. God Himself indicated by this sign language that He personally had entered into a compact with Abraham. All this involved sign langguage, which in those days was readily understood.
Chapter 16 introduces a time of waiting. The fulfillment of God’s promises did not come quickly. The period of waiting was a time of testing of the faith. Only under due tensions will faith grow and mature. This period of waiting extended over a number of decades. Under such circumstances people are inclined to resort to devices that are calculated to help God along. In the last analysis such devices are questionable and give evidence of a lack of faith. In this case they gave rise to family tensions, jealousy, friction, estrangement. Hagar bore a son, but he was not to be a child of promise. Abraham still had to wait quite a number of years before the true son appeared. Though the procedure followed was sanctioned by prevailing customs of that day, it still did not meet with divine approval, nor conform to the original promise God had given.
In the next chapter (ch. 17) further promises were given to Abraham, but nothing more. Faith subsists on promises. It is even indicated to this man approaching the age of one hundred years that a number of nations would trace back the beginning of their existence to this venerable patriarch. For the present, Abraham had to content himself with a unique sign of the covenant—circumcision. At least two constructive thoughts must be associated with this rite, one, the removal of impurity, and second, the sanctifying of life at its source, which rightly may be classed as a thought involving Messianic implications. In the obedience of faith, Abraham sees to it that he and his whole household take the obligations of this half-sacramental rite upon themselves. At the same time, Abraham learns that Ishmael will not rank as the son of promise. He will achieve some distinction as a son of Abraham. The promised one must be waited for, until the time is ripe in the Lord’s sight.
A high point in the relationship of the two contracting partners in the covenant is reached in ch. 18. The Lord condescends to meet with Abraham as an intimate friend, sharing food with him and sharing some of His divine secrets of judgment, as a man would with a confidential associate. A major catastrophe is about to occur near Abraham’s home. God would have him know what it is and what it involves, and He comes in a special visit to apprise the man of what is about to take place. Abraham appears to good advantage. Being a man of faith, he is not self-centered. Impending calamity rouses deep sympathy on Abraham’s part and shows him to be bold in prayer and much concerned about the well-being of others. Abraham’s prayer for Sodom and Gomorrah is not petty haggling, but intercession at its best.
Chapter 19 deals with ugly things. Sin has made tremendous inroads into the lives particularly of the Canaanites. Sin in its more repulsive forms is in evidence. It is not to be wondered at that the Almighty Himself, through His angels, takes the desperate situation in hand, and thereby sets up a severe warning for all the inhabitants of the land. Homosexuality in its grimmer aspects, venting its spite on helpless strangers, is the particular sin in which the iniquity of these people found its expression. For the sake of the intercessory prayer of a righteous man, the Lord spares at least those few persons in the city who may be less infected by this basic immorality. Even in that family group one member perishes, Lot’s wife, one who takes divine commandments somewhat lightly and is disobedient to a clear divine warning. The conclusion of the ch. indicates how one family that was saved had been infected by the unholy example of the surroundings in which the family had lived for a few years.
The episode that transpires in ch. 20 is not a doublet of the one recorded in 12:10ff. The location, the characters involved, and the details of the two are quite different from one another.
In its opening account, ch. 21 gives indication how great the happiness was that reigned in the household of Abraham at the birth of the son long promised. Isaac’s name in itself already means laughter; and the laughter referred to in this connection is not the laughter of amusement, but laughter of joy unspeakable over the fact that God had so faithfully kept His promise. When the two sons of Abraham grew up and failed to get along well together, this led to the dismissal of the son of the slave woman. Though her expulsion was divinely sanctioned, God compensated to her what she had to forfeit and gave to Ishmael also the hope of a challenging future, all for the sake of His servant Abraham.
Chapter 22 contains one of the best known of the stories of the OT. It should be noted in particular that the idea of offering a son to the Lord in a physical sacrifice on an altar did not originate with Abraham. God, however, does not follow mere whimsies in dealing with the children of men. It may well be that Abraham needed to be put to the test in this way, that he might become aware of the fact that he was threatened by the danger of loving this child of his old age more than even the Lord Himself. He had to face the issue squarely: Whom did he love the most, the Lord or Isaac? Hard though the test was, the Lord did not suffer Abraham to be tested above that which he was able. That God “provides” (v. 14) in the most difficult emergencies was the point that particularly impressed Abraham. Abraham had virtually made the spiritual sacrifice of his son to the Lord. At the same time, this episode may be regarded as a standing protest against child sacrifice: such sacrifice is not willed by God. It also must be obvious that this sacrifice has Messianic overtones. God was willing to offer His own Son for the saving of mankind (Rom 8:32). There is much about this ch. that still perplexes the children of God. It has unplumbed depths.
Chapter 23. An overly detailed account of the transactions connected with the purchase of a burial ground when Sarah died seems to be what this ch. presents. Possession of the land of Canaan was an item that loomed up large in the thinking of all Israelites from the time when first God promised this land to Abraham. Why should He not want at least token possession in the case of his wife’s place of burial? Viewed thus, the incident takes on increased importance as the act of a man of faith. With quiet dignity Abraham goes through all the necessary legal transactions to acquire at least this much of the soil of the land.
Chapter 24. This tale could be viewed as a somewhat romantic one charmingly told. It is far more than that. Perhaps there was hardly a woman to be found in the land who was not in some manner infected with loose and ungodly Canaanite thinking and immoral idolatry. To have secured a wife for Isaac from this type of stock would have imperiled the faith and the morals of the descendants of Abraham. With fine discretion Abraham commissions the servant of his house (Abraham was by this time, no doubt, too old to undergo the rigors of journey to Mesopotamia) and instructs him on the subject of the issues involved in this transaction. The servant was a man worthy of so fine a master and carried out his commission in the spirit in which it was given. Rebekah’s prompt acceptance could well have been regarded as token that the servant’s prayer at the well had been answered.
Chapter 25. Abraham’s second marriage with Keturah is a matter of historical record. Everything relating to the great father of the people of Israel is important. Most likely this marriage was entered upon after the death of Sarah. The children of this marriage are the fathers of the nations that had been foretold as coming from Abraham’s line (17:5). At this point the Ishmael story is woven into the narrative. As a descendant of Abraham, Ishmael is important; aside from that he merits brief attention (vv. 12-18). Then comes the beginning of the Isaac story (25:19-35:29), covering a major section of the Book of Genesis. In the Isaac story, Isaac stays pretty much in the background, being overshadowed in the first part of it by Abraham, as long as his father still lived, and then yielding place to his more famous son, Jacob. All this is partly due to the fact that Isaac was an ordinary person, pushed into the background by characters more important and more aggressive than he. He had the misfortune of being the son of a great father. Besides, it was the nature of the man Isaac to be unaggressive and somewhat phlegmatic by disposition. He stayed put quietly, inaugurated no new policies, hardly did an original thing. He perhaps never asserted himself. Two sons are born of this father, one of them uniquely a child of promise (v. 23). These twins also present quite a contrast, being radically different in disposition from one another (vv. 19-34). In the brief sketch given they are effectively set off one against the other. In Jacob’s acquiring of the birthright of the first-born, Jacob should not be unduly blamed. Preeminence had been promised him before his birth (v. 23). Furthermore Esau displayed little of a sense of appreciation of higher values in that he so readily disposed of his prerogative, selling his birthright. Such a sale of a birthright was not unique. An instance is recorded in the Nuzi texts, where a birthright was sold for three sheep! (C. F. Pfeiffer: The Biblical World, Grand Rapids: Baker [1966], p. 423.) It becomes quite obvious on reading the chapter that Jacob was the man who was better suited for outstanding leadership in the family.
Chapter 26 contributes some scenes from Isaac’s life. None are particularly striking; some are similar to those found in Abraham’s life. He repeated his father’s procedure when he dwelt near Gerar (later in the land of the Philistines) by claiming his wife as his sister. The grace of God watched also over Isaac. He had a dispute about wells with some of the shepherds of the general area, just as did his father, but he remained in the pattern of life established by his father. Verses 23-25 give the account of the one instance in his life when the Lord appeared to him and renewed the promises that had in the previous generation been granted to Abraham. Isaac, for all that, enjoyed the great respect of his neighbors, and even of kings, and must have been more of a prominent figure than is sometimes supposed (26:26ff.). That he too was a man of faith goes without saying.
Chapter 27. This ch. tells how Isaac blessed his sons. Though in no sense can one condone the deception that Jacob and Rebekah planned to perpetrate, it should be noted from the outset that every participant in the action was more or less at fault. Jacob’s fault already has been conceded. Rebekah was the originator of the deception practiced. Isaac, no doubt, knew of the word spoken by the Lord (25:23), but chose to try to invalidate it because of his favorite Esau. Esau on his part acted as though he had never sold his birthright. Out of all this moral confusion and deception came a result that was in harmony with the Lord’s will in regard to the matter. Overruling providence controlled the final issue. The man of God’s choice was given the better blessing, and was thereby marked to all intents and purposes as the man that carried the line of promise in this chosen family.
Chapter 28. In the light of the entire outcome in this instance, Isaac clearly confirmed the blessing that he had unintentionally at first bestowed upon Jacob (28:4). Nothing less than the ultimate murder of his brother was in Esau’s mind, yet he refrained from committing it while his parents were still alive. No other course was left open for Jacob than to leave the land, not in headlong flight, but in an adventure to which his parents consented. There is good ground for believing that Jacob by this time was truly repentant of his misdeed in the matter of securing his father’s blessing. For this reason God appeared to him with gracious promises for reassurance and guidance, in the well-known Bethel incident, marked by the ascending and descending of angels on a ladder. They served as symbols of God’s providence and protection and served to comfort a lonely, homesick and penitent sinner. Jacob had not realized that God’s providence would manifest itself away from the familiar setting of the ancestral home. He had never fully comprehended the meaning of God’s omnipresence. The words of the vow (v. 20ff.) are not an expression of mercenary bargaining of a shrewd man cautiously looking out for his own advantage. Jacob is merely reiterating the promises that the Lord had just made to him (v. 15). Jesus refers to this incident in a manner that shows that the passage also foreshadowed His own intimate communion with His heavenly Father (John 1:51). It still must be noted that Jacob vowed to establish a shrine to mark the spot of his memorable experience.
Chapter 29. One of the lovely Biblical romances is presented at the beginning of this chapter. It was love at first sight, at the well. To have seven years pass like seven days marks a man deeply in love. At this point it becomes obvious that Laban is a crafty fellow, who will stop short at nothing where his own material advantage is at stake. Crafty Jacob has a craftier prospective father-in-law. They are matching wits continually. He who has so subtly deceived his brother must learn what it means to be deceived. So divine retribution goes to work to correct Jacob’s wayward propensities. In spite of all the craftiness of men, the Almighty keeps the situation totally under His control. Divine providence overrules human craft and cunning.
There is another unpleasant side to the matter. Jacob became a bigamist. True, it was by accident rather than by design. Nowhere in the narrative is a word of censure spoken on Jacob’s bigamy, but in its own way the sacred record shows how sinful and unwholesome such a situation could become. It resulted in family intrigues and petty bickerings; in lack of family discipline and petty jealousies; in fact, in an entirely unwholesome atmosphere. That spiritual values had to be pushed into the background under such circumstances is obvious. Besides, on a broader scale tensions were building up between Jacob’s family and Laban’s. Mistrust and manifold connivings were the order of the day, until the situation became unbearable. Jacob had to leave Mesopotamia and return to the land of promise. He received divine sanction for the return. Providence was able to retrieve some good from the unwholesome ways of men. It should yet be noted that the significant names that were given by the mothers to the twelve sons of Jacob indicated that a spark of faith still was glowing beneath the surface of things.
Chapter 30. As the family gre