B> add applications to apologetics as relevant to Gen 1-3
Genesis 1: In the Beginning
Intro to Genesis
-overview of Old Testament/Covenant
-Creation, Fall, establishing God's rescue plan (Christ) by convincing us of the problem and our need for that solution (vs. others)
-Genesis: "birth, genealogy, history of origin"; Gr. ‘kosmou’ (‘origin of the cosmos’); Heb. ‘bereshith’ (‘in beginning’)
-first of the five books of the Law (Pentateuch)
-not beginning in the sense of chronology—although it is that too—but rather what is foundational (Sacks, 5-6)
-author: unknown (none claimed within the text); usually assumed to be written/compiled by Moses[1] (Acts 15:1)—and if so, probably during Wilderness wanderings (1446-1406 BC), after having been on the Mount with God[2]
-Biblical writings typically produced immediately after the events they describe (points to a role for Joseph or a contemporary, but Genesis uses Yahweh—the “revealed” name of God from Ex 3:14—known earlier, but made official there?); if not written pre-Moses, the Hebrews had no "Bible" in Egypt to read and meditate upon (oral tradition alone?)
( in any case, Kass (p. 17): “Readers who take up the book of Genesis [the first time or afresh] without presuppositions…find themselves in a position not unlike Abraham’s: a commanding but unidentified voice is addressing us from out of the text…speaking to us right away about things that we human beings could not by ourselves know anything about…we readers are being invited, as was Abraham, to proceed trustingly and courageously, without knowing…what he might want from us…”
-focusing on God, LAB’s “It is the story of God's purpose and plan for his creation. As the book of beginnings, Genesis sets the stage for the entire Bible. It reveals the person and nature of God (Creator, Sustainer, Judge, Redeemer); the value and dignity of human beings (made in God's image, saved by grace, used by God in the world); the tragedy and consequences of sin (the fall, separation from God, judgment); and the promise and assurance of salvation (covenant, forgiveness, promised Messiah).”
-points to Jesus: the 2nd Adam (Rom 5); righteous Abel who was slain (Mt 23:35, Heb 11:4) and whose blood was shed (Heb 12:24); Noah the vehicle through which humanity is saved; Abraham, the father of a new nation; Isaac on the altar through his father; and Joseph sold for a bag of silver
-covers key biblical figures: Adam & Eve, Cain & Abel, Noah, and Babel (1-11), Abraham, Sarah, and Isaac (11-25), Jacob (25-36), and Joseph (37-50)—more than half of Heb 11's "faithful"
-contains the oldest and most profound definition of faith (15:6)
-the power of narrative, esp. ch. 12ff
-much on family and community, private and public life
-eventually explained as metaphor for us and God—as his children and spouse
-w/ Abraham, from one man to one household to one clan/tribe to a nation
-in putting Genesis before Exodus, not just chronological, but an emphasis on the personal over the political: if we can’t get it right in the family, we won’t be able to get it right in the nation or world
-see also: the book of the law begins with freedom not law (Sacks, 21)
-Sacks (p. 10): “The protagonists of Genesis are astonishingly human…ordinary people made extraordinary by their willingness to follow God.”
-not a lot of “happily ever after”; warts and all
-in style, a sparse narrative, esp. over matters of our curiosity—and thus, more universal, more interpretations and applications— more powerful in engaging/teaching us more fully…
-Kass (p. 15—in his 670-page commentary): “I make no claim to a final or definitive reading. On the contrary, the stories are too rich, too complex, and too deep to be captured fully, once and for all.”
-Greenberg introducing Sarna’s commentary (p. xv): “This volume is not presented as having exhausted our understanding Genesis. Far, far from it. It has only dipped into the boundless world of meaning which [dwells] in Genesis, and brought back a modest but precious cargo.”
-see: Erich Auerbach’s Mimesis on the Bible’s absence of detail encouraging us to reflect on it in order to see very much
-speaks to universal themes (Kass):
-temporal/historical and universal/anthropological; what happened and what always happens
-also “invites reflection” on ontology (purpose), ethics, politics, and philosophy (lit. wisdom-loving—how to live life well)
-see also: cities and civilizations; crime and injustice; xenophobia and abuse of strangers; unbridled technology a la Babel; civic morality a la Sodom; justice and revenge with the rape of Dinah; competing cultural visions (Canaan, Babylon, Egypt)—“though these ancient civilizations are long gone, their animating principles survive”
-Sacks (p. 6-7,16): not a history book although it includes history; not a science book, even though its first chapter is a prelude to science; not theological—except indirectly (moreso about our relation to God); philosophical (what exists, what we can know, are we free, and most important—how we should live), but written non-philosophically—as narrative
-and thus, huge but eminently accessible: “Only the gifted few can fully understand a philosophical classic, but everyone can relate to a story.”
-but still complex and beautiful: can be read at many levels, benefits from repeated reading, and will be read differently at different times in life
( a great book in a Book to fall in love with!
1:1's general creation[3]
-“in the beginning” (Pr 8:22-30)
-Kass asks “in the beginning of what? time? everything? God’s creative activities?” (p. 27); “the ultimate beginnings are shrouded in mystery” (p. 28)
-Kass (p. 25, FTN 1) points to a rabbinical teaching that the first letter is ‘bet’ ], which in Hebrew, reading from right to left, looks like an open bracket (closed on three sides and open only on the front)—as if we are not permitted to investigate what is above (heavens), below (the deep), or beforehand
-“God” (Elohim)—sovereign, powerful, eternal—what won’t change
-God 32x in Gen 1’s 31 verses; Donald Hay's "The whole of creation begins with God, and is an expression of his will and purpose."
-masculine (as is typical for names of God) vs. gender-neutral Yahweh in Gen 2; vs. common female deities in ancient Canaanite society and modern earth worship
-“created”
-“bara” (here, 1:21, and 3 * 1:27—more later)
-apparently, ex nihilo: as the true "Creator", bringing something into existence from nothing—vs. our “creations”
-Peterson notes “bara” 16x (!) in Isaiah, preaching to exiles in Babylonian “nothingness” (p. 63-64)
-vs. any aspect of creation as eternal or divine; vs. polytheism
-Kass (p. 40): “there is something temporally before, causally behind, and ontologically (purposeful) above the cosmos”
-“the heaven(s) and the earth”
-separate chronological or an overview of 1:2-2:3
-on former, seems to read chronological: 2’s earth created in 1:1 or is 2’s earth assumed)
-on latter, see: 2:1’s bookend and 11x “toledot” (NIV’s “this is the account of…” in 2:4, etc.) ( 12 sections in Genesis
-the Bible starts with nature but will soon move to history: Biblical time is both cyclical and linear; Jonathan Sacks (2): “We part of nature and its rhythms…But we are also part of history…[Biblical] time is like a fugue between these two themes, the eternal and the ephemeral, the timeless and the timely.”
-establishes God as owner of all, including the Land that He would eventually give to Israel (at least for a time); Sacks (23): “The claim of the Jewish people to the land is unlike that of any other nation. It does not flow from arbitrary facts of settlement, historical association, conquest, or international agreement. It follows from…the word of God.”
( in terms of 1’s style: modest and matter-of-fact, but understatement underlines the drama and wonder of God’s amazing work
( aspects of ancient cosmology that line up with modern cosmology/science: cosmos not eternal; sun is not divine; universe not produced through sexual generation (as pagan myths); and before this beginning (the Big Bang?), we don’t know
( vs. "evolution"?? (see: outline)
Why do people believe (so much) in Evolution—as a comprehensive (or primary/exaggerated) explanation for the development of life?? (see: Pearcey, p. 156-168, 180-201; Kenneth Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God)
( BOTTOM LINE: God may have used evolution as part of the creation story, but conflicts if it assumes away the Creator OR assumes that man is evolved from something
1.) biases—want/assume the theory to be true
a.) naturalism and ‘science’ vs. “supernatural” and miracles
-faith assumed to be confined to the metaphysical realm, but assuming away the supernatural is an assumption; a naturalistic/materialistic philosophy/beliefs at root
-ex) faith necessary in interpreting history; theories and beliefs always necessary for drawing inferences from facts
b.) against God (see also: bad experience with Christianity/religion; ramifications of us giving God a bad reputation)
-not typically about objective evidences—disappointments in life and misconceptions about God (“I can’t believe in a god who would…” vs. “I don’t believe in that kind of god either”)
-on the latter, usually not so much about His existence but His character; believing in God vs. a certain type of God (Heb 11:6a,b)
2.) reasons to suspect "creation theories" in general:
a.) all leave questions with the Biblical account (Gen 1-6)
b.) the church's spotty record w/ science (and intellectuals in general); often inappropriately hard-headed and hostile
-ex) Copernicus & Galileo persecuted by the church for arguing that the earth rotates around the sun (although not a Biblical position; Job 26:7, Is 40:22)
c.) the church’s previous inability to interpret Scripture on matters of science
-again, earth as center of universe—from an overly man-centered theology and lit. vs. fig. on Ps 93:1, Eccl 1:5
-but urban legend on supposed beliefs that earth was flat—from refs to “four corners of the earth” (fig. vs. lit.; and see: Is 40:22); nobody believed in a flat earth after the Greeks[4]
-see also: Bible pre-science on…
-Gen 1:14-17's seasons
-Bible on # of stars vs. Ptolemy, etc.
-Leviticus on diet and cleanliness
-Job 36:27-28 on water cycle (science figured this out in 350 BC)
-Job 26:7 on earth suspended (vs. 1687 AD)
-Lev 17:11 on life in the blood (vs. ‘bleeding’ people to heal them)
-Ps 102:26, Is 51:6, and Rom 8 vs. Rev 21 on 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and entropy
3.) evidences—the theory seems to look pretty good
a.) surface intuition of natural selection
b.) considerable evidence for "micro-evolution"—defined as "adaptation within the boundaries of a species" (evidence of transitional forms, but mostly in pro wrestling)
4.) BUT....
a.) Biblically: must be limited at least somewhat; creation by God—and special creation of man—asserted throughout the Bible
b.) Scientifically over-estimated: evidences of micro-E as fact vs. macro-E as largely unsubstantiated and fanciful
-Grimm's fairy tale: frog to prince in two seconds; vs. “science”: frog to prince in two million years
( hand-waving to rival those of a miracle-wielding theist, science-flavored story/narrative vs. Scientific explanation
-natural selection
-explain innumerable stages of evolution through vital and reproductive organs—and the development of language, intelligence, soul, art, etc.?! (Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man—p. 34; 3V, p. 136-137 on difficulties with horse and whale evolution—an evolutionist “best example”?)
-esp. to the extent that it’s random, Robert Wilensky: "We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true."
-more time? a theory which continues to "evolve" (faith??); see: 100-fold increase in estimates of earth's age in this century—coincidentally, as we have recognized that life is more complex
-mutations—improve a species?!
-jumps in process? see: gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium; Darwin said that evolution occurs too slowly for us to see it vs. Stephen Jay Gould says that it occurs too quickly
-former runs counter to the fossil evidence vs. latter as hand-waving; both “natural”, but not particularly scientific[5]
( teach your kids a lot more about evolution!
c.) the logic of the complete materialist position?! must explain/believe…
-1.) complete development of life (biology)
-2.) origins of life (bio-chemistry); and
-3.) origins of all (physics)
( Peretti’s ‘from goo to you by way of the zoo’
( evolutionary gap problems: from nothing to matter, to life, to human life
-Gen's three uses of "create" ("bara") to fill those gaps (1:1,21,27)
-3.) Big Bang as an explosion which creates or promotes order (?!) vs. nothing at odds with the Bible or God as Creator
-in any case, Alan Guth: nothing on ‘what banged, how it banged or what caused it to bang’
-2.) all this had to start somewhere—life began randomly from chemical soup
-Urey-Miller fraud and unsuccessful experiments since—and even if successful, imply design
-we have never seen "unlife" --> "life" ("spontaneous generation" vs. Law of Biogenesis)—faith?!
-see: previous scientific beliefs that garbage turned into maggots, flies and rats—and more recent, DNA co-founder Francis Crick's "panspermia"!
d.) arguments for the existence of God
-axiological—from moral law and conscience (Rom 2:14-15)
-ontological (purpose)—from our being and almost all have believed in a god
-cosmological—from Creation (1:1; Col 1:16-17)
-see: anthropic principle
-teleological—from “intelligent” Design (Ps 19:1-4; Rom 1:20)
-when we see complex, specified order, we always assume a designer
-exs) arrowhead as design vs. random; building pre-supposes builder/architect vs. tornado; Mt. Rushmore?!
-see also: merits of “irreducible complexity” (Behe, etc.)
( vs. ‘the fool says in his heart, there is no God’ (Ps 14:1a)
-see also: the historical Christ?
-(Life, 12/94) Karen Armstrong's "To say that a crucified man was God was blasphemous in the Jewish world. Yet this unlikely idea, a complete nonstarter in religious terms, blossomed and became a great religion. Religious people are pragmatic. If an idea doesn't yield them some sense of life's ultimate meaning, they simply discard it."
( requires far too much faith; to embrace creation and theism is not a blind leap of faith into darkness, but a step of faith into Light...
5.) BOTTOM LINE: God may have used Micro-E as part of the creation story…
-BUT conflicts if it assumes away the Creator OR assumes that man is evolved from something
-key debate is over origin, not process of Creation; Who assumed with some on Why and very little on How or the relevant science
-despite huge gaps in the scientific theories/evidence, God may have created a universe that could unfold naturally without requiring later miracles (equally miraculous!)
-Cal Thomas: “There are only two models for the origins of humans: evolution and creation….If evolution occurs, it does so too slowly to be observed. Both theories are accepted on faith by those who believe in them. Neither theory can be tested scientifically because neither model can be observed or repeated.”
-John Walton (p. 135-136): “God controls history, but we do not object when historians talk about a natural cause-and-effect process. We believe that God creates each human in the womb, but we not object when embryologists…We believe that God controls the weather, yet we do not denounce meteorologists…It is unacceptable to adopt an evolutionary view as a process without God. But it would likewise be unacceptable to adopt history, embryology, or meteorology as processes without God.”
6.) decision/belief affects perspective, public policy
-historical connection of Darwinism with racism, eugenics, Social Darwininsm, and the Nazis—and today, euthanasia, abortion, cloning
-second subtitle of Darwin's The Origin of Species: “the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”
-in principle, belief that man evolved from an animal --> more likely to behave like an animal; if life is random and without purpose…
-vs. “man as special” subject to abuse; easier to be prideful
7.) that God created also teaches us that:
-God is purposeful in creating order with freedom out of chaos (vs. capricious)
-He is gracious and lavish in His blessings (benevolent vs. deism or malevolent)
-He is creative (personality, including joy), intricate (detailed vs. deistic), and extravagant vs. mere function (see: Dillard’s Pilgrim at Tinker Creek—p. 130, 131, 133; 136, 138-139)
-He is distinct from his Creation (vs. New Age and pantheism) and Lord over all Creation (vs. polytheism)
-He is eternal, powerful, and sovereign over nature and man (Ps 33:6-11)
-"If indeed God was before all things and made all things, how foolish it would be to have any other gods 'before' him."
( He is God (Rom 1:20)
( if you believe Genesis 1:1, the rest is a lot easier...
-ex) Jonah's fish prepared by God; vs. our submarines; given Christ's words
-the extent of the universe’s detail and size—and God merely spoke it into existence!
( Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man—p. 172, 169
Genesis 1 Questions: In the Beginning
1.) What are some reasons why people believe evolution and/or disbelieve creation?
2.) What are some of the practical and theological difficulties with believing in the general theory of "evolution"?
3.) God created us. What does that teach us about His character?
4.) How does create things the first five days? Why is that interesting? Read Psalms 33:6.
5.) How does God's creation of man differ? Why is that important?
Genesis 1: In the Beginning (outline)
Why do people believe in Evolution—as a comprehensive or primary/exaggerated explanation for the development of life
1.) biases—want/assume the theory to be true
a.) naturalism and “science” vs. “supernatural” and miracles
b.) against God
2.) reasons to suspect "creation theories" in general:
a.) all leave questions with the Biblical account (Gen 1-6)
b.) the Church has been inappropriately hard-headed and hostile toward science (earth as center of universe vs. Copernicus/Galileo—Ps 93:1, Eccl 1:5 as fig./lit.)
3.) evidences—the theory seems to look pretty good
a.) surface intuition of natural selection
b.) evolution's considerable evidence for ‘micro-evolution’ (change within species)
4.) BUT....
a.) Biblically, Creation and special creation of man asserted repeatedly
b.) evidences of micro-E as fact vs. macro-E fine as narrative but largely unsubstantiated as “explanation” (esp. through vital, complex, and reproductive organs)
c.) complete materialist position must explain complete development of life (biology), origins of life (bio-chemistry), origins of all (physics)
d.) arguments for the existence of God: from moral law and conscience (Rom 2:14-15); from Creation (1:1; Col 1:16-17, Rom 1:20; “anthropic principle”); from “intelligent” Design and irreducible complexity (Ps 19:1-4)
5.) BOTTOM LINE: God may have used Micro-E as part of Creation BUT conflicts if it assumes away the Creator OR man’s special creation
6.) decision/belief affects perspective, public policy
7.) that/what God created also teaches us that:
-God is purposeful in creating order with freedom out of chaos (vs. capricious)
-He is gracious and lavish in His blessings (benevolent vs. deism or malevolent)
-He is creative (personality/joy), intricate (detailed vs. deistic), extravagant
-He is distinct from and Lord over Creation (vs. New Age/pantheism, polytheism)
-He is eternal, powerful, and sovereign over nature and man (Ps 33:6-11)
( He is God (Rom 1:20)
( if you believe 1:1, the rest is a lot easier...
1:1-2
-2a's “formless and empty” (chaos—Heb. tohu and bohu)
-2 sets of 3 work days—1st 3 largely give form (vs. 1:2’s chaos—tohu); 2nd 3 fill emptiness (vs. 1:2’s bohu)
-1:3-10's separating and gathering gave it form (days 1-3a)
-sin returns it toward this state (Jer 4:23-26); our mission: from formless, empty (I Pet 1:18), and chaos to fullness, order, and beauty
-1:11-26's creating/making and allowing things to fill it (days 3b-6; Is 45:18)
-2b’s “darkness” and ocean-like reference (“deep…the waters”) alludes further to chaos or even evil…
-2c’s Spirit “hovering” as the apparent agent—a picture of waiting, observing, and anticipating (later used as if a bird/eagle protecting its young—Dt 32:11, Is 31:5)
-completes the Trinity in Creation (Jn 1:1, Col 1:16-17)
-Peterson notes that Spirit is present and responsible for three key formative works: the beginning of Holy Creation (here), Holy Salvation (Mk 1:9-11), and Holy Community (Acts 2:1-4)
-Spirit = word = breath; 2c’s hovering and inarticulate wind leads to 3ff’s words/language of Creation; Mk 1:11’s dove and voice of God’s approval; Acts 2’s tongues of fire and language
( after the mysteries of 1:1-2, Kass (p. 29): “Happily the accessibility of the account improves…”
1:3ff's creative pattern (read 1:3-5)—some combo of…
-creative word—“God said…Let there be…": created merely by speaking (Rev 4:11’s “by your will they were created”)
-and then, a fulfillment word; report of effort—"God made/created" &/or “and there was” (“and it was so”)
-‘made/created’—reiterating that God is separate from aspects of His Creation
-mysterious in lack of detail
-underlines His power & authority (Mt 8:26’s wind/wave rebuke)
-Sarna: “the expression of the omnipotent, sovereign, unchallengeable will of the absolute, transcendent God to whom all nature is completely subservient”
-Tozer: ‘The Word of God is quick and powerful. In the beginning He spoke to nothing, and it became something. Chaos heard it and became order, darkness heard it and became light. “And God said—and it was so.” These twin phrases, as cause and effect, occur throughout the Genesis story of the creation. The said accounts for the so.’
-no sense of struggle between God and nature or nature’s rivalry with God (as pagan myths; but see: Kass, p. 49-50)
-but word and then deed (vs. mere deed) implies persuasion vs. coercion (see: later emphasis on free will)
-Dembski (p. 158): “Words have the power to engender deeds by finding a receptive medium…”
-w/ app. to us: MH's "with us, saying and doing are two different things"
-naming/labeling (days 1-3a)—"God called" (1:8,10)
-gives it significance and implies ownership/dominion—as with “named” (2:20's man w/ animals, 17:5's Abram, 32:8's Jacob/Israel, Saul/Paul; 41:45's Pharoah w/ Joseph, Dan 1:7; Rev 2:17)
-evaluation/commendation (days 3a-6)—"God saw that it was good"
-“saw that…”—as if studying and carefully observing it before evaluation
-implies complexity of creation; care of creator
-implies an objective standard—as if outside of God or could be verified outside of God (natural law?)
-w/ app. to God expects us to look at things "we have made"
-vs. saying something is good before "seeing it"
-vs. saying something is good/bad that God thinks is not
-"good"—everything created by God is good (10,12,18,21,25; 31's "very good" post-6th day; vs. 2:18; Jas 1:17)
-again modest understatement (even in the Hebrew)
-vs. most artists/writers who are (and can never be) satisfied: it’s not good; it needs more
-a beginning full of hope and promise
-but esp. given 2:18’s “not good”, what is “good”? perfect in terms of quality &/or completeness and ready for function/purpose vs. moral goodness (more later)
-concluding word: order (evening/morning) and number of day
1:3-5's DAY 1: light/dark, day/night
-3's first act: calling out light from darkness (Pr 8:22-30 on wisdom)
-results in evening/morning (vs. morning/evening)
-is Satan’s fall connected to 2’s chaos &/or 3-5’s light/dark??
-3’s “let there be light”—created; 4’s separated (like oil and water)
-Tozer: ‘The first divider was God who at the creation divided the light from the darkness. This division set the direction for all God’s dealings in nature and in grace. Light and darkness are incompatible; to try to have both in the same place at once is to try the impossible and end by having neither the one nor the other...’
-more broadly, division, separate, distinction—as holiness, God’s and hopefully ours (Kass, p. 34)
-related to 4th day's sun?
-if so, apparent change in atmosphere from 3’s opaque to 4’s translucent—followed by day 4’s transparent
-day 1’s light sufficient for day 3’s plants to grow
-day/night and pre-plants implies order
-perhaps related to 2c’s Spirit hovering over creation
( not sure what to do with this—and skeptics chuckle, but as if the author/redactor wouldn’t know in advance?!
-in any case…
-sun as 1st in other creation myths—and also, a common subject of worship; rhetorically, making clear that sun is subservient to God and light[6]
-necessary to make God's works visible and make life possible for us (II Cor 4:6, Jn 3:21, 11:9-10; Ex 10:21-23's plague of darkness except for Israelites, 13:21's pillar of fire)
-MH’s ‘In the creation of grace, as of the world, the first thing created is light.’
-heaven's light (Rev 21:23, 22:5) vs. hell as darkness (Mt 8:12, 22:13); earth as a mix of light and dark (Mt 4:16, Jn 1:5, 3:19)
-provides an opening hint about the important Biblical theme of redemption—light/creation/beauty/value out of dark/chaos, etc. (Israel, the early church, our lives—II Cor 5:17)
-5ff's “day” as lit. 24 hours or fig. for an indefinite period[7] (see: outline)
-first pass: reads to us like a literal day (see also: morning/evening), but "with the Lord, a day is like a 1000 years" (Ps 90:4, II Pet 3:8) and a God who is outside of time…
( see: Old Earth (OE) vs. Young Earth (YE) “creationism” (define terms!)
-no debate over WHO, but disagreement over HOW and WHEN
( scientific evidences, historical interpretations, and Biblical options; some on the first two and focus on the third
1.) science: OE vs. YE evidence (see: e.g., Hugh Ross vs. Ken Ham, Walter Brown)
-of creation week
-trying to line up a sequential reading of account with science (3V’s p. 155 vs. 186, 194, 281)
-on the testability of OE, see: Ross in 3V, p. 139-143
-after creation week
-post-flood rapid evolution of meat-eating animals and vast speciation (with limited ark and global flood)
-see also: physicist Gerald Schroeder’s both/and (The Science of God; chs. 3 & 4): 6 days from cosmic perspective and 15.75 billion years from earth’s perspective—lines up with OE science, travel of light, and relativity of time
2.) history (see: 3V’s claims and counter-claims!):
a.) OE’ers claim that Philo, Josephus, and 11 of the 12 early church fathers who address the topic talked about OE—and that opposition arose NOT when early-19th C. geology pointed to OE (only questioning When), but Darwin’s claim of man’s descent from apes (questioning Who and man’s special creation)
b.) YE’ers claim that OE is rarely if ever defended prior to 19th C.
c.) Ross and Archer (3V; p. 203) “little attention to the length of the creation days” from early church fathers—2,000 available pages of creation-day commentary with two pages on the duration of those days. And “the older writings are devoid of passionate certainty and dogmatism about the length of the creation days. Rather, they evidence a tentativeness and exhibit tolerance on this point.”
( more broadly, what is the role of (extra-biblical) science (and archaeology) and church history/tradition in helping us interpret Scripture?
( Biblically, God reveals Himself through nature (Rom 1:20); how good are we at reading that “book”? God reveals Himself through history; how good are we at understanding His activity in history? God reveals Himself through His Word; how good are we at interpreting it?
-see: biases and pre-conceived notions within both scientific, historical, and biblical interpretation
-see also: the miraculous is, by definition, difficult for science to detect and understand; to what extent would God use processes that add noise to what nature says about Him (Ps 19:1-4, Rom 1:20)
( to what extent can nature (interpreted by science) testify ably to its own age?
( the Bible is not a science book, but is accurate where it touches on science
-Einstein’s “General Theory of Relativity” points to all mass and energy in the universe being compressed into a point 15 billion years ago—implying a “creation event” (‘the Big Bang’) and a Creator
-fossil evidence lines up with “punctuated equilibrium” &/or intelligent design consistent with Gen 1; and species introduction rate since man appears is virtually zero while extinctions continue
( in both cases, the irony that science works in favor of the Bible and against the atheist
-see: ex ante/post, those who abandoned the traditional understanding in church history of an earth-centered universe
-see: more recently, some YE’ers abandoning Ussher’s (traditional) date of 4004 BC to approximately 8000 BC— assuming 300 years per generation (vs. 100 years) in order to line Scripture up with archaeology!
3.) Biblically: how to interpret Heb. “yom”?
( takes more time to develop the OE case bibically—more complicated and less familiar
a.) here, “yom” used in 5a’s context of light/dark (daylight part of a day vs. evening/morning[8])—and as 5b’s a complete ‘one day’ (same combo in 1:14-19’s 4th day)
-day/night by hemisphere: evening/morning at the same time globally (here &/or with day 4’s sun)?
b.) 2:2-3’s 7th day does not mention a PM and an AM (lit. or fig.), suggesting that it has not yet ended
-elsewhere, the 7th day is extended at least until Christ’s 1st coming (Heb 3:7-4:11, quoting Ps 95:7-11)
-see also: Ex 20:11’s “day” the same as or a metaphor for 20:9’s “day”?[9]
-is Jn 5:17 literal or metaphor?
-if an indefinite end, then (some) evidence for a non-literal days 1-6
c.) 2:4’s ‘when’ in NIV as lit. ‘in the day’ (in the KJV!) as clearly more than one day
d.) 2:17’s NIV’s “when” as lit. “in that day (yom)” (revisited)—but here, implying a moment (3:5)[10]
( in sum, five different meanings for “yom” in Gen 1-2
-elsewhere, “yom” translated 950x in NIV as ‘day’, 474x as ‘days’, and numerous other singular and plural words (e.g., Ex 13:10’s ‘year after year’; Is 11:10-11’s ‘in that day’; Zech 14:8)[11]
-“yom” as the only Heb word available for a long period of time when Genesis was written (vs. later—“olam”[12])
e.) how did Adam complete all of the Day 6 tasks (1:24-31; 2:7-9,15-22) and feel 2:18,20,23’s [incl. 2:23’s “this is at last”] profound sense of (boredom and) loneliness in less than 24 hours?! (insert man joke here!)
-Archer notes that Linneaus took several decades to classify all the species known to Europe—more by then, but no tradition to help Adam name them[13]
-human = limited, even in a pre-Fallen state
-even if not, super-skilled but super-bored?!
-if God was in no hurry with Creation (6 days vs. instantaneous; “saw that it was good”, why would he want Adam to be rushed (vs. study carefully and admire)?
-if Christ was here for 33 years, why Adam’s vital work in just a few hours?
-Ross and Archer (3V, p. 75): “As God introduces Adam to the three levels of His creation—the physical, the soulish, and the spiritual—He teaches and prepares Adam for life on earth and for the care and keeping of the land, the plants and the animals…Throughout Scripture we see that God offers no shortcuts to experience, knowledge, discipline and maturity.”
( YE assumptions here are extra-biblical and difficult to reconcile with what we know theologically
f.) Hab 3:6, II Pet 3:5’s references to the earth’s antiquity (see also: Job 15:7, Ps 90:2,4, Pr 8:22-31, Eccl 1:4, Mic 6:2; II Pet 3:8’s ‘day is like 1000 years’)
-Randy Baker’s ‘The Bible uses the antiquity of the founding of the earth as a suitable metaphor for God’s eternality. If the earth is only 144 hours older than the human race, this metaphor loses its force.’
( what do we do with Rom 5:12 (I Cor 15:21-22)? interpret as Paul speaking to the figurative/spiritual death of man, not physical death of man or animals (Rom 6:3)[14]
-“death through sin…death came to all men”: latter as explicit; former broader but focused on “sin”[15]
-other considerations:
1.) on plants…
-why is the necessary “death”[16] of plants acceptable? 9:4’s lifeblood of animals implies higher than plants (Jn 12:24)
-Walton (p. 100) notes death at every stage of plants (leaves, flowers, fruit, seeds)—and with reproduction and without death, would overwhelm their environment
-Alcorn on plant death and decay (p. 124): leaves in Autumn; wine requires fermentation; “did bread not rise?” (vs. suffering/death of animals)[17]
2.) on animals…
-death through standard animal living (an elephant stepping on an ant)?
-was there cellular level death—e.g., human skin—or changed at the Fall?
-were animals initially constructed with the ability to be carnivorous and poisonous (Ps 104:20-21 in context of Creation psalm; see: 3V, p. 286-287)—or did God re-created/re-formulate these animals?[18]
-Ross & Archer (3V, p. 133, 137) embrace carnivores as better pets (less time for eating); and point to animal death as God’s method for resource availability—to help spread the Gospel, defeat evil, etc.!
-note that Eden was inferior vs. equivalent to the future New Heavens/Earth
3.) would Adam have understood God’s threat of punishment without having seen animals die?
4.) all this said, God could have avoided animal death thru YE or OE (although, ironically, far more ‘miraculous’ with the latter)
options:
a. literal days with YE scientific evidences[19]
b. figurative days with day-age explanation and OE scientific evidence
c. Schroeder’s both/and: cosmic vs. earth’s perspective on time
d. figurative days with “literary framework” (more later)—parallels between days 1-3 and 4-6
-more/mostly concerned with the majesty, power, and goodness of God, creation’s order from out of chaos, avoiding sun worship, etc.
e. literal or fig. days with “apparent age”
-seemingly/somewhat deceptive—or at least, fails to allow God to reveal Himself well thru nature (revisited)
-YE ignores or tries to refute modern science or implies this strongly (e.g., with respect to stars and starlight created in transit with apparent age)
-vs. OE’s great abundance of stars translates to great size and age of the universe (as biblical references to stars = sand; 3V, p. 149-150)
-but see: by definition, rocks, Adam & Eve as adults (and perhaps mature trees/plants)
-see: Jn 2's wedding/wine, esp. following Jn 1:1's "in the beginning"
-see also: Dolly, the DNA-cloned sheep, looks six years older than she ‘is’ (and interestingly, experienced premature aging as well)
-and only “apparent” since we can’t see well/deeply enough
( no reason to be dogmatic-- except that we’re not sure…
-as elsewhere, dogmatic YE’ers as “weaker brothers”; OE’ers viewed by them as compromisers—but should not be a stumbling block for non-C’s or C’s
-note: Scott Roberts’ changed position, beginning with lack of charity by many/some YE’ers, esp. wrt what should be an in-house debate
( focus on describing Evolution; fact vs. time of Creation; focus on Genesis 1:1 and the Who (more than the How or When), but without reducing Him
( a lot of fancy theories/ideas the first two weeks, but note that Gen 1 (and Revelation) is and must be accessible to those with/without a lot of “Christian advantages”, now and in the past
-shows versatility/flexibility of Scripture
-whatever else, at least a basic reading must be profound/legitimate
1:5's ‘day’ as lit. 24 hours or fig. for an indefinite period??
-reads to us like a literal day (esp. with AM/PM), but “w/ the Lord, a day is like a 1000 years” (Ps 90:4, II Pet 3:8) and a God outside of time
( see: old earth (OE) vs. young earth (YE) creationism; no debate over _____, but disagreement over _____ and ______
1.) science: OE vs. YE evidences (see: Hugh Ross vs. Ken Ham, Walter Brown)
2.) history: OE vs. YE assessment; clearly, less attention and dogmatism
( the role of science and church history/tradition in helping us interpret Scripture?
3.) how to interpret ‘day’ (Heb. ‘yom’)
a.) here, used in 5a as _____________ and in 5b as _______________ (1:14-19)
b.) 2:2-3’s 7th day has no ____ or ____, suggesting it hadn’t ended; Ps 95:7-11, Heb 3:7-4:11 extend the 7th day until at least Christ’s 1st coming (Ex 20:8-11, Jn 5:17?)
c.) 2:4’s ‘when’ in NIV as lit. ‘in the day’-- clearly more than one day
d.) 2:17’s ‘when’ (in NIV) as lit. ‘in that day’, implying _____________(3:5)
( 5 meanings in Gen 1-2 and elsewhere used 950x in NIV as ‘day’, 474x as ‘days’, translated as many other singular/plural words (Ex 13:10’s ‘year’; Is 11:10-11; Zech 14:8)
e.) how did Adam __________ all of the Day 6 tasks (1:24-31; 2:7-9,15-22) and feel 2:18,20,23’s profound sense of _________ and __________ in 24 hours?
-human = __________
-if God took his time in Creation, why would He want Adam to be ______________
f.) Hab 3:6, II Pet 3:5’s references to the earth’s antiquity (Job 15:7, Ps 90:2,4, Pr 8:22-31, Eccl 1:4, Mic 6:2); Is the earth less than ___ hours older than the human race?
( what about Rom 5:12 (I Cor 15:21-22)? pre-Fall, no death of animals or even plants?
-figurative/spiritual death of man vs. all physical death (Rom 6:3; Ps 104:20-21)
( options:
a.) literal days with YE scientific evidences
b. figurative days with day-age explanation and OE (or maybe YE) science
c. Gerald Schroeder’s both/and: 6 days from cosmic perspective vs. 15.75 billion years
from earth’s perspective—OE science, travel of light, and relativity of time
d. fig. days in a “literary framework” (more later)—mostly/more concerned with the majesty, power, goodness of God, order from chaos, avoiding sun worship, etc.
e. literal or fig. days with “apparent age” (Jn 2’s water/wine)
( no reason to be dogmatic—except that we’re not sure…
( focus on accurately describing Evolution; focus on the Who (more than the How or When) without reducing Him
1:6-13's DAYS 2-3
-6-8's Day 2: dividing cosmic space[20]: atmosphere, NIV’s “sky” (Heb. shamayim—same as 1:1’s “heavens”!)
-in ancient cosmologies, perceived to be a solid expanse—and not a scientific fact corrected by God (see also: understanding “the heart” and physiology)
-more function than form, establishing cosmic order vs. the threat of waters
-the Bible’s limits wrt science (revisited)
-9-10's Day 3A: dividing earthly space: dry ground, seas (Job 38:8-11, Ps 95:5, II Pet 3:5)
( creating the space in which people would live and controlling weather/precipitation
-11-13’s Day 3B: vegetation (certain types)
-MH's "building of their house and (now) spreading of their table"—setting the table for the appearance of animals and eventually man
-specifically, grain and fruit trees—why?
-to keep you regular...
-foundations of bread and wine—when combined with human activity
-significance of 3rd day (fig.) and first living things as set apart/holy
-11,12’s self-generating; no toil implied
-11,12's fruit/seed and "according to their kinds": the order within reproduction (as 21,24-25’s animals)
( day 1-3’s time, weather, and food—foundations of life (vs. Gen 8:22’s post-ark reversal of same)
1:14-19's DAY 4
( days 1-3 vs. 4-6…
-preparation vs. population
-stationary vs. move—and with progressively increasing freedom (heavenly bodies’ fixed orbits, animal instincts, human free will)
-from 3-5’s "light" (day 1) to 14,15’s “lights”—specified moreso (but still not named) as 16’s sun, moon, and stars
-purposes:
-14b’s “to mark seasons” (Ps 74:16, Is 40:26)—the original ‘signs’ of God’s will (later applied to festivals)
-17’s “to give light” (1:3-4)
-18a’s govern/rule day/night
-18b’s separate light from darkness (1:4; Ps 19:1-5, Ps 136:9's "govern the night"; Rom 1:20)
( created now or becoming visible/apparent to those on earth?
-were stars created or just appeared on Day 4? (haya vs. bara; 3V—p. 71c-72)
-Kass notes that all of the peculiarities of Gen 1 surround the sun: light, time, and vegetation—all without the sun—and concludes that the author intends something beyond the (purely) historical
-sequential (OE vs. YE) vs. “literary framework” based on parallelism between the two pairs of three days, including two creative acts in Days 3 & 6
-Gen as more poetic than prose; reads like a hymn with its “rhythmic sense of forming and filling”
-Irons & Kline: day 1-3’s creation kingdoms, day 4-6’s creature kings, and day 7’s Creator King
-see also: Ross & Archer (p. 74): for day 3b’s vegetation, need sun/light, stabilized tilt of earth’s axis (done now through the moon) and day 3a’s life-sustaining water cycle
( sun at day 1 (their view), or “literary framework”, or supernatural and changed later
-either way, explicitly created on 4th vs. 1st day; 16a's sun and moon avoided by name; and 16b’s govern day/night, not man/earth—as trying to lessen probability of their (natural) worship of those as false deities (Dt 4:19, Rom 1:25 in general)
-Kass (p. 40): “not living gods but lifeless creatures…not even named by God…[and not called ‘good’]...presented as merely useful for the earth…rule extends only over day and night not over the earth and man…[days 1-3’s] light, time and even vegetation are presented as not requiring the sun…not heaven but [day 6’s] man has the closest relation to God; heaven is not said to be good…the stunning star-studded sphere…to which ancient peoples looked with awe and fear…[is/was] not deserving of such respect”
1:20-25's DAY 5-6a
-5th day's aquatic and air creatures (incl insects-- Dt 14:19-20)
-21’s 2nd use of “bara” (1:1,27)
-create all; create living; create human (vs. Evolution—revisited)
-to underline God’s sovereignty over a perceived threat to life and order (the deep and its creatures)
-6th day's land animals—their ‘kind’ (revisited)
-if taken literally and as complete, implies difficulty with animals that live in two realms (interestingly, those animals classified as “unclean” in Leviticus)
-on 24’s “Let the land produce…God made” (?!), Walton argues that in the ancient cosmology’s view, nothing was “supernatural”—all was God moving in nature/life
( day 4 builds on day 1; day 5 on day 2 (water/sky with fish/birds); day 6 on day 3 (ground with animals/man)—again, implying order; see also: symbolism of two sets of three days—here, the elements vs. their use
1:26-28's DAY 6b
( what’s omitted? 28c’s “it was good” (vs. 1:25c; omitted as 2nd day’s firmament!)
-31’s “very good” as summary covers that??
-26’s in God’s image, so a given!
( more complicated than that (Gen 3 and even Gen 2); see also: “good” as not morally good (revisited)
-Kass (p. 39): “A moment’s reflection shows that man as he comes into the world is not yet good [in any sense]. Precisely because he is the free being, he is also the incomplete or indeterminate being; what he becomes depends always (in part) on what he freely will choose to be. Let me put it more pointedly: precisely in the sense that man is in the image of God, man is not good—not determinate, finished, complete, or perfect. It remains to be seen whether man will become good, whether he will be able to complete himself (or be completed).”
( the climax of God's creative activity: man created last
-so there'd be no confusion about "us" or any other role for man in creation vs. we think we can run the universe better (e.g., wrt suffering)
-Job 38:4a's "Where were you when I laid the foundation?" and quip that "man was created last so God wouldn't have to listen to any advice"
-an honor: last, not least; MH's "not put in the palace while still under construction"
-26a's "let us MAKE man in our image, in our likeness"
1.) us/our's plural (as in 3:22, 11:7)
-Trinity (Jn 1:1-3, Col 1:16's Christ; 1:2 and Job 33:4's ‘The Spirit of God has made us’)
-see also: literary angles
-a "language thing"—the ‘majestic we’
-other refs to His Heavenly court (Is 6:8; I Kings 22:19-22, Job 1:6)
-reference to a group implies ‘greater effort’ (of a sort)
2.) "let us make" in contrast to usual "let there be..."
-God did not speak man into existence; instead, a product of God's direct intervention
-implies more thought, effort, and our specialness; uniquely shaped by God (1:27, 2:7; Job 10:8a)
-MH's "It should seem as if this were the work which He had longed to be at; as if he had said 'Having at last settled the preliminaries, let us now apply ourselves to the business' of making man."
-“image…likeness” as synonyms
-in the image of God—as a shadow, a sign of the greater reality
-made in His image, but He has no image (He is beyond all attempts to represent and categorize)—and making an image of Him is later prohibited!
-meant to imitate God—or later, to be Christ-like
-Heb. tselem related to “cut off, chisel”—as a statue
-statue as an image, both like and unlike its original; dependent on that which it images
-for us, god-like but limited/flawed; god-like but appear just after the animals; Kass (p. 39): “Man is the ambiguous being, in between, more than an animal, less than a god.”
-wrt mind and spirit (thus, us as spiritual beings with will, personality, etc.)
-but not body, except Christ as the Incarnation
-God transcends nature in Gen 1; with our God-given freedom, we can transcend to some extent as well
-see: made in God's image vs. us making God in our image
( Brandon O’Brien (CT, 7/09) connects Col 1:15a’s “Christ is the [perfect] image of the invisible God” with II Cor 3:18’s “transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory” and observes that “for the most part, the NT does not speak of humans bearing the image of God. It speaks instead of Jesus incarnating the perfect image. And it speaks about people being transformed into the image of Christ.”
-O’Brien then applies this: “That suggests that the image of God is not simply something I have; it’s something I am called to embody in increasing measure.”
-basis for self-worth and valuing others; since made in God's image... (Gen 9:6, Jas 3:9)
-our behavior toward others, in love, should be determined by their status as a creation in the image of God and me increasingly bearing Christ’s image
-see also: all humans have potential—with restoration: God's efforts are "new creation" wrt J&S (Eph 4:24 & Col 3:10's "new self": "created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness...being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator")
-26b’s "rule over..." (Ps 8:1,3-9)
-made in God's image—thus, receives (delegated) sovereignty
-man is over creation and under God
-created like God in soul, authority, purity ("fruits of the Spirit"), etc.
-all diminished by the Fall (Eccl 7:29b); Grace Schulman: “Although the command seems shocking in our time, it assumes the model conduct of an untarnished prelapsarian world.” [see also: our goal within S and our end within the NJ]
-one of God's purposes for us—"human govt"
-of self and others
-often not done well; failure to self-govern well and twisting roles & rivaling God in governing others
-in contrast to Christ's 1000-year rule, God's divine govt, Spirit-filled self-governance
-27's first clear Biblical instance of poetry (under-rated! but 40% of OT; see also: man’s first words—2:23)
-returns to singular for God
-"created" x3's emphasis—this as central to "creation"
-again, “bara” (1:1,21,27)—for the creation of the universe, animals and humans
-"male and female"-- both in the image of God, differently and individually, sharing the things of God (see: Kostenberger for here thru Gen 3—p. 33-37, 41-42, 53-54)
-‘to their kind’ omitted (vs. 1:21,24) but implied and defined within gender
-angels prob. not made male and female (Lk 20:34-36)
-28's blessing and commands to be fruitful, increase in number/fill/pro-create and subdue/rule
-fruitful as separate from multiply; a role for both kingdom work and family (Gal 5’s fruit of the Spirit; Jn 15’s bear much fruit)
-work as a blessing originally (2:15; 2:2’s God as the first worker; Rev 22:3)
-implies, c.p., larger families for believers (see also: pro-life vs. pro-choice), with children as a blessing from God (Rom 12:1-2, Ps 127, 128; Mt 5:16-18)
-Gen 1’s focus on children vs. Gen 2’s focus on marriage/submission
-us as stewards of the Earth and its inhabitants—how to interpret?
-in all of the above, what we’re built to do…
( “be fruitful and multiply” as the social world; “subdue the earth” as the natural world
Genesis 1:26-28 (revisited): given Genesis 1 (where theology begins!), that we are made in God’s image implies that we are built/made/created to...
-built as constructed (functional) vs. made/created (as art; Eph 2:10)—both fine
1.) convert chaos into order (with freedom) and to act with purpose (1:2)
2.) to be creative and to create things of use and beauty within our ‘work’
-Sacks (25-27) on Gen 1:3ff’s “And God said, let there be…and there was…and God saw that it was good”—for us, as imagination, will, and our work to do work with God in this world that is good
-Sacks notes that the will is most difficult part: “It is one thing to conceive an idea, another to execute it. [Then quotes T.S. Eliot:] ‘Between the imagination and the act falls the shadow.’ Between the intention and the fact, the dream and the reality, lies struggle, opposition, and the fallibility of the human will.”
3.) value and enjoy creation as ‘good’ (God’s intent from Eden to the New Jerusalem)
4.) be people whose word is good-- that when it is said, it is as good as done
5.) respect the equality of all people and their individual differences (1:27)
6.) exercise proper dominion over nature and the resources over which God has given us stewardship (1:28)
7.) bless God and others-- as we have been ‘blessed’ by God (1:28, 12:1-3)
8.) work to empower others-- as we have been empowered by God (1:28; Schneider, p. 51a)
9.) pursue teamwork and community—as we do our work (e.g., within marriage, between genders, in general; see: 1:26's ‘our’/Trinity; 1:27,28; Eccl 3:13)
10.) view ourselves as God’s royal ambassadors in the world (II Cor 5:17-20; Schneider, p. 47-48)
( history and our story (done well) as an extension of God’s creation (Jn 5:17, Heb 1:3)
( see: the life and ministry of Jesus in all of the above
Genesis 1:26-28 (revisited)
That we are ‘made in God’s image’ implies that we are built/made to...
-built vs. made as ______________ vs. ______________
1.) convert chaos into ________ and to act with ___________ (1:2)
2.) to be creative and to create things of _______ and _________ within our “work”
3.) ________ and _________ Creation as ‘good’ (God’s intent from Eden to Heaven)
4.) be people whose _______ is good—that when it is ________, it is as good as done
5.) respect the _________ of all people and their individual _______________ (1:27)
6.) exercise proper ____________ over nature and the resources over which God has given us __________________ (1:28)
7.) ________ God and others—as we have been ___________ by God (1:28, 12:1-3)
8.) work to ___________ others—as we have been _______________ by God (1:28)
9.) pursue _____________ and ________________—as we do our work (1:26's ‘our’; 1:27,28; Eccl 3:13)
10.) view ourselves as God’s royal __________________ in the world (II Cor 5:17-20)
( history and our story (done well) as an extension of God’s creation (Jn 5:17, Heb 1:3)
( see: the life and ministry of Jesus, the Royal Ambassador, in all of the above
1:29-30's DAY 6c-- finishing a "busy day"
-food for animals and man (Ps 136:25's ‘give thanks…to the One who gives food to every creature’)
-living things and food both made out of ‘the dust’ (2:19; Eccl 3:20)
-animals and man given life by God’s provision of 1:30, 2:7’s ‘breath of life’—and here, both sustained by the fruit of earth (2:7; Mt 6:26)
-man created separate from animals in hierarchy-- but here, lends an air of humility in being combined with animals; proper dominion implied
-29,30's vegetarians
-interesting that man was given dominion over all, but only able to eat some (incl. "the tree" and perhaps some plants [were all plants edible in Eden?])
-until 9:2-3's post-flood instructions (3:18)
-if not by construction (later evolution?! or divine intervention), then established here by permission/constraint
-not explicit, but implies don't kill animals
-first recorded animal death: Gen 3’s animal skins by God
-may imply bothersome ethically &/or indicates what carnivorous activity would do to the natural order
-see: animal cruelty as a very bad sign—abusing the most vulnerable
-although things get ugly anyways, going into Gen 6—perhaps to make the point that vegetarianism was not the fix
1:31-2:1's Summary
-1:31's "saw all he had made and it was very good"
-better than "good"?!
-2:1's complexity, order, completion
-God began well, finished, and finished well
-“finished” (same word as Ex 40:33’s tabernacle; II Chron 7:11’s temple; see also: Jn 19:30, Rev 21:5-6)
2:2-3's DAY 7
-2a,2b,3a's "seventh day"
-Sabbath not used until Ex 20:11 (Neh 9:13-14, Ex 31:13-17); here, no need for the Law
-moved from end to beginning of section, indicates its difference
( God could have created the world in an instant (vs. 7 “days”)!
-God as a free agent (Is 55:8's "your ways are not my ways")
-as an example to us of Sabbath and the rest available to us in Christ (Heb 4)
-begins the establishment of 7 as symbolic; why seven? see: the later importance of 3+4 and 3*4 (God and man/earth’s numbers)
-to consider His wisdom and power more carefully (as if it required more effort)
-makes each day special; energy into each thing; but to separate us as special
-underlines importance of work in God’s economy
-instantaneous has more power; 7 days has more sovereignty—as Creation unfolds
-implies order, process, rhythm (w/ app.)—vs. instant gratification
-JB Phillips (YGITS, p. 55-56): "The revelation of God in Nature and the Bible is that He is never in a hurry. Long preparation, careful planning and slow growth, would seem to be leading characteristics of spiritual life...It is refreshing to study the poise and quietness of Christ. His task and responsibility might well have driven a man out of his mind. But He was never in a hurry, never impressed by numbers, never a slave of the clock."
-for us, life as 100-yard dash vs. marathon; instant gratification vs. spiritual disciplines
-Peterson’s God not in a hurry but does not procrastinate (gets it done by the end of day 6)—both with potential application to us
( Peterson (p. 67): repeated three times (!), continuing the 3’s of creation
-2 sets of 3 work days—1st 3 largely give form (vs. 1:2’s chaos—tohu); 2nd set of 3 fills emptiness (vs. 1:2’s bohu)—and 3 mentions of 7 on rest day
-focuses on the rhythm of the passage (p. 68)[21] and concludes (p. 71): “Genesis 1 is structured in time, a seven-day sequence of God’s speaking creation into being. The formative effect is rhythmic, using metrical and repeated phrases to pull our distracted, anxious and sometimes lethargic lives into the steady, sure, unhurried pace of God as he speaks his reliable and effective word across a sequence of six days. These rhythms are then resolved in an all-embracing seventh-day Sabbath…”
-vs. too fast/slow
-3b’s “made it holy”—separating (revisited) and sanctified
-3a’s “blessed [it]”—3rd of 3 (1:22a for fish/fowl; 1:28a pre-fruitful/multiply/dominion)
-Kass on the combo: life, rule, holiness; natural, political, sacred; animal, man, God; and in ascending order—so much so that the words of the last blessing are not recorded
-2b,3c’s "rested" (or "ceased") from ‘all his work’
-not because He was tired!
-on “work days”, did God use instantaneous creation (with lots of “rest”/inactivity)—or more likely spread out activity over the entire day?
-God as the first worker; we’re called to “work” as our first task (Gen 1’s fruitful; Gen 2’s work pre-marriage)
-represents perfect creation—sanctified and at rest (Chesterton, Orthodoxy, p. 218)
-creation didn't need to be revised or repaired
-rest as commemoration/satisfaction/change of pace/reflection/enjoyment
-post-Fall’s Jn 5:17 for Christ's "My Father is always at his work to this very day" (2’s ‘the work he had been doing’; Col 1:26-27, Heb 1:3, Ps 104, Dt 11:1-7, Ps 111)
-God's continuing work: intervention on men's souls, maintaining and occasionally overriding nature
-creation ex nihilo vs. creation continua—event and process; creation and maintenance; Christ’s passion and our baptism
-w/ app. to us:
-Abraham Joshua Herschel: “After [His] ‘very good’ works…[God] ‘rested the 7th day’. This…foretells for us that after our works…we also may rest in [God] for the Sabbath of eternal life.”
-Nee's (SWS, p. 16 on Eph 1-3's "sit/seated") "God's seventh day was, in fact, Adam's first. Whereas God worked six days and then enjoyed his sabbath rest, Adam began his life with the sabbath; for God works before he rests, while man must first enter into God's rest" in order to work.
-rest (OT & now) required faith & obedience (Heb 4:1-11)—and results in peace, confidence, rest (physically and emotionally) vs. anxieties, etc.
( one last hermeneutical consideration: how to weigh original intent/audience vs. contemporary understanding? what is cultural or universal? (e.g., unclean in Leviticus, throughout the epistles [e.g., head coverings], Christ’s use of Samaritans vs. sexual morality, loving one’s neighbor)
-the Bible was written to them and hopefully understood by us
-our advantage over them in terms of prophecy (and Christ!), but our disadvantage in terms of understanding their words, culture, context
-Walton sees Gen 1 as functional vs. material origins—and argues that a modern bias toward materialism causes us to focus on the latter
-English term “create” can be either (e.g., a company, curriculum)
-ancient cosmologies focused on functional (see: Bible’s focus on sun’s function for us—seasons, light, day/night vs. big, burning ball of gas)
-1:2’s from chaos and emptiness to order and function
-ex nihilo creation does not mention material
-considerable functional emphasis in Gen 1 account (see also: the material coverage of man is in Gen 2)
( Did God create everything (materially)? Absolutely, what else?! All over the Scriptures! But is that what Genesis 1 is about?
-Walton argues that Day 7 is a “temple text” (common in ancient cosmologies): cosmos as God’s temple/HQ; God takes His place in the Temple and the world comes into functional existence—and can get started (the “cosmic temple inauguration” view)
-for modern reader, Day 7 as a (non-material!) appendix with theological implications for Sabbath; for ancient reader, the climax!
-see: parallels between Creation account and Temple construction: water basin (I Kings 7:23-26), pillars (representing earth—I Kings 7:15-22), light (Ex 25:6, 35:14, Num 4:9), and bread/food (Ex 25:30); see also: I Kings 8:27, Is 66:1
-“rest” (p. 72-76) as the state after crisis has been resolved or stability has been achieved; completion of activity so that normal routines can be established and enjoyed
-see: Israel’s “rest” in Canaan
-Walton compares it to setting up a computer vs. using it
-for deity (and us), normal operation of the cosmos can begin
( Walton’s either/or vs. both/and
-Kass on the first creation story (p. 25): “elevated and majestic tone, its repetitive style, and above all its content…big cosmological and metaphysical questions…answered without even being asked, seemingly disposed of once and for all [yes and no!].”
Genesis 2 Questions: Still In the Beginning
1.) In 2:2, God "rested". What does that mean?
2.) Why did God create the world in 7 days? Why not instantaneously?
3.) In chapter 2's "account", the author uses "Yahweh"-- God's personal and covenantal name (as opposed to chapter 1's "Elohim"-- meaning "heavenly body"). Why? What are some other details in chapter 2 which reflect this change of tone?
4.) What is interesting about the ingredients in 2:7?
5.) How is God's restriction in 2:16-17 important to our theology? If you had the power back then, would you have chopped the tree down or built a huge fence around it? Why or why not?
6.) In 2:18-20, we find that Adam needs something more than the animals. Why didn't God simply provide a companion beforehand?
7.) What are the ramifications of the picture of man in 2:25?
Creation—In The Beginning—Pt. 2
2:4
-"the account" as a literary marker in Genesis, denoting a new section (e.g., 5:1)
-the beginning of human history (here thru Gen 4, not Gen 2 or 3)—and what happened to God's “good” creation
-from God’s creation to the human condition
-from 1:31’s “very good” to not-so-good (Gen 2’s loneliness; Gen 3’s sin); from 2:3’s blessing from God and ch. 3’s curses
-shift, in large part, from the God of Creation to the even more important God of History
( different accounts of same story (see: Gospels, Kings/Chronicles)? Why did God and the redactor/author make this choice?
-Budziszewski (in World, 9/6-13/08) on giving directions to his house: “I give two versions—one focusing on the names of the roads, the other on distances and landmarks.”
-Ch. 1's summary; Ch. 2's details: relations of men and women to God and nature (building on Gen 1 wrt man—as a map insert of a city does for a statewide map)
-Peterson on ch. 1’s time and now, ch. 2’s place [in time] (p. 72-75):
-music (and poetry) vs. narrative set in place with plot and characters
-cosmic and comprehensive vs. zooming in to single location on earth
-4b’s reversal of earth and heavens
-garden (vs. wilderness) as (order/care revisited) but to Peterson’s point: local, defined/boundaries/limits
-w/ app. to us: God works (with us) in (time and) place vs. often want to escape from our garden and/or get excited about what’s outside our garden
-Willard’s God has never blessed anyone, except where they are; Peterson’s “God deals with us where we are and not where we would like to be.”
-Peterson on utopia as lit. “no place”—an ideal place that does not exist—“politically in communities, socially in communes, religiously in churches”
-Peterson on Gregory of Nyssa, sent to a backwater place by his brother (and not happy about it): don’t obtain distinction from the church, but confer distinction on it (Phil 4:12-13)
-4b’s "Lord God": Yahweh (personal and covenant name of God) AND Elohim (“heavenly body"; as from Ch. 1)—still monotheistic, but more intimate
-the use of more active, hands-on, descriptive verbs (form, fashion, shape, breathes, builds) vs. the spoken word "create"—and anthropomorphisms (7,19's potter, 8's gardener, 21's surgeon, 3:8's peaceful landowner)
-Norris quoting Ephrem on God's efforts "to clothe Himself in our language so that He might clothe us in His way of life"
-other key distinctions from Kass (p. 55-56)[22]:
-ch. 1’s natural, cosmic, metaphysical vs. ch. 2’s moral, political, social
-ending vs. beginning with man
-reader as spectator, offering a cosmic view of man’s place in the cosmos vs. reader as a parallel agent, offering a human view of our lives
2:5-6’s parenthesis (read 2:4-6)
-5a’s “not yet appeared” [23]—implies need for water from God and the workings of man
-5b's no rain—probably until Noah's time; instead, 6's "streams" or "mist"
-God finds a way to water the plants He has planted
-5c’s “to work/till the ground” as avad, meaning to work and to serve—and related to the word eved meaning servant or slave
-Kass (p. 58): “even before we meet him, man is defined by his work: less the ruler over life, more the servant of the earth”
2:7 (read 2:4,7)
-"formed": like potter with clay (Is 45:9, 64:8; Jer 18:6)
-again, implies great care
-"man" as equivalent to “Adam” (related to Heb. adamah—ground), but not named Adam specifically until 2:20
-"dust"—something…
-formless (a la Gen 1:2)
-so dry (w/ app. to spiritual matters and the springs of living waters)
-so common—and so common
-MH's "despicable...a very unlikely thing to make a man of; but the same infinite power that made the world (out) of nothing, made man (out) of next to nothing."
-God condescended to make something in His image—out of dirt!
-JV McGee's (old stat?) man made out of 15-16 chemicals, all found in the ground; $3 worth of stuff in our bodies (as in 1:11,24)
-most dust in the home is dead skin (see: Kirby demonstration)
-see also: 70% of earth/our bodies made of water
-adds to our humility; puts more weight on the breath of life
-"breath of life", "living being" adds to 1:26-27
-defined as life (after birth) for animals in 1:30 (and thus, a “soul” of some sort)
-irony that breath usually scatters
-ruah memallelah—as “a speaking spirit” (Sacks 25): made in God’s image—think, speak, imagine, create
( the combo:
-we are comprised of physical—dust, and the spiritual—breath of life (Eccl 12:7)
-humility: God created us, out of dust, and we require His breath
-w/ app. to us:
-thus, necessity of regeneration by in-breathing of the Holy Spirit (see: Jn 20:22 for Christ's simulation of Acts 2)
-born again = born of (and indwelt by) the Spirit
-MH's "Let the soul which God has breathed into us breathe after him."
-dust and God's breath; earthly and divine; natural and supernatural (see: like the dust, elements of communion [and other sacraments] as not much, but...)
-see also: Christ healing blindness with clay
-Kass (p. 59): “Human troubles are foreshadowed by man’s dual origins: he is constituted by two principles, the first one low, the second one high…Higher than the earth, yet still bound to it.”
2:8-9
-8’s “planted a garden”—a special place vs. the ‘good’ of Ch. 1
-as if God intended to inject something (and someone) holy onto earth (as with Israel in Canaan)
-8's "put" (2:15) him in a garden
-implies Adam was originally outside the Garden; put in by Sovereignty and Grace
-Eldredge uses this (and the fact that Eve is born in Eden) to draw gender distinctions (a Biblical Mars vs. Venus?)
-putting up a sovereign’s image (1:26-27) = establishing claim to authority and rule; man set into Creation as “God’s statue”
-8's put him in a “garden”
-vs. giving him a dozen roses or putting him in a palace; MH's "What little reason have men to be proud of stately and magnificent buildings, when it was the happiness of man in innocence that he needed none!...The finest gardens in the world are wilderness compared with what the whole face of the ground was before it was cursed."
-underlines work (our participation) within God’s provision (vs. just picking fruit/nuts; 1:28)
-a picture of growth, cultivation, and then fruit (Is 5, Gal 5; Jesus’ parables)
-no need for shelter; implies complete protection and no fear (vs. Is 1:8)
-8’s put him in the Garden of Eden
-meaning bliss or pleasure; not just “place”, but a good place to live
-but not “ideal” (in the sense of utopia); bad things could (and do) happen here
-9's "trees" (fig. or lit.?)
-"all kinds of trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food" (3:6!)
-God's good gifts and provision, incl. beauty (human pursuit of art and music), usefulness, and variety (extravagance revisited)
-two special trees singled out (fig. or lit.?)
-both (together) “in the middle of the garden” (more later)
-implies human interest and potential for desire—foreshadowing
2.) tree of the knowledge of good and evil (only introduced here; much more later)
1.) tree of life: signifies or sustains/gives life (3:22; Rev 2:7, 22:2,14)
-eternal life in Eden and heaven—when we had/have access to the tree
-something nutritional or merely fig.?
-man eating from (or even interest in) is unrecorded—and God does not prohibit or recommend—so eating is assumed or irrelevant
-uninterested in &/or unnecessary to overcome death?
-is Gen 3 so soon that the tree does not come into play?
2:10-14 (skim...)
-11b-12's resources
-if in Eden, to be used; if outside of Eden (10's "flowed from Eden"), contrasts with the greatness of Eden
-four rivers, only two of which are known to us (11’s Pishon—to the north, 13’s Gihon—to the south; vs. 14’s Euphrates, Tigris)
-perhaps different after the Flood
-14's Euphrates often called "the River"—size and importance (I Kings 4:21,24);
-10’s rivers flow out from (vs. bound) Eden—the origin and as if infinite in scope
2:15-17
( from 4-14’s form and place to 15-25’s narrative within place, describing a more personal/intimate relation to Adam
-15's work
-“put” (revisited—2:8): immediately invited to help God continue God’s work (Eph 2:10)—“to work and take care of” Eden
-work as partnership w/ God (Ps 8, Eccl 3:13, Jn 5:17): God plants; he cultivates; God’s P and our P
-the first task precedes the first institution—marriage; our Kingdom work is related to but precedes our marriages
-job as a blessing pre-Fall; meant to be a (redeemed) blessing post-Fall (Eccl 2:24, Jn 5:17, Acts 20:34-35, Col 1:10, 3:23-24, Rev 22:3)
-find identity and satisfaction from God in work (properly or not)
-see also: self-identification by job/career vs. character/personality traits; names derived from work
-“work the soil” as congruent with who we are and what we’re made of
-implies the proper pursuit of knowledge (vs. “the tree” or God endowing us with all we need); God is honored by and has designed us to learn more
-history reveals providence of God; science-- His omnipotence and omniscience; geography-- His perspectives; music & arts to praise God
-Calvin in response to critical statement: "You're right-- He doesn't need my book learnin', but he doesn't need your ignorance either."
-16’s bounty vs. 17a's prohibition and 17b’s penalty/result
-note: commands to Adam pre-Eve; he is ultimately responsible
-largely good news: 16’s bounty of many vs. 17’s prohibition of one
-begins with 16a’s “commanded”: “you are free…”
-an interesting combo!
-God as Creator, Benefactor, and now Lawgiver; from words as Creator and blessings—to commands/morality
-resources first, now responsibilities (as in Eph, etc.)
-announces complete freedom—aside from this tree, eating animals, and presumably at least some acts of commission
-freedom in light of necessity/constraint and responsibility (Acton); permission and prohibition; opportunities and limits
-17b’s “surely die” as threat &/or prophecy?
-penalty vs. necessary/natural result/outcome
-not immediately lethal, but incompatible with immortality and leads ultimately to death (2:17, 3:3); death as process vs. event
-vs. strict interpretation of 17’s “when”—lit. “in that day” (revisited)
-see also: OT system of blessings/curses; NT distinction on life and death (Mk 16:16, etc.)
-obedience for own sake (17a’s “you must not…”), but also disincentives
-on latter, Adam understood dying or at least, some vague badness
-see: parenting and the way in which the world is set up for us
( the problem (aside from disobedience) is undefined—but presumably a dangerous sort of knowledge that will necessarily disturb peace and harmony
-Kass argues for a broader good and “bad” (including sickness, pain, disorder) vs. good and (purely moral) evil
( A&E already possessed some moral discernment and knew God's general will for them; called to pursue other sorts of knowledge implicitly
( presumably, additional/prohibitive moral knowledge or ethical discernment—vs. innocence (Dt 1:39, Is 7:15)
-seems connected to knowledge of “how the world works”; see: fig. death/loss of our/children’s innocence
-Kass (p. 69): the pairing of trees (together) suggests that we/they face/d two incompatible alternatives: an immortal life of childlike innocence (the tree of life without the tree of knowledge) or autonomous knowledge of good and bad coupled with mortality
-see also: 17a’s “eat” as incorporate, absorb
( presumes propensity toward the tree: the potential to seek something that is close—at an arm’s length/distance, in the middle of the garden
-Kass (p. 66): ‘the need for such a restraint shows that the autonomous source of trouble lies already deep within, at least potentially”
( more broadly, why the tree?
-free will introduced explicitly (vs. automatons)
-could have disobeyed without a tree, but makes it a more explicit test—“separate” revisited (Job; Elijah vs. prophets of Baal; Josh 24:15; Mt 4)
-no moral choices without freedom
-w/o a tree, is Adam capable of being moral?
-w/ app. to LM; social conservatives would have chopped it down
-vs. 9’s in the middle of the garden!
-see also: importance of consequences for learning (vs. shielding people/children, making decisions for them)
( why a tree (vs. e.g., a shrub)?
-seemingly independent; appears impressive despite lowly origins (vs. Ex 3 and Thomas’ “any bush will do”)
-pictures genetics/family influences; prefigures the cross
2:18-20 (I Cor 11:8-12)
-20b for first explicit mention of Adam's name
-19-20's Adam’s naming of the animals
-Adam couldn't have evolved from apes because he would have recognized his Mom & Dad when he was naming the animals
-themes revisited:
-Adam involved with God’s creation
-free will and (modest exercise of) dominion
-exercises his budding powers of discernment; not forbidden knowledge
-first (reported) use of language (although words unreported)
-bringing order to creation (in the image of God)
-“making his own world” (so to speak)—the first human “invention”
-Kass (p. 76): “Human naming, while it does not create the world, creates a linguistic world, a second world, of names, that mirrors the first world of creatures.”
-19b’s "to see what he would name them"
-as if God didn't know?!; Norris' "This implies that God wants to be surprised and wants Adam to play along in the continual surprise of creation."
( in any case, wants to give Adam “ownership”/dominion
-based on objective animal attributes vs. subjective interactions with him?
-the human difference: speech and reason
-unless animals could speak (Gen 3’s serpent; Balaam’s donkey, but caused by God to speak—Num 22:28ff); if so, does man get the job by [reasoning] ability or appointment?
-implies a big/growing vocabulary
-animal-naming parenthesis bracketed by 18a's "not good for man to be alone"; 20b’s ‘no suitable helper’ (see: Miller’s A Covenant for All Seasons, p. xi)
-in contrast to Ch. 1's repeated "goods"
-John Milton’s “Loneliness is the first thing which God’s eye named not good.”
-“alone” vs. all other animals with ‘their kind’ (1:24-25)
-“alone” vs. the presence of God
-often assume that God would have been “enough”, but it’s God’s testimony that Adam is alone and this is “not good”
-even though Adam had walked with God, he needed Eve to complete him
-does Eve represent husband/wife, male/female, &/or more broadly, community (see: Trinity; all w/ app.—except former vs. I Cor 7)
-need relations with both God and man; vertical and horizontal; if only one or the other, “not good”
-why was it not good for Adam to be “alone”? (see: loneliness vs. solitude)
-insufficient/incomplete; Kass (p. 73): “lacking a suitable mirror, might be incapable of self-knowledge”
-vs. Kass’ invites the illusion of self-sufficiency—a mark of strength, real or imagined?
-if so, remedy is weakening—by division, opposition, conflict; still a “help”, but in a different way!
( both w/ app. to marriage
-when did God move? when (if ever) did Adam understand his loneliness?
-after Adam completes his work…
-as man shows up after God finishes His work
-to avoid distractions or fights?!
-to signal who’s in charge and responsible
-we are built to derive satisfaction from work/dominion and relationships (1:28; 2:15-20)
-there’s more to life than work; work is meant to be good, but a wife is meant to be better (see: Eccl.)
-after letting Adam go through the existing options
-Adam may not have realized he had desires—or at least, how to quench them; not to take Eve for granted
-vs. God providing Eve from the beginning
-see: appreciating marriage more when one gets married later
-what else is achieved by Eve joining Adam?
-reproduction (vs. God could have...)
-implicit rejection of bestiality
-given 2:15’s tasks/teamwork—with complimentarity and specialization (Ecc 4:9-12)
-points to the need for companionship—a God of relationships
-MH's "Perfect solitude would turn a paradise into a desert and a palace into a dungeon."
-note God's empathy here, responding to Adam's needs (Phil 4:19's "God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus")
-we and Adam know from this that God answers “prayers” and even unknown needs
-18b’s “will make a helper suitable for him”
-again, not an animal…
-an animal cannot be a best friend—and be ruled over
-emphasizes separateness from animals
-connected to 15’s work and 16-17’s commands; ironically, not much “help” early-on! (3:1-5, 3:17-19)
-15-17’s commands surrounded by 9-14’s resources and 18-25’s helper!
-top reason Eve was created: God worried that Adam would frequently become lost in the Garden because he would not ask for directions
-Heb. ezer kenegdo as "a helper corresponding to him" or “sustainer beside him”
-one who completes vs. a minion
-ezer often refers to God! (Ex 18:4, Ps 20:2, 33:20, 70:5, 115:9-11, 121:1-2, 146:5)
-us in God’s image (revisited)
-combined with other passages: not ontological in terms of worth and dignity, but functional subordination in terms of roles
-vs. from Kass, “opposite, over against, in front of” (he proposes “counterpart…fitting and suitable to be sure, but also opposed”)
( in Genesis 1, distinct but equal; in Genesis 2, complementarity
-male/female as equal 1:26-30, separate but "equal" in Ch. 2
-the tension (on this issue) begins early...
( in Gen 1, community (Trinity’s 3); in Gen 2, relational (Adam & Eve’s 2)
-Kass (p. 55-56) sees all of this adding to complexity/nuance in us and us vs. animals/plants:
-man made in the image of God (1:27) vs. dust and breath (2:7)[24]
-positive encouragement/injunction (fruitful/procreate/dominion) to negative constraints
-from all “good” to the tree of the knowledge of good/bad and man’s aloneness “not good”
-animals then man as rulers vs. man then animals as potential companions
-master of life on earth (1:28) vs. servant of the earth (2:5,15); plants for man’s food (1:29-30) vs. man to keep/serve plants (2:15)
2:21-22
-woman also created on the 6th “day” (1:27)—“a long day" (revisited)
-Eve not formally named until post-Fall (3:20)
-Adam and Eve were created as adults (w/ apparent age)
-might have expected this sooner, given 18’s observation, but 19-20a’s hiatus/delay to name the animals
-21a’s “deep sleep”—God as the first anesthesiologist and surgeon[25]
-see: God/Jesus as the “Great Physician”
-joke: “The oldest profession is a doctor? No, architect formed order out of chaos. Politician: “who do you think created the chaos?”
-plastic/thoracic surgeons often use ribs for reconstruction; regenerates if taken (reduced?) carefully (??)
-21,22's "rib"—lit. “part of the man’s side”
-analogies:
-selal—almost always used to denote “side(s)” of the Tabernacle, Temple or Ezekiel’s temple![26]
-as the Church was born in a sense from out of Christ’s side/wound
-vs. Dust II—the sequel (this is even more creative!)
-no belly buttons for A&E
-did Adam get a rib replacement; was he the only man to forfeit a rib; or was this a permanent change for men?
-after surgery, no longer “whole” individually—but ironically, more of a whole together (and thus, in a sense, individually)
-Adam responding to perfect woman offer from God: “What will it cost me? An arm and a leg. What can I get for a rib?”
-see also: Eve as a pain in his side
-intimacy of the chosen body part; MH's "The woman was made out of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved."
-22b’s “brought her to the man” (as with the animals; 2:19)—and more broadly, this entire situation is described as God’s idea (2:18a,20b; vs. sought by Adam)
-see: God’s sovereignty, God’s gift (“God, you gave her to me”), God the Father gives the bride away—and with very tentative app. to planned marriages
2:23-24’s for 23’s first recorded words
-no need to speak—or at least, to record it—until someone else shows up?
-see: passive voice of 2:20 and Adam’s silence [at least in the text]—and vs. animal names, more clearly interested here!
-NIV’s “this is now” as lit. “this one at last”—implies emotion/passion and length of time, and as if an answer to (unspoken or unrecorded) prayer
-Peterson’s “words of intimate recognition…and relationship”
-Anderson (p. 45): “As Adam [names] the animals…he notices his own singleness and longs for a mate who will make him whole.”
-Adam shown physical (plants), souls (animals), and here, spirit (human)
-Kass (p. 102): “The man reacts to the woman’s appearance, as have billions of men down to the present day…”
-gets men off to a good start—with poetry (first time for a prominent literary feature of the Bible) and a love song
-Kass (p. 78): “the appearance of the animals elicited names; the appearance of the woman elicits poetry…”
-23b’s ishah (woman) and ish (man)—names Eve and then himself!
-gives a reason: “because from man she was taken…”
-again, orders the world through words
-God had named him Adam (ground)—generic human being; he names himself man in relation to the woman
-vs. God naming him again; exerting dominion/independence over self
-acknowledges her otherness, but focuses on her sameness—signals connection, intimacy, etc.[27]
-but Kass notes that this exhibits self-awareness, his sense of their complementarity, and servanthood (putting her first)
-Kass sees this as almost certainly sexual: “at last” and “she woman; me man”—as he feels his masculinity clearly for the first time (beyond observing male/female animal differences?)
-Adam’s gender as ambiguous and irrelevant until Eve shows up (Kass’ “never mind anatomy…functionally genderless”)—and then, to be combined, as 24’s “one flesh”
-in this, another difference with animals; both are sexual, but only humans are self-aware in their sexuality
-Kass (p. 100): “This should not surprise us: no worthy account of…human nature would fail to give sexual desire a central place…”
-Anderson (p. 43): “The Bible shows no bashfulness about telling us [one] void Eve was meant to fill. As soon as Eve is presented to Adam, our narrator turns aside to inform us that from now on a man will ‘leave his father and mother…to become one flesh’ with his wife”
2:23-24 for 24’s new family unit
-marriage as first institution—and thus, first element of society
-divine plan laid out for inseparable monogamy between man and “wife” [28] as ideal (Mal 2:13-16a; cited by Jesus and Paul in discussing God's will for sex and marriage)
-first “institution” established by God (see: Jn 2’s setting for his first miracle)—vs. work as first calling (1:28a, 2:15,19-20)
-two of the key problems in marriage—failure to leave or cleave—especially for younger couples
-separate/distinct from parents (independence)—even without parents in the picture yet!
-“become one flesh” as a one-time event and an on-going event (lit. and fig.)—and fig. as a process
-see also: mind and spirit (2:18,20’s partner)
-w/ app. to doing these well or not
2:25
-they were “naked"—without apparel and not in peril
-for Adam, after a long “day” of seeing/naming hippos & rhinos and having surgery—the first thing he sees after waking up is Eve wearing nothin’ but a smile!
-with God and each other—no sin, no separation (vertical and horizontal)
-see also: the two big C's—loving God and others
-later, fig leaves as barriers, protection, hiding (with God and others)
-with each other: emotional, physical, and spiritual intimacy
-“they felt no shame”; innocence/purity (soon to be lost), vulnerable (and not a problem!)
-see also: kids running around naked; deer in animal refuges; and hopefully, sex/nakedness with marriage partner
( God designed marriage for procreation (1:26-27), pleasure (2:24's "one flesh"; Song of Solomon), partners in Kingdom work (2:18,20), mutual joy and comfort/companionship (2:24-25)
( a God to whom we are accountable means that marriage is the 2nd most important relationship in our lives (if married!)
-implication that optimal is monogamous, heterosexual, and for a lifetime
-see also:
-security of children and stability of nation/society
-a tangible representation of God’s faithfulness to His people (adultery/idolatry; Eph 5:30-32, II Tim 2:12-13)
-crucible to develop earthly maturity in us (see: Gary Thomas’ Sacred Marriage; marriage > monk)
( is this a “man-centered” narrative (a la feminism/patriarchy)?
-at first blush—yes
-nothing recorded from Eve’s perspective
-man created first, woman derived from, dependent on, and named by man
-but co-equal too (Gen 1:26); rib as equalizing; and the man adores her
-but Kass (p. 78, 101):
-the man is disabled—less than whole vs. woman who is presumably not deformed or incomplete[29]
-man cannot stand on his own and only understands himself when the woman shows up
-man’s origin is lower: dust vs. living flesh (and that, from near the heart!)
Anderson (ch. 2-3) on when did A&E have sex; what’s at stake theologically?
( a sparse narrative revisited…the possibilities:
-4:1’s explicit reference which leads to Cain (is that why it’s mentioned?)
-3:6-7’s connection to eyes “opened” and “shame”, including (or especially) with respect to their sexual differences
-1:26-28’s following command to be fruitful
-2:23-25’s first opportunity (with his “wife”)—upon introduction
-see also: how much time between 2:25 and 3:1? (more later)
( skim/skip: Were A&E celibate in Eden—and if so, was it incidental or by design[30]? Does sex precede or follow sin for A&E (and does it matter)?
-some Jewish tradition compares Eden to a temple and Adam/Eve to priests—where abstinence would have been expected (at least for a time)
-others emphasized “exile” (and post-Eden as exilic); therefore, it was important to them that A&E consummated in the pre-Fall state and suffered in “exile”
-Augustine changed the debate from place to “the will”—and said that God intended for them to consummate in the Garden[31], but the Fall ruined God’s intent for them and harmed it for us
( Gen 2’s morality, marriage, and work as spiritually lead yourself, family and others
( What do we know biblically?
-marriage is a pre-Fall institution—and thus, a part of God’s good creation
-sex within marriage is meant to be a good aspect of marriage
-marriage and sex are both damaged by the Fall in Gen 3
( generally called to marriage and then, sex within marriage—but able and occasionally called to transcend our sexual nature in special cases (vs. animals)
-OT uncleanness [as any bodily fluids; human/mortal] or purity for consecration/dedication (e.g., Ex 19:15, Josh 3:5, Uriah[32])
-in NT, see: Jesus, I Cor 7
-Anderson (p. 48, 49) on “a theological paradox that is at the very heart of the Bible’s teaching about sexuality…we are both anthropos and theos, part human, part divine [part animal, part God]. On the one hand, sexuality is at the very center of what it means to be human…On the other hand…we are commanded from time to time to draw near to him…[to] renounce our sexual nature in order to enter his sacred space…We are both sexual beings and beings who can transcend our sexual selves.”
-an error to exaggerate either aspect
Genesis 3 Questions: The Fall of Man
1a.) What two things does the serpent do in 3:1?
b.) What is wrong with Eve's response? Draw an analogy.
c.) What two things does the serpent do in 3:4-5? Read Isaiah 14:13-15, John 8:44.
d.) What else is interesting about the serpent's strategy? Read Proverbs 4:25-27, Deuteronomy 13:6-10.
2.) How does 3:6 apply to us-- the stages of sin, us wanting to avoid falling into temptation, God allowing temptation, Adam's role, etc.?
3a.) In 3:7, Adam and Eve use fig leaves to cover their shame. As we continue through chapter 3, we are shown its effectiveness. Does it work from their perspective? Does it work from God's perspective?
b.) In 3:21, what does God do instead? Why is that especially interesting and relevant?
4.) Why does God ask Adam what happened? What else is interesting about this verse?
5.) Describe the details of the "blame game" in 3:11-13. How does the world do this? How do Christians do this?
6.) There are six "deaths" (separations) as a result of "original sin". What are they?
7.) Given the effects of "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", what is gracious about God's decision to evict Adam and Eve?
Genesis 3: The Fall of Man (2-3 weeks; Esolen in Touchstone, 11/06, p. 3-4; Young’s The Shack, p. 147-148, 179)
-review of Chs. 1-2's Perfection between God, Nature, and (Original) Man
( LH&B (p. 75): the author of Genesis "was not interested in satisfying biological and geological curiosity. Rather, he wanted to tell who and what human beings are by virtue of where they came from: they are of divine origin, made in the image of the Creator, yet marred materially by the sin that so soon disfigured God's work."
-overview of Ch. 3's Original Sin
-Mt 23:35's reference to Abel implies historical narrative vs. allegory
-the freedom of Eden --> the fall into Sin
-how long did it take?
-before kids (3:20's ‘would become’) or even before sex (revisited); see: kids eventually necessary at least to extend “dominion” (1:28)
-after the 6th day (1:31), but soon after
-James Jordan's "Human psychology is such that the more Adam and Eve resisted temptation, the stronger they would become."
-or maybe pride/independence/comfort grew pre-Fall (Pr 16:18)—or as we tend to stray in the good times—or diminishing marginal utility over time (did things get old for them?)
3:1's initial temptation
-1a's intro to Satan (who is in the serpent): a created (finite) being who rebelled against God, tempted both Adams (Rom 5; Gen 3 and Mt 4), and in general, the enemy of both God and man
-Satan, world, and flesh as our enemies; Satan as first enemy to appear, but using the others—to entice the flesh and to start “the world”
-see: Is 14, Ez 28, Rev 12 for Satan’s origin and fall
-Anderson (ch. 1) cites Jewish tradition[33], Gen 1:26-28, and Milton’s Paradise Lost that Satan did not want to bow to man (I Cor 6)—even though man was created in the image of God—given that he had been created first (brings light to Ps 8:3-8!)
-envious of man making them a natural target of his animosity—and a goal to test them and God’s plan (a la Job and asking for Peter)
-a frequent Biblical theme—that the elder would serve the younger (Gen 25:23), as with Cain/Abel, Ishmael/Isaac, Rachel/Leah, Jacob/Esau, Joseph/Reuben, Ephraim/Manasseh—and Israel vs. other civilizations (Gen 12:1-3)
-Anderson (29): “the story of ‘reversed primogeniture’ [older serving the younger] is pushed one step back in time, from the era of the patriarchs to the creation of Adam himself. God’s electing activity is woven into the very fabric of creation itself.”
-described as 1a’s the most "crafty"/cunning
-serpents in general or this one in particular!
-in contrast to dragon/lion's power (described as both in Rev 12:9, 20:2)
-term not evil in itself (NIV translates it 3x as “crafty” and 8x in Pr as “prudent”!; Mt 10:16b), but along with ill motives…
-related to “smooth” (!) and “naked” a la 2:25! [arum vs. arumim]
-because he is rational and independent, can tempt from innocence and obedience to independence and disobedience
-he is spirit, but comes in the flesh (II Cor 11:14)
-foreshadows the solution in the incarnation of Jesus!
-possessing a serpent here; later, most prominently, Judas, the Anti-Christ
( why did [God allow / Satan choose] a serpent?
-turns out to be prominent in Near Eastern myths
-Kass (81):
-appetite (vs. bird): “a mobile digestive tract that swallows its prey whole” (Heb 12:16-17, Phil 3:19)
-rationality (vs. dog): “cold, steely, and unblinking…the image of pure attentiveness and icy calculation”
-cunning (vs. cow): “slithering, sinuous, and utterly silent movements”
-ambiguous in gender (as God): can be seen as masculine (phallic—a symbol of male power—or seduction of women as here) or feminine (re-birth and self-renewal in shedding of skin)
-its name given by Adam—meaning shiny and enchanting
-points to his ignorance/innocence, but Kass (82): “In this very subtle way, the text may be suggesting the inadequacy of human perception and naming. For the man who named it nachash, the serpent was shiny, attractive, and enchanting. For the text, however, the crucial thing about the serpent is that he is clever, cunning, smooth, and beguiling…”
( Bible’s 1st quoted conversation (vs. 2:23)
-from speech to dialogue; from naming to asking/answering
-begins with the 1st Q in the Bible
-what is the purpose of this question? not to seek truth or info (as God with A&E later)
-Kass (82): “Like any question…disturbing immediate participation in life and forcing introspection and reflection.”
-w/ ironic app. to Q’s of Jesus and the prophets—and the power of Q’s in general; see also: teaching, counseling, parenting for ownership and engagement
( intro (in earnest) to Eve (2:22-25; identified as “the woman” here— not named until 3:20); why did the serpent approach Eve?
-insert your own gender-based joke here
-character?! youth (and naivete)!
-“personality”? may point to Eve’s openness; Kass (106): “shows that it is she, not the man, who is open to conversation, who imagines new possibilities, who reaches for improvement. Unlike the man, with his desires sexually fixated upon the woman, the woman is more open to the world—to beauty and to the possibility of wisdom. She, in short, has more than sex on her brain.”
-2:16-17's 2nd-hand reception of God’s command
-w/ app. to the need to teach it effectively, but also, our not taking God’s word 2nd-hand
-easier to mess with Adam through an indirect attack?
( in any case, this perceived by Satan as best strategy—if Eve most vulnerable
( was it strange that the snake spoke to Eve? (Mr. Ed? Narnia?)
-shared upright posture as well (until 3:14)
-thought that it was sent by God?
-spoke and reasoned, but still not a suitable counterpart for Adam/Eve—sex, not just dialogue
( context:
-was she often near the tree (flirting with disaster) or just happening by (w/ app.)?
-was this the first time she had met Satan—and built up a (casual) relationship?
( why didn’t Eve go to Adam (2:24’s ‘one flesh’!; end of chapter 2?) or to God for help?
-Kass (79) notes that the woman speaks to the serpent, but does not speak to the man—or as recorded, ever!
( God creates tree, serpent, allows Satan his discretion, etc. ( free will (revisited)
3:1
-1b’s injects doubt about God's word: "Did God really say..." (Rom 7:10-11)
-not a Q as much as calling God and His command into Q
-not deny, but inject doubt; a loss of faith in God’s word and its applicability
-see also: "inerrancy" of the Bible (II Tim 3:16-17)
-“really” implies unreasonable
-in addition to the words, imagine the tone…
-1b’s challenging God's love/goodness: "you must not eat..." (vs. 2:16-17)
-beyond God as arbitrary to harmful/hostile (vs. 2:16’s [positive] bounty)
-application: if you become a Christian &/or give your life to God-- you'll always be single or marry a dork, and you'll get sent to the buggiest/snakiest place in Africa (even if so, Jn 10:10, Rom 12:2)
3:2-3 for Eve's response (compare with God’s instructions to Adam in 2:16-17)
-note: 2,3’s "fruit" vs. apple
( correct answer to 1’s question? No…
-wrong and too long; see: lawyers and too much detail
-in general…
-denies accusation but does not reaffirm God’s generosity
-see: importance of gratitude
-2’s focus on their choice vs. God’s gift
-3’s God as naysayer—now by Eve and now, doubled!
-specifically, correct except (being picky) she omitted 2:16's "any"—and more important, she added "and you must not touch it"
-taught improperly by Adam &/or didn’t listen well? (Jas 3:1)
-well-intentioned self-control mechanism or a legalism—asserted by Adam or self-imposed by Eve? (Pr 30:5-6)
-Kass (85): “a protective addition, born of solicitude, provided by the man” vs. “an addition, born of fear, advanced by the woman”
-reasonable for A&E to be scared about the tree and its consequences
-sets a questionable boundary with the world/sin nature, but no significant boundary with the devil
-rhetorically, when pushed, 3’s appeal to authority—to try to enhance credibility and play defense
-vs. flee temptation or use just God's word—w/ app. to the danger of knowing God’s word half-way
3:4-5 temptation cont'd
-4's denial of God's judgment, focused on the God-provided disincentive: "you will not surely die"
-related to idea that God is "too loving" to send someone to Hell...
-beyond facts, impugns God’s character and motives; God is lying and has ulterior/hidden motives
-questions His authority/power
-contradicts Satan’s own experience with God’s judgment (Is 14:12-15)
-art often depicts Satan in/touching the tree! if so, evidence against woman’s legalism about touching
-5's twisting of truth: "your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God" (Jn 8:44)
-the Bible’s first metaphor
-denies costs and now promises additional benefits
-again implicitly questioning God's motives; God as Cosmic Killjoy; is God right and does He want the best for us 100% or 94% of the time?
( G. North's "attack on all three offices of God: prophet, priest and king": a denial of God's word, violation of sacred space [stuff], challenge to God's authority
( half-truths
-7a’s ‘eyes were opened’, but didn’t mention consequences, incl. guilt and death
-5's "like God" vs. 1:26's "made in the likeness of God"—close! (see: counterfeits)
-perhaps appealing to good intentions: no higher goal than to be like God/Christ (w/ app.)
-become more like God by defying God's authority, taking God's place, and deciding for herself what was best for her life? became her own god, but not pleasing to God
( Kass (86): “man does not die on the day that he eats…his eyes are indeed opened upon eating…the serpent does not exactly lie; but neither does he tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth…His utterances—like almost all of ours—offer a mixture of ‘yes’ and ‘no’, of the true and the not true…”
( half-truths crucial in bad personal decisions (sins of omission and commission) and public policy—exaggerate (SR) B’s & downplay (LR) C's
Top 12 Elements of Satan's Strategy—here or elsewhere (outline):
1.) injects doubt into the value of God’s word
-questions early-on, before assert/deny, and then twist/reverse
2.) accuses God before man—and elsewhere, man before God (Rev 12:10-11, Job 1:9-11, 2:4-5; Zech 3)
( Satan attacks the relationship both ways; either way, his job/desire is to separate/alienate us from God
3.) implies that God is strict, stingy, selfish, finite (as if His creatures could be a threat to him!), etc.
-tries to get us to forget all God has given us and gets us to focus on what they don’t have
4.) encourages legalisms—trashing God’s good gifts (and then tries to show them to be false)
5.) gets us to focus on circumstances vs. character and identity in Christ; what we (don’t) have vs. what we do and who we are
6.) gets us to love the gift rather than the Giver
7.) gets us to chase too much of a good thing or the good vs. the best—here, knowledge (I Cor 8:1; Pr 1:7!; Acts 1:7)
-Francis Bacon: ‘The desire of power in excess caused the angels to fall; the desire of knowledge in excess caused man to fall, but in love there is no excess, neither can angel or man come in danger by it.’ (although Lewis’ Great Divorce!)
8.) appeals to body (sensations) and soul (pride)
9.) encourage (short-run) benefits and downplay (long-run) C’s of sin
10.) getting us to stray in the little things
11.) tries to pique our curiosity—probably chose to talk to her when she was near the tree (Pr 4:25-27)
12.) goes for the "weaker partner" (revealed preference; I Pet 3:7)
-see also: Job and his wife, Christ and Peter
-often, temptations from ones you might not expect (Dt 13:6-10)
-w/ app. to not being weaker—and helping others
( in general, demons probe for weaknesses (II Cor 2:11's schemes, Eph 6:11's wiles; Screwtape Letters, analogy to military weaknesses, Chris Snider with ex-girlfriends)
( trying to get us to choose his kind of life (rebellion) over God's kind of life
-could not destroy man, sought to corrupt him instead (a la Screwtape Letters)
-substituting our sovereignty for God's
-even with Christ: in desert, at Gethsemane, on cross
Top 12 Elements of Satan's Strategy—here or elsewhere:
1.) i_________ doubt into the value of God’s word
-questions early-on, before assert/deny, and then twist/reverse
2.) a_________ God before man—and elsewhere, man before God (Rev 12:10-11, Job 1:9-11, 2:4-5 for Job’s supposed motives; Zech 3)
( Satan attacks the relationship both ways; either way, his job/desire is to separate/alienate us from God
3.) implies that God is stingy, overly strict, etc.
-tries to get us to f_______ all God has given us and gets us to f________ on what we don’t have
4.) encourages l__________—trashing God’s good gifts (and then tries to show them to be false)
5.) gets us to focus on c____________ vs. character and identity in Christ; what we (don’t) have vs. what we do and who we are
6.) gets us to love the g______ rather than the G______
7.) gets us to chase t____________ of a good thing or the good vs. the best—here, knowledge (I Cor 8:1; Pr 1:7!; Acts 1:7)
8.) a______________ to body (sensations) and soul (pride)
9.) encourage (short-term) b___________ and downplays (long-term) c________ of sin
10.) getting us to stray in the l_______ things
11.) tries to pique our c__________—when she was near the tree (Pr 4:25-27)
12.) goes for the "w________ partner" (I Pet 3:7; Dt 13:6-10; II Cor 2:11; Eph 6:11)
( trying to get us to choose ______ kind of life over ______’s kind of life
3:6's falling into temptation (II Cor 11:3’s “Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning”)
1.) God permitted the temptation and free will for human beings (revisited)[34]
-Willard's "We alone can stand in opposition to God—in order that we may also choose to stand with God." (p. 52, S of D)
-voluntary, but Eve "took" and Satan's use of persuasion thru fraud (see: economists on force and fraud)
-yet, indivs defined by their limits—making them a particular person with particular gifts, etc.; here, Eve looks to go beyond those limits (w/ app.)
-Abraham Lincoln's "if we say a tail is a leg, how many legs would a horse have? Five. No, four. No matter how many times we say a tail is a leg, it isn't..." (See: Chesterton on giraffes)
2.) Eve's steps: looked (saw), took, ate, gave some to Adam
( put yourself in Eve’s shoes…well, ok, she was naked…
a.) "seeing":
-1.) good for food (necessity); 2.) pleasing to the eye (aesthetics); and 3.) desirable for gaining wisdom (enlightenment)
-all of these as good in their proper context and timing
-two mentioned as good in 2:9—except that pesky prohibition (see: Mt 4’s parallels)
-now sees the world through eyes transformed by imagination; her description is a mix of what she sees (#2—and that is subjective) and what she’s heard from the serpent and imagines (#1&3)
-Kass (87): “The woman’s desire grows on its own, partially enticed by the serpent’s promise of wisdom, mostly fueled by her own newly empowered imagination…”
-over-reliance on senses and feelings (see: pilots in rough weather)
-falling prey to I Jn 2:16’s ‘the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes…’ and Jas 1:13-15
-saw and focused on SR/obvious benefits, but could only ‘see’ costs on faith
-what she didn’t see: Borgman (28): “this world of no-fear and all-joy…it is not enough”
b.) “taking” the fruit
-ironically, emphasizes violation of 3:3’s legalism about not “touching”
-an 8th C. violation of property rights; stealing God’s stuff?! (see: Achan)
-in context, analogous to a small child taking another child’s toy—even when he has access to a million other toys and is only prohibited from taking that one toy
c.) “eating” the fruit
-ratifies the choice; Kass (65): “to reach for the forbidden fruit is already to have tasted it” (yes and no)
-eating represents ingesting/absorption
-a picture of hungering for the wrong things
-an everyday activity that usually sustains, but here, destroys
d.) implicating Adam: the effects spread; sin is not usually satisfied to remain alone
( interesting that God’s presence is not enough for either of them
-see: OC’s Law and Jesus’ earthly ministry—vs. Holy Spirit’s empowering
3.) how to avoid:
-realize temptation is not sin (I Cor 10:13)
-define sin properly (3:3)
-question assumptions of the World
-recognize that sin occurs when we exaggerate B’s and downplay C's; look for all the C’s and honestly evaluate B’s
-focus on innumerable blessings vs. forbidden fruit
-know God well; don't believe doubts about God's goodness
-know God’s word well (Mt 4 vs. Gen 3)
-go to God and others; ask for input/help in “handling the snake”
-flee when necessary (incl. "don't look")
-"just say no" (Jas 4:7)...and yes (Gal 5:16, II Tim 2:22, Heb 12:1-3)
4.) who committed the first sin—and what was it?
a.) Adam typically blamed for original sin: Rom 5:12-19, I Cor 15:22—and who does God come looking for in 3:9?
-vs. I Tim 2:11-14, but it points to “deception” [rather than sin] and perhaps to be understood only in the context of teaching)[35]
b.) the possibility of Adam’s bad teaching—by omission or commission[36] (3:3)
-ironic given I Tim 2’s RX! or does that knock out this possibility?
c.) Adam eating the apple at all, given his greater knowledge, accountability, and call to leadership (2:16-17)
-Eve yielded to a supernatural being; Adam merely gives in to peer pressure—in a sense, yielding to the devil, “the world”, and the flesh (his own and Eve taken from his flesh)
-Adam will obey wife or God ( his need to develop in self-govern and lead
d.) Adam’s (original) sin of omission: he was just standing there (see: Crabb, p. 90)
-note: 6’s “when” may allow some time (if so, Eve’s sin as even worse!), but unlikely that Adam is going to let her out of his sight so soon! (ok, honey, you go shopping—and I’ll hang out with the gorillas)
-specifically, his silence with the serpent and with Eve; Eve was deceived (I Tim 2:14) but Adam was not? (even worse!)
-Adam too quiet vs. Eve talking too much (insert own gender joke here!)
-vs. both of them assumed too much and talked too little—to each other and to God; w/ app. to erring on the side of proactive communication
-interesting that Adam would probably have defended a more overt attack; but in any context, fight for (vs. with) your wife
-know where the battle is; understand her worth and the value of your marriage; and learn how to fight well (see: Jn 8 with Christ)
-broadly, failing to provide proper leadership within the home (Eph 5:25)
-see: Crabb’s The Silence of Adam, incl. p. 91’s anatomy of his sin (‘He listened to the serpent, he listened to his wife, he accepted the fruit, and then he ate.’) and p. 98’s ‘Silence is not golden, it is deadly. Adam’s silence was lethal.’[37]
-vs. Adam’s Gen 2 speech, naming the animals on his own (p. 110)
-God’s speaking in Gen 1 vs. Adam’s silence; God speaks and turns darkness and chaos into light, order, and beauty—vs. Adam’s silence as vice versa
-in Genesis, Adam’s silence revisited (at least) with Abram (Sarah giving him Hagar as forbidden fruit!; 2 * Abimelech), Lot at Sodom, Isaac with RE&J, Jacob with his sons, and Judah with Tamar (Gen 38; ironically, with Tamar reversing Eve—p. 96)
-see also: Ephraimites in Joshua, Eli, David, various passive responses to Jesus’ invites, I Cor 5
-Book of Virtues poem, p. 138's first 2 verses
( sin of omission resulted in and followed by sins of commission...
( Truth established by God, undermined by Satan, rejected by man
-see: absolute vs. relative Truth
-for man's benefit: maximum freedom with one restriction (see: tree-- to be free, it must be attached to the ground)
-beliefs/assumptions about God and Truth ( actions, prescriptions
3:7's fig leaves
( given what follows, we know these actions signal far more—and seems to imply impending troubles—but here, only know…
-whatever this is, it must relate to sex given the fig leaves; not just nakedness, but its (new/bad) quality
-Kass calls this “art”; also points to the value of modesty (at least post-fruit)
( given what follows (3:8ff) and connecting it to the tree’s purpose…
-fruit/disobedience conveys “knowledge of good and evil”
-not what they see but how they see it and what it (now) means (again, see: children losing various forms of their “innocence”—e.g., wrt nakedness!)
( looking forward, eyes are involved with Eve’s troubles, provide symptoms of the damage here, and point toward the (anti-)solution:
-eyes are more likely to cause trouble; ears and hearing God’s word as clearer and more powerful
-Kass (91): “having followed [their] eyes to alluring temptations, promising wisdom, human beings came to see, again through their eyes, their own insufficiency….Yet sight [does] not fully disclose the truth of our human situation. Human beings must open their ears as well as their eyes…”
3:8-10
-9's God calls out to man—a picture of His desire for fellowship/relationship
-heavy on anthropomorphisms: God “walks”, talks, communicates; seems to deliberate and be “affected” by our actions
-despite sin—intervening quickly from out of His grace vs. leaving us to live perpetually with consequences of improper living, guilt, etc.
-the Good Shepherd looking for his lost sheep
-9ff’s God questions Adam and Eve
-again, the use/power of questions to induce soul-searching vs. eliciting info; God’s good motives vs. Satan’s evil motives (3:1)
-God knows, but still asks
-not for His info—psychic vs. physical; figurative vs. literal
-underlines their choice
-for Adam/Eve’s ops for self-revelation and (varying qualities of) response
-w/ app. to parenting, counseling, teaching
-personal (2nd-person singular) questions
-God comes to Adam initially for an explanation; Adam as primarily/ultimately responsible
-trouble signaled even before they answer: 8b’s non-verbal response—hiding: afraid of fellowship, His voice
-didn’t know how to respond to God post-sin—a new experience!
-scared—not inherently by His approach (2:15-25), but by their newly-enlightened consciences[38] (7’s “realized”) and their disobedience
-Kass (91): “Before each other, man and woman hide only their genitalia. Before God, they seek to hide themselves completely.”
-Kass then distinguishes between two Greek terms meaning “social shame” concerned with looking good (aischyne) and “ontological shame” concerned with one’s inherent worth (aidos)
-garden as a place of joy & fellowship with God ( fear & hiding from God
-w/ app. to “hiding” from God and others: never called to hide from God; often, hiding from people indicates something of which one is not proud—vs. sometimes called to hide from people (shrewd as snakes; don’t make religious actions showy) and even oneself (don’t let left/right hand know)
-MH's "We have reason to be afraid of approaching God if we're not clothed with the righteousness of Christ." (Heb 4:14-16)
-pre-fruit: childlike obedience and naivete were sufficient
-post-fruit: greater “knowledge” forces greater/perfect actions
-see: children (Dt 1:39, Is 7:15) and mentally disabled (Peter Sellers in "Being There" and Forrest Gump); see also: those who haven't heard?
( as God alludes to with the name of the tree (2:17), they know more now; as Satan promised (3:5), their eyes were opened
-factually and emotionally/relationally
-MH's "They saw the folly of eating forbidden fruit. They saw the happiness they had fallen from, and the misery they had fallen into. They saw a loving God provoked, his grace and favor forfeited...They saw their natures corrupted and depraved, and felt a disorder in their own spirits of which they had never before been conscious."
( now, 7’s fig leaves seen as a mask-like attempt to cover shame (Pr 28:13)
-failed from their perspective (3:8,10,12-13)—still have shame, fear and separation from God and each other[39]
-failed from God's perspective (3:21)—man-made atonement?!
( they try to cover/conceal without (before) going to God in repentance; could have gone to God pro-actively!
( how silly to hide from God’s Law or Love...but we do it all the time (Ps 139:7, Jer 23:24, Heb 4:13)
-be honest with God and others; prayer and the need for confessing sins to God and others as appropriate
-see also: parents with (young) children who misbehave—dealing with sin and afterwards (lying/avoiding vs. confession/repentance)
3:8-10 (cont’d)
-8a's God walking in the garden (as Christ in Rev 1 among lampstands)
-Adam and Eve recognize the sound of his walking!
-is God in human form here or merely an anthropomorphism?
-“in the cool[40] of the day (yom)”—an interesting detail…
-AM or PM in Heb.?? foreshadowing “it’s about to get” hot or dark!
-signals they would have been comfy in the sun, but instead were in hiding
-“among the trees”[41]—hiding from God among good things God created! (w/ app.)
-10's Adam's verbal reply
-evades with semi-answer at the end (“I hid”)
-Kass (92): “freely confesses his concern with the divine presence, even as he tries to rationalize his misconduct”
-describes (vague) fear; hasn’t seen any hint of God’s wrath
-points to nakedness not disobedience
-is he pointing to his initial nakedness or his inability to properly cover his nakedness now? is he worried that leaf-grabbing is not allowed?
-joke about Rev 3:20 on a visiting pastor’s business card and Gen 3:10 reply
-ironically, not being naked enough here!
-largely omits confession
-could have repented before God came looking for him or here, but…
-after 11b’s pointed question, anything after this necessarily looks like false vs. true repentance; would God have responded differently with confession and repentance?!
( Adam and Eve 1.) were (implicitly) convinced their ways were better than God's ways; and 2.) hid and tried to excuse/defend behavior
-moving closer to God involves reversing those steps
3:11-13's the blame game: 1.) Adam with Eve and God; 2.) Eve with the serpent
-11a’s leading question from God addresses nakedness (Adam’s angle in 3:10) and 11b’s try to connect it to disobedience
-again, w/ app. to parenting and hoping for half-credit
-12’s reply from Adam:
-again, evasive before 12b’s semi-own at the end
-Kass (93): “prefacing his confession with his excuse”
-interestingly, Adam displays his greater knowledge of good/evil in his attempts to avoid blame; from knowing right and wrong—to knowing who is right and wrong
-Adam took it like a man—and blamed his wife (3:12); from 2:23’s flesh of my flesh to thorn in my flesh
-alienation between Adam & Eve—in addition to their alienation from God; the honeymoon is over!
-would have liked to have seen Adam fall on his sword for Eve and take “too much” responsibility
-odd that he doesn’t blame the serpent; often harder on those we love
-Kass (91): “We may smile at the man’s attempt to avoid responsibility, but we must also acknowledge that he has a point…” (?)
-but in blaming Eve and God, a very slippery slope; Keizer (106): “When a man is capable of blaming both his loving Maker and the one to whom he makes love, then scapegoating anybody else—even everybody else—is no great stretch.”
-13a’s Q to woman ( 13b’s equally quick to avoid blame and then take ownership[42]
-not taking "credit" for it reveals that it is wrong/sin
-vs. one of them stepping up and saying "I wear the plants in this family!"
( blaming the devil ("the Devil made me do it...") and the world vs. blaming sin nature and taking responsibility
-MH's "That though Satan's subtlety drew us into sin, yet it will not justify us in sin; though he is the tempter, we are the sinners."
-ex) in 1990, American U. president Richard Brerendzen resigned after being caught making obscene phone calls, calling it "uncontrollable-impulse disorder"
-ex) DC's Marion Barry on his lying about "chemical dependency": "That was the disease talking, I did not do that on purpose to you. I was a victim." and John Leo: "combining the three languages of addiction, victimology and political evasion”
-ex) crazy lawsuits, warning labels, ADHD
-stronger applications: spiritual gift and personality tests; heredity &/or environment (past/parents); tough circumstances (Lewis' "rats in the basement"; “makes me angry”)
-making excuses for ourselves or others
-blaming Providence/circumstances instead of blaming ourselves for perverting Providence
-note: God didn’t ask why (motives/abstract), but who and what (concrete)
-God accepts their answers (vs. refute, argue, or continue the discussion); accepts their confessions/defense
-Kass (91): “God has good reason to be satisfied with the inquest…shifting blame and denying responsibility for wrong-doing proclaim, despite [themselves] the existence of good and bad, right and wrong. Making excuses for oneself is, in fact, a concession that something needs to be excused. Neither man nor woman says, “I did it and I’m proud of it. [vs. Satan]”
3:14-15's punishment for serpent and Satan
-the snake is not interrogated—beyond repentance? pre-meditated (and too soon to repent) vs. impulsive sin? too complicated to discuss in front of the humans?
-judgments on Adam and Eve are reversed (vs. questioning), leaving judgment on serpent as central
-14's “cursed” above all livestock, to crawl on the ground & eat dust[43]
-cursed as arur—a pun on 3:1’s cunning (arum)!
( why punish the snake itself? (Ex 21:28, Rom 6:13, 8:20-21, 9:21)
-as a reminder to man, connects something unpleasant to Satan
-snake transformed (physically) from impressive/persuasive/alluring to repulsive
-15a's enmity between serpent & woman; snake's reputation w/ people; prefigures alienation between (the rest of) nature and mankind (3:17-19)
-15b’s crushed head vs. bitten heel (Gen 49:17)
-“offspring (lit. seed) of the woman” as both singular and plural, foreshadowing Christ and His victory at the cross (Gal 4; Col 2:15, Heb 2:14)
( targets the animal but alludes to Satan here: did he faced diminished stature, ability, etc. after this?
( certainly points forward to the victory available to us in Christ (Rom 16:20a)
3:16's punishment for women (Eve)
a.) pain in childbirth
-but, grace within judgment (Jn 16:21): children would follow, humans would continue (vs. wipe-out and start over)
-‘greatly increase’ pains vs. giving her (new) pains (3:16,20)
-had she already experienced this (with daughters; 4:1), giving her a frame of reference?
-on childbirth, Eve born from Adam; reversing Ch. 2's blessing (vs. how children could have been born otherwise)
-child’s pain as well—as his life starts
-interesting that curse is pain caused largely by a relatively large head (as a proxy for knowledge)—and Kass (112) “anticipates the often much more painful act of separation, when the child, exercising the newly awakened mental powers made possible by his large head, reaches for his own autonomous knowledge of good and bad and repeats the original rise and fall from obedience and innocence.”
b.) “desire” for husband—who will “rule over”
-should be purely positive, but alludes to problems (same term as 4:7!)
-desire, often, despite poor leadership[44] (Eph 5:21-33)—here, with a seeming emphasis on commission
-again, should have been a universal joy and blessing
-vs. animal kingdom where some females make the males go on parade before choosing the pick of the litter
( establishes/codifies patriarchy—why?
-fitting (given her sin)?
-both parts of the curse as non-arbitrary, striking at what was or would become a primary purpose and drive
-condemned to pain and subjection in response to her sin of seeking pleasure and having pride
-prescriptive or predictive?
-either way, Lewis’ “someone has to lead in a marriage” and this as generally useful for women and children (although often abused)
-not about dignity of the human person, strict gender roles, etc.
-some sense of this even pre-Fall (even Gen 2)
-connected to her special reproductive role?
-vs. others in the animal kingdom, the mother’s greater dependency on the father—given long gestation and very long dependence of children on parents
-Kass (113): “her focused love for her children causes her desire also for her husband—as their father—to grow more focused and more intense…How to gain the male’s cooperation and permanent presence? How to domesticate him? A man who rules—or appears to rule—gets domestic authority in exchange for serving the needs of the woman and her children.”
-does all of this start or ramp up when children arrive—or anticipating children?
3:17-19's punishment for men (Adam)
( is he thinking this is going to get pinned on Eve—esp. given 16b’s “rule”?!
-17a's because allowed wife to talk him into sin—poor leadership (revisited)
-not necessarily his first sin, but the one fingered here: he was tempted by Eve, but he chose to follow her into this sin
-17b's "cursed is the ground", 17c’s "painful toil" required (same Heb. word as 16's "pains"—the only 3x this word is used), 18a’s thorns and thistles, 19a’s “sweat of your brow”, 19b’s return to dust/ground (Ps 104:29b, Ez 18:20a)
-“ground”—plants, not animals (1:29, 9:2-3)
-"painful toil" is the curse, not work per se (vs. usual word—amal; 2:15; see: Eccl 2:17-23,26b vs. 2:24-26a)
-meant to bless us, God, others; God’s goal for this (as well as everything else) to be redeemed at the Cross (see also: what will heaven be like?)
( again…
-grace within judgment: doesn’t destroy calling; could produce, but more difficult
-appropriate/just; Kass (94-95) on the punishment fitting the crime in two ways: 1.) opposition to his aspiration to be self-sufficient and god-like; and 2.) “gets precisely what he reached for, only to discover that it is not exactly what he wanted” (compares to Midas and Achilles)
-striking at his purpose and drive
-Willard (54) points to "the loss of the power required to fulfill their role as God's rulers over the earth" (Gen 1:28)
-see also: desire/command for love and respect for women and men
( formalizes and redefines 1:28’s rule/dominion
-Kass (116): “God addresses the man not as ruler but as ruled: man, ruled internally by his desire for woman, had submitted externally to her voice…Even if he subsequently gains rule in the household, man now knows that he is hardly a ruler…a slave who must work and serve the earth, in order to eke out a living for himself and his family. Woman periodically will suffer painful labor, but man will labor painfully all the days of his life…the dusty earth opposes his needs, resists his plow and finally devours him whole.” (not exactly sunshine and lollipops!)
( to what extent was punishment based on actions, omissions or blame-deflection?
-see: kids with wrong-doing & then lying or not
( note that serpent/ground were cursed (3:14,17), but Adam/Eve were only judged and penalized (curse-like)
-implies free will and ability to avoid “curse”
( in sum, their sins caused: abundance ( scarcity; fellowship with God/others ( alienation/conflict; sinned by eating ( suffer to eat; life ( death
( Adam awakened to his (future) mortality; more broadly, types of death/separation—collateral damage of sin (Schaefer's book on Genesis)
-7's psychological: man from self (low self-esteem, self-conscious, guilt, shame)
-8's spiritual: man from God (fear, hiding)
-11-13's sociological: man from man (blame game, trouble at home)
-17b-19a's environmental and economic (scarcity, ground cursed); man from nature
-Pearcey (48): “The two central tasks of adulthood—raising the next generation and making a living—will be fraught with the pain of living in a fallen and fractured world.”
-19b’s physical: aging and later, death (from inability to periodically eat fruit; 3:22; Rev 22:2)
( all of these are put to death by putting “the self” to death!
( economics (cont’d):
-enters with trade-offs in moral choices—and other choices, given human limits
-woman’s birth vs. man’s till: sets up comparative advantage, specialization, and capacity for greater complementarity
-explicitly sets up agriculture (vs. 2:15’s vague and picking fruit/nuts)
-Kass (94c): “To sum it up in one word: civilization. The ‘punishment’ for rising above childishness…is to be forced to live like a human being.”
( 3:15b points to Christ; in 16-19’s fall/judgment, we see: 16's pain/sorrow (Is 53) and subjection (Gal 4:4—and to God), 17’s curse (Gal 3:13), 18’s thorns (crown of), 19a’s sweat (of blood), 19b’s death (on a cross)
-faced here (and redeemed by Christ); see also: 17a’s tree (cross)
3:20-21
( now, two surprising tangents—before they’re kicked out of Eden
( how does Adam respond to the bad news? (kick the dog?)
-Kass (117): “[His] immediate response is reported in one of the most beautiful and moving sentences of the entire [OT]…he does not despair…[he] looks instead to a promising future…of hope…[and] children!”
-20's naming
-again, establishes dominion (3:16; as w/ God in Ch. 1, Adam w/ animals in 2:20)
-“Eve” means life—mother of the living[45]
-man’s rib gives life to the woman; woman gives life to the world
-a hopeful, forward-looking name
-children, blessing, and legacy in the face of mortality and penalty
-from mortality to immortality of a sort; building a name through family, etc. vs. Babel in Ch. 11
-as Adam/Christ, so Eve/Mary…
-mother of all mortals/immortals
-disobedience/obedience represented through their response to what they heard from Satan/Gabriel
-if by divine direction, implies covenant with man and Adam obeying God
-if by Adam…
-doesn’t extend the sin’s impact by blaming Eve further or shaming her (e.g., “lover of apples” or snake/apple = Snapple)
-Christ-like, redemption, and wrt marriage (I Cor 13:5)
-implies hope that children can hold together and harmonize what our differences can drive apart; unification beyond mere sexual unity
-implies his faith in God's word and goodness (vs. 3:1-6)
-vs. 2:23’s “woman”, names her with no reference to himself
-interesting that he maintains the name “ground”, illustrating that he cannot extend life
-also implies that he will look elsewhere for immortality—most notably, to his work; saved by child-bearing (cite) vs. one’s own works
-21 for God's redemptive effort vs. leaving it at fig leaves
-not for immodesty or warmth...
-God's efforts vs. ours
-so they would understand/see (consequences of) sin/death
-how sobering to be covered by a warm animal skin, esp. when they had not seen bloodshed previously
-see also: after Adam had named the animals and cared for them
-animal vs. plant: first recorded bloodshed (vs. Gen 9:2-3)
-prefigures Christ and shedding of blood for atonement of sin[46]
-for them, a radical and unexpected way to pay for sin (underlines extent of both judgment and grace)—and a picture of being weighed down by sin
-Is 64:6's "our righteousness as filthy rags" (Zech 3:1-5) ( put on God-provided clothes, the blood of Christ in J (Rom 5:17-19), in S (Lk 24:49, Rom 13:14, Gal 3:27, Eph 4:24, 6:11, Col 3:10,12), and in G (I Cor 15:53-54, II Cor 5:3, Rev 15:6)
-21b’s “clothed them” as enabled them to be clothed by the skins or actually put the skins on them?
-given the latter, Anderson (ch. 6) on the idea that God put human flesh on them (Heb. term can be translated as hides or leather, but most common as “skin”)
-vs. a glorified body pre-sin (Job 10:11; Ps 104:1-2 and created in the image of God; Ez 37: 6,8; Christ post-resurrection; I Cor 15 and our resurrection; imagery of baptism)
( if so, sin and skins made them unclean—and as priests, must be expelled from the Garden/“Temple”
3:22-24
-23's eviction/“banished”; 24's angel/sword enforcement
-implies force: "didn't want to go..."
( kicked out and kept out; had eaten themselves out of house and home...
-as Cain and Babel, kicked out of their comfort zone
-on 24b’s sword and Rev 19:21, Motyer’s Isaiah, p. 539: “The whole of human history, from the Fall to the Last Day, is bracketed about by the sword of holiness.”
-22a’s “has become like one of us”
-"us" as Trinity (revisited; 1:26)
-given “knowing good and evil"—intellectual &/or experiential?
-Kass (96): “we have it on the highest authority that we have witnessed not the fall of man but the rise of man, at least in terms of his mental powers” (!)
( both!
-the “fall of man” is described but the phrase does not appear in the Bible
-morally vs. mentally; Kass (88): “the rise of man to his mature humanity—to be sure, in all of its pathos and ambiguity” (see: Kass, p. 91, FTN 39)
-22b’s given KGE and sin, can't have access to the tree of life—to live forever
-justice: what God promised! eat that tree after sin?! no consequences to sin?! denied tree of life ( death (Rom 3:23, 6:23)
-grace I: immortal but left in sin—what we (would) experience spiritually on Earth
-eternal life in a state of sin would mean eternally trying to hide from God or living in rebellion
-see: earth as the only Hell that Christians will ever know
-Keizer on “the wages of sin are death”: “…but sin without that wage would be hell. It would be a world where torture could literally be endless. As it is, death cheats every torturer in the end. In other words, death is God’s mercy on our fallen condition.”
-grace II: given the infirmities we face post-Fall, eternal life on earth would be vastly inferior to what we’ll experience materially in Heaven
-grace III: obsessed with death and eternal life
-Kass (96): “Man’s god-like powers, the text suggests, will focus on his mortality, a major pre-occupation of the fully self-conscious human being…man will now recoil from death and will seek its remedy, ultimately in bodily immortality…[so] it is not good for man that he should live forever [on earth]…finitude provides man a release from his troubles. More important, awareness of mortality will eventually inspire him to seek what is true, just and holy…With their path blocked to the tree of life, human beings—both the ones in the story and the readers—can turn their attention not to living forever but to living well.”
( only through God's redemption in Christ can we see the tree of life again (Rev 2:7, 22:2,14), have pure relation with God, eternal and abundant life, etc.
-foreshadows gift of eternal life—vs. eternal life as automatic? (see: annihilationism)
( rest of the Bible as God's rescue plan for man and nature (Rom 8:19-23, esp. bondage)
( what else could God do: destroy all and start again; let sin destroy them; start over with one who is incapable of sin; risk continuing original plan and still allowing freedom to choose[47]
( from Adam to Noah to Abraham and then Israel
( parallels between Adam & Eve—and Israel (Anderson, 120-121): both elected by God; received commandment to start; offered Old Covenant blessing predicated on obedience; expulsion vs. exile if/when not
-Delasanta in FT (May 2005) on the “alpha and omega” of gardens in the Bible:
-God as the Gardener in the Garden of Eden
-after the Fall, redemption at the Garden of Gethsemane (“The grand narrative that began with gift and loss in Eden seems to have come full circle to a futile agony in still another failed garden.”) and then the garden with a new tomb (Jn 19:41, 20:14-16) where Mary thinks Jesus is a gardener (“As indeed he was, regaining by his death and resurrection the Garden of Eden for a humanity that had foolishly lost it.”)
( as an intro to sin nature (Ps 51:5, Rom 5:19, Jer 17:9; I Cor 16:22, Rom 7, and David on sinful from birth; but I Cor 15:22)...
-who understands sin nature? fathers w/ teenage daughters
-if not restrained, capable of great sin
-the World says to improve self-esteem; Bible says to recognize the depravity of man
-need Christ and indwelling Holy Spirit to transform sinful nature (I Cor 5:17, Gal 5:24's "crucified", but a slow and painful process)
-look forward to the day when this struggle will end (Rev 21:3-5)
-looking forward, Kass (96-97): “The early verdict on human reason and human freedom is, to say the least, mixed…[but there is] a redemptive possibility…[we] become aware of our own inadequacies from hearing and experiencing the voice of the text [Lord}. The source of our troubles, dear readers, is…in ourselves. Suitably humbled, we are prepared to be educated.”
Genesis 4-6:4's Cain/Abel/Seth --> Noah
-continues 2nd account in Genesis (chs. 2-4): Gen 2's Creation/Perfection; Gen 3's Original Sin/Separation; Gen 4’s violent sequel
-in particular, Gen 3's root of sin ( Ch. 4's fruit of sin & sin continuing in the family tree
-a 2nd generation is offered the choice of obedience or rebellion, life or death
-a 2nd story on the importance of family and the tragedy of dysfunctional families
-household/family (with children) debuts here—from husband/wife to parent/child and especially siblings (particularly with two boys)
-beyond family, introduces passion/emotion (human), human death, crime & punishment, “justice”, attempts at relation with God though sacrifice—and in the postscript, the emergence of ag, cities, and the arts
-Kass (124): “many of the essential elements of human nature”
-more broadly, how people would live without moral instruction or Law (none mentioned; any presumed?)
-Kass (124): “why the natural or uninstructed way does not work, and therefore why the subsequent giving of God’s law might be both necessary and welcome”
4:1-2's intro to Cain and Abel
( first thing Adam and Eve did after getting booted from the Garden: “raised Cain”
-actually, 4:1a’s “lay with” as “know” (ya-da’ vs. yada, yada)
-other words for sex, but this one implies intimacy
-see: later frequent use for us with God; vs. adultery, idolatry (word study)
-in response to the last word in Gen 3 (mortality—no more access to the tree of life): pro-creation…
-1b’s Eve gives birth to Cain
-Cain as the firstborn to Adam and Eve—and the first to be born at all; Cain, rather his parents, as the stronger prototype for humans
-1c’s Eve names Cain
-not Adam?! he recedes into the background for the rest of this account: back to passivity? no need for him in the narrative? points to Eve’s connections to Cain…
-acknowledges God's hand—God’s provision and her/Adam’s participation[48]
-acknowledges a male child[49] (Acts 17:25)
-does her statement imply a bunch of daughters preceded? (more later), but then why bother to mention Adam laying with Eve?
-in (some) reference to herself and her (new) name: Cain’s name related to root words meaning possess and perhaps form/shape/create
-Kass (126): Cain “will become a proud farmer, the sort of man who lays possessive claim to the earth and who is proud of his ability to bring forth—to create—fruit from the ground.”
-2a’s birth of Abel—uncelebrated (vs. 1’s detail):
-“later”—as if an afterthought
-unconcerned with their age gap
-only introduced as Cain’s brother (not even as A&E’s son)—as if he is only/mostly important in that role
-implies favoritism from at least Eve
-no explanation given for his name (4:25 provides this for Seth as well)
-later used as Hebrew word meaning "breath, meaningless" (see: Eccl!)
implies/prophesies/foreshadows brevity of his life[50]
( Eve clearly shown as playing favorites (a theme in Genesis and common today, esp. with first-borns)
( Kass (127-128) on Cain and/vs. Abel as 2nd vs. 1st son (introduced), sibling rivalry (incl. birth order), and challenges for each:
-younger: older already established—“in size, in ability, in their parents’ affections”; elicits our sympathy
-older: “faces serious and subtler difficulties…first carrier of parental hopes…feels that more is expected of him—and more often than not, it is…the birth of his sibling radically changes the world as he had known it…now has competition—especially for his mother’s attention”
-rivalry: “Between man and woman, two is the coupling number…but between brother and brother, two is the fighting number”
-natural complementarity between husband/wife as marriage and sexual partners—vs. “no natural impulses or passions that seek to unite brother with brother…what is experienced instead is, immediately, rivalry for parental attention…and in the long run, competition for…the inheritance of family name, home, and fortune.”
-in the story, every detail emphasizes things that separate them
( more about brothers, but see also: two sisters, brother/sister, sister/brother—and other combos
( 2b’s identification of each by occupation: Cain as farmer; Abel as shepherd
-the true “oldest professions” after 2:15’s gardener
-after Adam and Eve cover “be fruitful and multiply”, Cain and Abel work on “dominion”—Abel with livestock; Cain lines up with the cursed ground (3:17-18), but “serves the earth” (2:5,15, 3:23)
-combating Gen 3's intro to scarcity: specialization and mutually beneficial trade
-two primary and complementary ways in which people earn a living
-Kass (129): “The natural rivalry of brothers may be further accentuated by differences in habits and ways of life”
-vs. “brothers in Christ” and the value of brothers being “brothers in Christ” (at least ideally; me with Eddie; and family incl. Chris)
-a useful literary device (A vs. B), but also a sense of important differences and competition between worldviews
-God’s later/seeming preference for nomads and shepherds over those who settle, esp. city-dwellers
-other shepherds: Joseph & Co. vs. Egyptians (46:24); Moses, David
-both vulnerable to nature (esp. farmers wrt weather), but farmer’s private land, possession, self-sufficiency, “inclined to regard himself as responsible—creatively as maker—for the produce itself”[51]
-vs. shepherd’s roaming (at least in the old days); aliens and strangers vs. citizens of this world
-farmer’s considerable intellect and discipline; Kass (130): foresee and plan for grain to bread[52], invest, self-control, develop tools, protect crops[53]
-vs. shepherd’s simple life and relatively unsophisticated; wandering as less purposeful
( Cain as more complex, greater dangers and prospects of greater achievements; Kass (131): “Everything depends upon…whether Cain’s pride can be tamed by learning or remembering that not he but God is the source of his farmerly success.”
( in our (only) intro to both of them, nothing said about their relationship with God or each other—prior to this event
-4:3a’s how long until “in the course of time” and what got them there?
( Kass (125) on 1’s pregnant (but no labor pains mentioned) and 2’s flocks/farmer: “The picture east of Eden is not as harsh as we had been led to believe…”
-materially, yes, but not spiritually as we will soon see…
4:3-5's offerings
( where does this come from?
-may imply instructions had been given (see also: Abraham with tithing and the extent to which the Law codifies earlier instructions)
-but not explicit and would probably occur naturally anyway…
-Kass (133): “Sacrifice is of human origins. [At this point] God neither commands nor requests it; we have no reason to believe that He even welcomes it. On the contrary, we have reason to suspect…that the human impulse to sacrifice is…highly problematic…To be sure, God will eventually command sacrifices, though then only under the strictest rules.”
-first recorded act of “worship”; alludes to a somewhat natural desire to sacrifice and worship—or to look like one is doing so
-given what follows, suspicious that sacrifice originates with Cain
-3b’s “offering” as minchah—a neutral term that does not connote something sacred; also implies ownership/possession (vs. stewardship)
-sacrifice out of fear or gratitude
-latter as hoping to bridge the gap with the divine
-former as bribe to something one doesn’t (fully) understand and control—to improve his lot or avoid trouble (trying to placate God after ch. 3)
-Kass (134): “For primitive man—and especially for farmers, eager for rain—it is perfectly fitting that the primordial farmer be the first to think of sacrifice.”
-why did Abel follow: suggested by Cain?
-perhaps Cain trying to out-do Abel in God’s eyes—and couldn’t possibly lose to shepherd/younger brother
-in any case, Abel takes the op to heart
-to his credit, Cain divines the presence of the Divine, but doesn’t get what he expected:
-in God—not just Santa Claus doling out rain and blessing crops, but a God who cares about individuals and what’s “right”
-from God—and especially in coming off worse than his little brother and 2nd sacrificer…
( unless man understands God and what He wants (if anything), it’s a shot in the dark; likely to offer what would please me (see: God built in my image!); and probably hoping for credit for good intentions
-4b-5a’s God's disparate response to the sacrifices (Pr 15:8 as a little strong)
-Cain’s offering not accepted, rather than Cain rejected
-soon, God will address Cain and encourage him in a growth op
-Abel’s “looked [on] with favor” vs. offering/him completely accepted as perfect (but Mt 23:35; Heb 11:4, 12:24 on Abel as righteous)
-when Seth shows up (4:25), no sacrifices are mentioned, but “calls upon the name of the Lord” (4:26b)
( how did they know God’s response? (not recorded)
-verbally? (but God’s words recorded in 4:6; why not here?)
-did a fire descend (a la Elijah)? would probably have been mentioned
-long-term, did they see an impact on their labors[54]
( why? Sacks (31): “superficially the same, yet between them there is all the difference in the world”
-all we’re told here (vs. motives revealed soon): 3b’s Cain's "some of the fruits of the soil" vs. 4a’s Abel's "fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock"
-type of sacrifice (plant vs. animal):
-connected to 3:17-19's land curse? (but grain offerings later)
-emulates 3:21’s animal “sacrifice”
-blood favored/required even at this early stage?
-quality of sacrifice: “some” vs. “fat…firstborn”
-random vs. choice
-ironically, reversing “afterthought” of the two sons born
-low-cost vs. costly?
-couldn’t eat animals and presumably more work for Cain (!), but animal life as harder to replace
-see: Malachi; us throwing a few bucks in the plate
-timing of sacrifice: probably determined by Cain (“in the course of time”), given his vocation and the time of harvest
-see: out of convenience? priorities?
-in what spirit? unknown…
-perhaps worried about rain
( from what follows, some set of low/calculating motives—e.g., showing off by giving of his excess (comes in abundance at harvest and not many people!) or seeking to manipulate God
( other: perhaps related to dependence, faith (Heb 11:4a), motives and attitude (II Cor 5:9; I Cor 4:5, Heb 4:12)—e.g., duty vs. worship (in the absence of the Law)
( Borgman (31): “Passing over any possible interest in why God favors Abel’s offering, the story moves on quickly, as the reader should. The dramatic focus emerges: an exploration of Cain’s response to rejection, and God’s response to the depressed Cain.”
-5b’s Cain's response to God's judgment: not repentance and humility, but “very angry” and “face…downcast”
-anger and shame, both with roots in (wounded) pride
-firstborn farmer who produces crops by his own efforts and ingenuity and first to sacrifice vs. lazy shepherd and follower in sacrifice?!
-responding to enthusiasm about others’ success with jealousy/envy; see: Lewis’ Screwtape Letters on cathedrals
-upset with God (and Abel—as we’ll soon see!) when it's his fault; they are blameless (Pr 19:3) and God is trying to help (Heb 12:5-11)!
-MH's "It is a certain sign of an unhumbled heart to quarrel with those rebukes which we have, by our own sin, brought upon ourselves."
-not only shame, but injury—and thus, a call to “justice”/fairness
-Kass (139): “perceived insult experienced as injustice…anger and the desire for revenge…When looked at in this light, Cain appears not as some monstrous deviant but as humanly prototypical.”
-Kass (138): “Cain’s display of anger reveals retroactively his state of soul in making the sacrifice. Because he had sought to place God in his debt by means of his gift, Cain feels slighted by what he takes to be God’s unjustified rejection of his offering. If indeed part of Cain’s anger is directed at the divine, it shows how presumptuous…were his expectations.”
-when a gift is rejected, either try to do better (if interested in the other) or angry (concerned with self not the other)
4:6-7’s God tries to reason with Cain (Lk 15:28)
-6’s “angry” and “face downcast” verifies and repeats/emphasizes 4:5b’s narrative
( God confronts/exhorts, wanting the best for Cain; God as Borgman’s “divine Coach”
-God wants to meet us within—and to help us thru—our temptations (Gal 5:16)
-a timely/specific warning (II Chron 36:15-16, I Cor 10:1-2) vs. command (Gen 2)
-7a’s instructed to "do what is right" with a blessing following his obedience[55]
-still vague; implies that Cain should know (even though we’re not sure!)
-in any case, again, indicates God’s love and desire for good relationship
-parallels Old Covenant (in the future)
-lift up good offering = lift up one’s countenance
-7b’s otherwise, “sin is crouching at the door" (vs. Rev 3:20) and "desires" you (Rom 6:12-14; Jas 1:13-15 and God's warning about Cain's "desire" incl. anger ( murder
( 7c’s exhortation to “master” it
-7’s “sin” goes beyond 3-5’s sub-optimal offering
-Cain has choices here vs. doomed to sin or displeasing to God
-crouching implies ready for action
--> w/ app. to what sin is crouching at our doors
-in teaching children about anger, Keizer: “Something to teach a child is that anger, like other storms, often follows a warning and always comes with a price.”
( Cain's lack of (recorded/verbal) response implies more pretending or a lack of concern…
4:8’s "murder he wrote" (see: Augustine’s City of God: book XV notes)
( did Cain know he was killing or what happened to Abel?
-if so, where did Cain get the idea: A&E’s Gen 3:21 story, Abel’s sacrifice, or some other prior knowledge
-in any case, see: Mt 5’s anger ( murder
( in any case, esp. heinous given…
-man made in God's image (Gen 9:6)
-his (baby/little) “brother” (7x in passage)
-Kass (124) on the importance of a “first story” vs. Cain as an anomaly: if the former, despite its darkness, this is “the natural relationship between brothers” (revisited)
-a good man; he had (apparently) done nothing wrong (I Jn 3:12,15)
-vs. a more reasonable response to, e.g., Abel’s stealing from or hitting Cain
-under false pretenses
-pre-meditated and informed by his (impassioned) God-given reasoning ability—takes Abel where no one will see them or rescue Abel (except God)
-saleh as an uncultivated field in uninhabited land (2:19)—in the wilderness
( knows something is wrong—doesn’t want to be caught
-getting rid of source of jealousy/competition as a lame reason
-ironic given that he is the older and seemingly-favored brother!
-and note: this action will not at all solve his (character) problem
-on East of Eden (see: Steinbeck’s C&A characters): "I think everyone in the world to a large or small extent has felt rejection. And with this rejection comes anger, and with anger, some kind of crime in revenge for the rejection, and with the crime, guilt—and there is the story of mankind."
-w/ app. to how we deal with these frustrations
-after a warning (and encouragement) from God (Rom 1:32)
-voice of reason (God) not enough to overcome Cain's passion and impulsiveness
-in fact, probably made him even angrier!
-striking at God thru Abel (as Satan)—"OK...here's a sacrifice for you...”
-Kass (139): “Cain ought to be pleased by God’s attention and interest in him. Though he respected Abel’s offering, God speaks only to Cain; Cain seems to hold more interest, being both more promising and more problematic…Yet like many an angry person, Cain [finds this] offensive, adding insult to injury.”
-introspection as moral development, need to delay ego gratification
( the NT redeems Abel, but for now: Dorris on Abel as “little more than a plot device”—“The first victim of the first murder is perhaps a man to pity, but we feel no ache at his loss. Abel slides off the page like a bookmark, a symbol of what we ought to be, a fine abstraction, like righteousness, that we agree our friends should pursue with far greater diligence.”
( a call to focus on Cain!
( implies a general connection between religion and violence; at its best… vs. at its worst…
( the original martyr/persecutor & "why do bad things happen to good people?" stories
-intro to Biblical idea that being good is not all there is...
-God is seemingly silent/inactive
-free will allowed to have considerable reign
-Borgman (33): “God does what God can do: before the deed, God comes to Cain with whispers of good counsel and comfort.”
-where doubt about God’s goodness can enter, but also what makes faith possible—that there's a bigger story out there
-here, that the first who went to the grave was the first to go to Heaven (see also: God's “first-fruits”)
-God snatching victory from the jaws of defeat: killing Abel sent him to his Father's arms
( part of a (much) bigger plan? Early Church on righteous Abel preceding Adam to the grave; Anderson (174): “the mouth of Hades was opened for the first time unjustly. Henceforth, the legal foundations of the underworld rested on shaky grounds.”
4:9
-9a's rhetorical question from God (see: Shenfeld TKC article, p. 136-137)
-ironically, Abel was with God!
-vs. accusation—power of Q’s (revisited); again, hoping for a confession (3:9)
-MH's "Those who would be justified before God must accuse themselves."
-potential time gap before question—again, allowing space for repentance
-9b-c’s response:
-9b’s “I don’t know”
-blatant lie (Jn 8:44) or a semi-truth since he didn’t know what happened beyond death!
-what did Cain think he was going to get away with—before God or man?!
-ironic given role of the knowledge of good and evil so far
-9c’s question: “Am I my brother’s keeper?”[56]
-Kass (142): “To keep the inquisitive voice [of God] from forcing him to fully confront the meaning of his deed, he answers the question with a question”
-deliberate murder followed by (supposedly) callous indifference
-Kass (142): “turns out to be the maxim of the would-be murderer…tacitly to profess indifference to his fate”
-in style, probably meant as sarcasm, tinged with indignation and perhaps mocking: “Aren’t you his keeper? What kind of keeper are you? Am I the shepherd’s shepherd?”
( in any case, the seed of social ethics: we are to keep our brothers—broadly defined (Phil 2:4; parable of Good Samaritan on one’s “neighbor”)
-Cain questions "who's in charge here?" again, given free will—in a sense, we are...
4:10-12’s God’s response
( what God didn’t say: no direct answer to Cain’s Q (see: below on what God didn’t do)
-God's response could have been "not exactly"!
-Dorris’ “Talk about giving God an opening! But...God doesn’t reply. The question is left hanging, a plumb line right thru history.”
-our call and frequent failure to answer Cain’s question well
-implicitly rejects Cain’s false and frivolous reply (I’m in control here; I’m the one asking the questions!)
-10a’s works to get Cain’s attention with a more pointed question
-a very sobering answer after Cain’s flippancy
-10b’s pointed/direct “listen”—to me [God] or to Abel's blood crying out (Lk 11:50-51, Heb 12:24)
-latter against Cain or injustice
-see also: today, for believers' responsibility for unbelievers' fate (Acts 20:26-27 and I Cor 9:19,22b; Ez 3:18-19, 33:6)
( God’s 2nd recorded non-Q (as 3:14-19, again pronouncing curses/punishments)
-11-12's “curse”: no more crops and a new identity—“restless wanderer”
-11a’s Cain as first human to be cursed (Rom 1:18; vs. ground and snake in Gen 3)
-effects of curse apparently extended beyond 3:17-19
-11b’s ground active for Abel's blood vs. 12a’s not for Cain's future efforts
-ground yields life (human and plant), now symbolizes death
-12b’s “restless” because others will not welcome him; his conscience will (hopefully) haunt him; and he knows (by experience) that life hangs by a thread (4:14b’s fear)
( God chose not to kill him immediately
-in contrast to instant deaths elsewhere and by the Law later
-time as harsher punishment, a just/appropriate punishment (vs. impulsiveness), and as a living testimony to others
-time to allow repentance; if not, Hell on earth
-instead, earth/ground as avenger
-couldn't flee and an apt punishment—impacts what he had relied on before (as Adam and Eve were punished): denied sustenance, security, and identity—ouch!
4:13-16
-13's still, no remorse/repentance, only fear, despair and self-pity (see also: use of first-person throughout—except 14a’s blame-shift)
-interesting that he had a strong idea of the severity of punishment (or perhaps inferred by perceived seriousness of the sin)
-complained previously about God's judgment, now God's justice (Lam 3:39)
-“punishment is more than [he] can bear”; but his sin isn’t more than God or Abel should bear?
-still not broken?!
-14a's blame-shifting: "you are driving me…" (Gen 3:12-13)
-vs. his responsibility; run vs. repent
-see also: God "sending" people to Hell
-14b's punishment: driven from “the land” (how far?), hidden from God's presence (Cain’s assumption), “restless wanderer” (4:12b), and in serious danger of being killed
-killed by whom? rapid future growth of the race? even if so, would Adam's relatives have killed Cain? (more later)
-fear of the unknown? did he think (know) there were others beyond God’s presence
-an ironic fear—given that he's a murderer
-hopefully, his fear of Other will drive him to fear God
-seems to exaggerate or sees this as worse than it ends up being, but…
-out of divine protection (such as it is—and God had not protected Abel!)
-lonely (ironically, a life like his brother’s!)
-away from God: an ironic complaint—didn’t seem concerned about it before!
( similar to parents' punishment; why didn't he learn from their mistakes?
-15's response from God: promised vengeance (from God) and an (unidentified) “mark on Cain”
-grace in judgment; Cain spared directly and now, indirectly—but still consequences
-to stop a potential cycle of violence; bigger picture here: not behavior, but mercy; there is no perfect answer given (his) sin: cycle of violence? no judgment?
-16's Cain "went out" vs. 3:24's God drove Adam out
-given his motivation/attitude toward God—&/or doesn't get it, blinded by sin
-to “the land of Nod”—fittingly its location is unknown (and means "wandering")
-east of Eden—reference to its comfort/safety
-16’s “lived” implies dwelt, settled—refusing to “wander” (4:13; as Abel/shepherd)
back to Adam and Eve…
-their intro to the knowledge of good and evil gives birth to one of each!
-Adam's initial sin reaches its first peak here (just one generation later)
-Michael Dorris’ “This apple didn’t fall far from the tree.”
-the first person with an umbilical cord was a murderer; the first two wholly human beings—and one killing the other
-first physical death of man—and by murder/bloodshed; vs. first bloodshed—by God, to cover A&E’s sin and shame
-one generation after A&E's sin and shame, Cain now adds flippancy and hardness of heart (no fear, even to the point of talking smack to God)
-sin nature steps up, from Gen 3’s supporting role to Gen 4’s starring role
-as with his parents, blame-shifting vs. introspection and repentance
( Where are A&E leading up to this and within all this? we’re given a picture of more silence (a la Isaac and Jacob in their families)?! (afterwards, more blame-shifting?)
-instructions on parenting (a few Dobson books?): if not explicit, then God’s love, the call to “dominion” (incl. care for garden, animals), Rom 1:20’s “from the beginning” imply at least a general understanding of expectations (see also: 4:7’s “do what is right”); in any case, enough—and judged by an appropriate standard
4:17
-17a’s “lay with his wife…gave birth”—procreation cont’d (4:1)
-17b’s Enoch’s name means initiate, discipline, dedicate, train up
-Kass (145): “Cain initiates a family to which he will dedicate himself”—admirable, but to what end?
-names the city after his son
-17a’s “wife”—but where did he find her?
-even if 4:1 or 4:3a’s time gap includes unspoken daughters (at least later—5:4), they would have to leave the Lord's (fig. &/or lit.) “presence” (4:14,16) and align themselves with their brother’s murderer (more later!)
-17c’s “city”
-builds a city despite God's sentence of wandering (4:12b,14b)—a reprieve of additional grace or further rebellion?
-from root words meaning “to watch” and “to wake” (fear revisited)
-Kass (145): “it is not the market or the shrine but the watchtower or outpost that first makes a city a city”
-city as good news (natural, stemming from the household) vs. bad news (a la the Bible; Kass [147]: “rooted in fear, greed, pride, violence, the desire for domination…the city’s aspiration to self-sufficiency”)
-in any case, establishing/seeking formal human government over others
-vs. [poor] human government over self as in Gen 3
-see: dictums on “if men were angels…”
( who formed the "city"[57]? a “city of dreams”? if I build it, they will come?... (more later)
4:18-24's genealogy I: Cain’s—with a focus on Lamech (Cain) as a representative of ultimate evil
-18’s 7th (fig.) from Adam
-19's origins of polygamy—altering God’s ideal plan for marriage/family
-Lamech wants more kids, and thus power
-19’s wives, Adah and Zillah; names mean “ornament” and “shadow/defense”
-20-22’s children will protect and adorn themselves with tools and art
-with Lamech's kids, civilization flourishes, advancing technology and culture (incl. 22’s allusion to Bronze Age around 3000 BC)
-but nothing of God or faith (temporal vs. eternal—Phil 3:19)
-from externally well-equipped to internal pride
-23-24's Lamech proudly kills another who had wronged him
-an interesting combo: pride and poetry; strength and song
-Cain’s mother, Eve, excited to create life; Cain and his descendants looks to threaten and destroy it
-Kass links Cain with Lamech—the civilization established/developed by Cain: from fratricide to wanting to rule over others—both denying human equality; both seeking to remove rivals and to destroy “brotherly relations”
-incl. 24's self-exaltation: Cain's 7 [from God] vs. Lamech's supposed 77
-vs. Mt 18:21-22's 77
-by recounting Cain’s story, implies knowledge of God in some form
-greater than Cain
-historical but looks down on that history; early worship of “progress”—present/future > past
-greater than God, given His level of promised vengeance—from Cain’s self-sufficiency to Lamech’s claim to be god-like
( Kass (151): “The Bible’s picture of human nature, conveyed through its first stories of human life is, to say the least, sobering. The tales of the primordial family underline the dangers of freedom and reason, speech and desire, pride and shame, jealousy and anger.”
4:25-26
-25a’s post-Cain/Abel, 3rd (recorded) child, Seth—when Adam was 130! (5:3-4)
-explicitly replaces Abel; implicitly replaces Cain
-follows Adam and Eve's double loss; what could be worse than having a child die? having your other be the one who killed him...
-25b’s Seth’s name; Kass (149): “The menacing outcome of the line of Cain begs for another way. The [account] ends as it began, with a new birth…echoes closely the [details of the] birth of Cain [but there are] crucial differences. No longer boastful [excited], Eve is indeed, subdued…only gratitude…received as a gift…Seth, unlike Cain, will be less likely to suffer from excessive parental expectations. Tragedy has humbled parental pride…”
-26a’s Seth’s son Enosh—name means man, implying mortal; Kass (149): “the greater modesty of the new beginning is evident in the names”
-26b’s “men began to call on the name of the Lord”: (relatively) impressive, esp. in contrast to Cain's and Lamech’s noisy bragging
5:1-32 (overview; read 5:1-8)
( Kass (151): Little attention is paid to the events that led up to the Flood or to the reasons why God might have caused it…The only intervening material between the gentle genealogy of Genesis 5 and…the Flood are a few enigmatic verses (6:1-4)…”, so read carefully!
-1a’s “account”—the third in Genesis, and the third creation account!
-vs. 1st’s cosmological and 2nd’s prototypical humans interacting with God
-here, God plays almost no role; mostly describes how the human race grew and hints at what leads to the Flood
-seems quite promising…
-repeats 1b-2’s reference to Gen 1:26-27, retains 3’s Seth in the genealogy, 3’s likeness/image, and 3ff’s fulfills “be fruitful and multiply” (1:28)
-Cain and Eve don’t show up (anymore in the OT)
-Adam is identified here as Seth’s father vs. 4:1-2’s overshadowed in birth of Cain and overlooked in birth of Abel
-no mention of Gen 3’s punishments/curses
-they have long (and presumably prosperous) lives[58], although the passage does underline man’s mortality
-an overview of the list:
-10 generations this time—from Adam to Noah (vs. 7 from Adam to Lamech); from Fall to Flood
-the importance of individuals to God, esp. on Seth’s, relatively-godly side (see: details of ch. 5 vs. list in ch. 4)
-in general, Kass (153): “The line of Adam and Seth, simpler and gentler, contains no inventors or warriors; and [later] its most distinguished members are…closer to God”—Seth’s Enoch (5:22) and Seth’s Lamech (5:29)
-long lives—useful to multiply more effectively
5:21-24's Enoch (Seth) as representative of ultimate good
-as Lamech (Cain), also 7th generation from Adam—this time, through Seth
-Enoch (Cain) carries the name of Cain’s city (revisited) vs. Enoch’s description here
-5:22,24a's "walked with God" vs. merely "lived" (8x) throughout Ch. 5
-as with us (as in Eph 4:1ff)
-21’s started at 65; 22’s walked with God for 300 years—after the birth of Methuselah (w/ app. to relationship with God post-children)
-24b’s "then he was no more, because God took him away" vs. "then he died" (8x)
-Enoch escapes the curse of death (Heb 11:5, Ps 73:24; as Elijah in II Kings 2:10)
-brought home early, compared to 800-900 year lifespans!; Michael W. Smith’s "maybe for the company of his Kentucky Rose"
( brought home pre-Flood; why didn’t God leave him on earth to influence the world further?
--> what did others think of Enoch “leaving early”? maybe happy to see him go! (Jude 14)
( on Heb 11:5-6, w/ app. to those who don’t seem to have been exposed to much about God; Patrick Henry Reardon’s “Living before both Noah and Moses, Enoch was participant in neither of the covenants associated with these men. Not a single line of Holy Scripture was yet written for him to read. Much less did Enoch ever hear the message of salvation preached by the apostles. Yet, he was so pleasing to God by his faith as to be snatched away before his time...What exactly did Enoch believe, then, that he should be such a champion of faith for the Church until the end of time? The Epistle to the Hebrews explains: ‘But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is the rewarder of those who diligently seek him.’ This was the sum total of all that Enoch’s faith told him-- God’s existence and his own duty to seek God to obtain the singular blessing that Scripture ascribes to Him.”
5:25-27's Methuselah's 969 years—a Biblical record (skim)
-died in the (year of the) flood (5:25 + 5:28 + 7:6)—taken out by it (or just beforehand)
-given long lifespans, a contemporary of Adam, Enoch and Noah
-Methuselah[59] (along with Jeroboam, Rehoboam, Mordecai, Nebuchadnezzar, Solomon and Melchizedek) as an oversized wine bottle (respectively, containing approx. 8, 4, 6, 12, 20, 26.67, and 40 * 750ml standard bottle size)
5:28-32's Lamech (Seth) vs. Lamech (Cain)
-32’s intro to Noah and Sons—after 500 years (see: other patriarchal problems with having babies!)
-31’s 777 years
-only ones to speak out of their lineages, but moaning under vs. taunting the curse—here, 29’s to name Noah in light of God’s provision (and more correct than he knew about Noah's "comfort"!)
( are genealogies selective? are there gaps? sometimes, but probably not here…
-father can be interpreted as ancestor; see: clear gaps in I Chron 6:3-14 vs. Ezra 7:2; see also: 5:18's 162 years as getting worried vs. mentioning the child that matters to the lineage from Adam to Noah
-but 5:7's “sons and daughters” makes this view awkward and conflicts with 5:32 & 11:26's clear “father”[60]
( years are at least symbolic in parts—whether literary device &/or Providence at work (see: Jordan’s Appendix C for more detail)
-Enoch's 365 as days in a year
-5:31’s Lamech (Seth)'s 777 years = 7 (3x) vs. 4:24's 77x > 7
-exactly 10 names[61] [inclusive generations]: Adam/Seth ( Noah in 5:1-32 (as with 11:10-26)
-Adam ( Lamech (Cain) and Enoch (Seth) = 7 names (with great parallels between the lines; see: NIVSB note for 4:17-18)
( in any case, history is really sparse here—why?
-so far, have established evil, 2nd chance for Adam has failed, about to try something new (the flood, starting over with a godly man—Noah)
-further details do not add more to describing God’s character, man’s character, or God's redemptive plan
-Old Covenant set-up continues ( God's rescue plan through Christ
( ok, aside from a few nice observations, can we do anything else with this? Kass (154-155): “To discover the worm in the family tree, we must read with a magnifying glass—and with a timeline and a calculator.”
-for more than a half-century, between 874 (when Lamech is born) and 930 (when Adam dies), all nine generations of humans (at least Seth’s line; and they don’t seem to have contact with Cain’s line until chapter 6) is alive at the same time!
-then, Adam dies the first natural death; “the prophecy of human mortality is, at long last, fatally—and fatefully—fulfilled…how [will] human beings—especially the men—react to the discovery of their unavoidable finitude.”
-Noah, born in 1056, is the first [recorded] man to be born after Adam dies; no (in)direct contact with Eden and its prospect of immortality; Kass: “Noah is the first man who enters a world in which death is already present, the first man who grows up knowing about death…For Noah unlike his predecessors, mortality is a received part of the human condition: thus, Noah (not Adam or Cain) is the prototype of self-consciously mortal man.”
( Kass: “In the meantime, the rest of mankind goes boldly and heroically wild…offended and angry…[the] death-defying warrior…[a] desire for glory and immortal fame…”
6:1-4 (see: CRJ articles, vol. 9, #3 & vol. 27, #3)
-1-2’s problems stem from more and more contact with others, as 1a’s population grows and presumably, as trade increases
-2a’s “saw”—their eyes get them in trouble again (3:6)
-2a’s “beautiful”—ok, but…; Kass (156): “Appreciation of beauty is one thing, desire to possess it is another.”
-2b's "any of them they chose": from ch. 4’s polygamy to harems here—and along, with 3's “then”, seems to imply improper intermarriage of number &/or type
( but who are 2a's "sons of God" and "daughters of men"[62]?
-could be angels (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7 in NIV), but probably not...
-angels seem to have no (relevant) gender (Mt 22:30, Mk 12:25)
-if "fallen angels", implies they have creative powers (even to create life?! could Satan imitate a risen Christ?!) as "good" angels (Heb 13:2)—and could continue to cause trouble post-Flood
-if human, often assumed to be one from Seth’s line and the other from Cain’s; Kass (157-158) provides evidence for both views, but concludes: “In the end, it may make little difference…the result is mixed marriage, with an illicit mixing of the god-like and the human, leading to the corruption of one by the other.”[63]
( who were 4's Nephilim?
-often translated giants—perhaps ok, but root words are “to (cause to) fall”
-here, defined as 4b’s "heroes of old, men of renown"
( combined: proud warriors, but just sinners in God’s economy
-4a's "and also afterwards" (when? not post-flood—7:21-23)
-see: Num 13:31-33's broad ref to other seemingly [fig.?] formidable “fallen ones”—almost as if legend/myth?); may connect to why God commanded the total destruction of the Canaanites
( Fisher's theory of injection (skim/skip; see: gap theories; Walton—p. 112-113, 169)
-argues that standard creation theory disagrees with the Bible, leaving important questions unexplained
( thesis: Adam was injected as the first human with a soul—co-existing with other prehistoric men—allowing relationship with God
-assumes pre-h man created as "animal" in 1:26b (and a huge gap in 1:24-26’s 6th day; and later, not on the ark)—not made in God’s image (1:26c-27), being w/o 2:7's "breath of life" (soul)—but sexually compatible and capable of forming reasonable community
( answers questions about "where are all the people?", etc. (but see: 5:4's "sons and daughters"—at least later)
-who was Cain afraid of (4:14b)?
-pretty good at taking care of himself! and even if worried about Adam's descendants, why would he need a "mark"? they would all know not to touch him; thus, the mark to protect him from others
-where did Cain get 4:17's wife from? 5:4, but if Adam's descendants, Cain would have had to re-enter the Lord's (lit.) presence to get her—or one of Adam’s daughters would have had to leave His lit. presence or become unequally yoked (an event of historical/spiritual importance)
-4:17's city for three—or for his wife's descendants?
-4:1,25's mention of sex implies only the three offspring at this point
-6:1-2's intermarriage between Seth's line (sons of God) and these prehistoric "daughters of men"[64]
( is this related to 6:3? intermarriage may have resulted in shorter & shorter lifespans (Gen 11).
( "pre-historic man" in pure form wiped out by the flood, but some traces still remain from breeding in Seth’s line
-3b's upper age-limit reduced to 120 years
-Kass (160): “difficult to translate, much less to understand…clearly a negative comment…a response to and criticism of the deeds of the sons of God…here clearly identified as human”
-purely divine or connected to changed diet &/or environment?
( two interpretations (see: text note)
1.) individuals at that time: declaration of judgment against that generation ( 120 years for people of Noah's time to repent (I Pet 3:20; see also: 3 * 40 as fig. for God’s complete patience) and time for Noah to build the ark (but 5:32, 6:10, and 7:6)
2.) individuals for all time: lifespans limited to 120 years?? (but see: present-day exceptions [see: yogurt in Russia] and 11:10-26)
-long life had allowed population/dominion and civilization to develop, but now, shorter lifespans might limit the spread of evil (including, through self-selection and ironically, survival of the fittest!)
-Ross: “Many seem to think ‘life’s too short’…The human condition in the days just before the flood suggests the opposite….God allows people to live on Earth long enough to recognize and choose (or reject) Him, long enough to fulfill their destiny, and long enough to receive the training they will need for the new creation.”
-3a’s “my Spirit will not contend…”—as encouraging them to aim for Heaven vs. trying His patience
( similarly, Kass (160): “Later…God will elect the path of external law. But for the time being…a different tactic: to shorten the human life span to 120 years. Presumably very great longevity invited [mostly] very great mischief and danger.”
-could have gone either way; Kass (160-161): “Because death was for so long so far out of sight, these men were able to forget their mortality and pretend to immortal godliness. Yet when the inevitable happened, they behaved worse than all the animals…Perhaps if men learned from observing the deaths of others that they too had limited time, they would use it better. Perhaps if they could not pretend to immortality, they would be more open to the truly eternal. But the strategy of a shortened life span is to no avail, at least in the short run, as the sequel makes plain.”
Genesis 4-5 Questions: Cain/Abel/Seth --> Noah
1.) What are the important differences between the offerings of Cain and Abel? Read I
Corinthians 4:5, Proverbs 15:8.
2.) What is Cain's response to God's judgment between their offerings? What does that tell us about Cain's heart? How does this relate to us? Read Proverbs 19:3.
3.) In 4:8, we have the first episode of "Murder He Wrote". What details make the crime especially heinous? Read I John 3:12,15; Genesis 9:6, Romans 1:28-32.
4.) Why did God ask Cain that question in 4:9?
5.) What is telling about Cain's response in 4:13-14?
6.) What is interesting about the main verb in 4:16-- especially in contrast to the verb used in 3:24? Why the difference?
7.) Skim Genesis 5. What is special about Enoch in 5:21-24?
8.) History is extraordinarily sparse in Genesis 1-11. Why?
Genesis 6-9: Noah and the Flood (see: Friedman, p. 53-60; p. 33 of Unstoppable Global Warming)
6:5,11-12
-5's “great wickedness” and “every inclination” of the heart as “only evil all the time” (sounds like a really bad rock station)
-"perhaps the Bible's strongest statement about sin"
-an emphasis on ‘the heart’—motives, thoughts, etc. (Mt 15:18-19, Pr 4:23)
( connecting this to 3’s shorter lifespans, Kass (161): “Curbing man’s life span might help in the future. But now, every inclination of the human heart was bent on badness.”
-11-12's 3 * “corrupt” (in God's sight) and 11’s “full of violence” (Ps 14:1-3)
-evil in general, nearly universal in extent—and not about (explicit/OT) idolatry, but basic injustice; from individual sin to societal struggles
-particular deeds? post-Flood emphasis on murder (see: Cain, Lamech’s exploits) may provide hint (alluded to in 9:5-6?)
-12’s “people” as lit. “flesh/meat” which can refer to animals or people
-as if man is acting like “an animal”
-perhaps animals are now carnivorous (vs. 1:29-30), caused by man’s violence around/toward them (were men eating meat? one more form of disobedience)
-see: implications for peace on the ark, Noah’s post-Flood sacrifice, post-Flood “allowance” to eat meat
6:6-7
( a picture of grief, pain, pity, and profound disappointment experienced by God (Ez 6:9a's "God was grieved by their adulterous hearts, their lusting after idols", Is 43:24b’s "You have burdened me with your sins and wearied me with your offenses", Eph 4:30's "do not grieve the Holy Spirit", I Thess 5:19, Is 63:10)
-a picture of… vs. other passages where God does not change, etc.
-tension of we do vs. do not affect God; almost as if God is surprised (see: Gen 2’s animal names, Cain’s op to change, respond to God, in free will)
-"grieved/sorry I have made them": regret? changing his mind? NO…
-akin to a parent with a rebellious child or a spouse breaking (God's) heart
-vs. what he knew of their potential (as with teacher/student)
-given what He had to do to them in terms of punishment/discipline (judge with hardened criminal)
-see also: seared conscience
( changing approach not mind (I Sam 15:29)
-vs. our usual response (and God sometimes)—anger
-7a's wipe 'em out (II Kings 21:13b’s "I will wipe out Jerusalem as one wipes a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down")
-God does judge evil—in his own timing (II Pet 3:9)
-LOR's "All human suffering so far described has come as a natural consequence of human choices. Where God has intervened, it has been to rescue and preserve...Now however Genesis introduces another OT theme. If the suffering which comes as a natural consequence from sin fails to bring men to repentance, God will act in judgment."
-even the animals??
-sin affects others/innocents (Mt 5:45, Acts 14:17)
-under man's corrupted dominion, shared in man's judgment (Rom 8:19-21's deliverance from bondage)
-animals may need redemption (if involved in 6:12’s fall)
-shows extent of God's wrath; ex) artist slashing (or just destroying) a picture that isn't right...
-picture of God starting over-- in context with the purpose of the Old Covenant and its limitations
-practically, would have required lightning bolts (see: aquatic life not destroyed or no need to judge/start over?)
-reduced #'s to correspond to fewer people; if not, who would've had dominion? (Ex 23:29-30)
6:8-10's But Noah...
-10’s Noah’s three sons (5:32)
-9a’s fourth “account”—after three Creation accounts, a re-Creation account!
( in the narrative (as in life), 6:5-7,11-12’s evil surrounds 6:8-10’s righteous Noah and his family—and God intervenes
-GCM's "God's judgments are always discriminative in their exercise and beneficent in their issue."
-mercy and judgment; MH's "None are ruined by the justice of God but those that hate to be reformed by the grace of God."
-8's Noah “found favor/grace” in God’s eyes
-9b’s description: not perfect, but…
1.) “a righteous man” (Heb 11:7b)
-vs. “he was righteous”
-emphasis on Noah as a man—and presumably, as the leader of his family
3.) “walked with God” (as Enoch in 5:22)
( with God and man
2.) "blameless among the people"
-absolutely righteous (in the context of sacrificial animals, translated as “without defect”; Eph 1:4, 5:27; Phil 2:15, Titus 1:6)
-as if being compared to/by the people
-quality of his righteous as relatively
-how perceived by the world? reputation matches character? (I Pet 2:11-12)
-as if “despite the people”—in the face of the world's depravity
-Noah's response to them pre-Flood, incl. possibility that he was asking Habakkuk's “how long” Q?
( 2 and 3 as what God requires from Abraham in Gen 17:1
-in context, Kass argues that he was comfortable with (vs. warring against) his mortality
-in any case, all of this vs. 6:1-4’s “heroic”/worldly men
6:13,17's discussion with Noah, describing destruction
-13a’s “so God said to Noah…”: God took Noah into His counsel (Abraham—18:17-19)
-13's general destruction; 17's specifically, a flood
-13’s to start over given—&/or deliver judgment against—“filled with violence”
-13,17’s “destroy” as same Hebrew word as 11,12’s “corrupt”! implies causal/appropriate and necessary
-given its cause, symbolizes that human wickedness undermines the very foundations of society
-Kass (168): “The first beginnings of human life ended in violent chaos. Left to their own devices (vs. having Law), human beings followed the inclinations of their hearts, informed only by their ill-formed judgments of good and bad, advantage and harm.”
( why a flood?
-beyond judgment, implies cleansing (although purify by fire) and a fresh start
-reversal of Creation and a return to 1:2’s chaos before a "new creation" (a la 1:9)
-in ag (with “the Land”), replenishes the soil
-Sarna: “The account of the Flood in the Bible concludes one era and opens a new one in human history. It occupies a central position between Creation and the advent of the people of Israel.” (see also: the 10 generations between each account; and LaSor et. al., p. 75)
-parallels us w/ baptism (I Pet 3:20b-21; see: Nee's Love not the World, p. 39-42 on baptism saving us from the world)
-parallels Israel w/ Red Sea, Jordan River
-parallels surprise of sudden destruction (as in end times—despite warnings; Mt 24:36-39); world destroyed by water here, but next time with fire (II Pet 3:5-7)
( local or universal flood? (see: apologetics revisited)
1.) Biblically…
-“all life…every living creature” to die (7:4,21-23, 8:21, 9:11)
-mountains were covered (7:19-20, 8:5,9); flood “to destroy the earth” (9:11)
-but not “destroyed”
-term used elsewhere for all of the known world (at most &/or hyperbolic)—Gen 41:56-57’s famine “in all the world”, I Kings 10:24’s “the whole world”; Rom 1:8 & Col 1:6’s “all over the world”
-see also: Ps 104:5-9 seems to be about the Creation (vs. the Flood), prohibiting a worldwide flood
2.) Biblically/theologically…
-if human life had not spread beyond the Mesopotamian Valley, no need to destroy distant regions; Flood must judge/destroy all humans (6:7’s “mankind”; global flood required for God’s promise (8:21, 9:8-17) to be true?)
-difficult to get very far (with limited technology)—or more narrowly, even to leave the region with mountains to N&E and desert to S&W
-no need to spread out, given limited population—and probably wanted to stay together (family, fear of the unknown, etc.)
-people later failed to scatter at Babel (see also: Acts!) as commanded in order to exert dominion, etc.
-but doesn’t seem to allow a full parallel to II Pet 3:5-7 (a pic of incomplete judgment?!)
3.) logically…
-a local flood is easy-to-imagine geologically, esp. given that the area was/is largely surrounded by water (200-250K sq. miles; approx size of Texas) and the topography is bowl-like
-seeming limits of ark’s ability to put all [vs. all local] animal species on the ark??
-seeming limit on getting enough rain quickly enough to get the job done; Paulos calculates that "10,000 to 20,000 feet of water on the surface of the earth [is] equivalent to more than half a billion cubic miles of liquid...the rain must have fallen at a rate of at least 15 feet per hour, certainly enough to sink any aircraft carrier..."
-but 7:11’s “springs of the great deep” may mitigate most need for water from above— and see: Brown's theory where mountains came later (but if flood-correlated changes, could the ark withstand the forces generated?); with a relatively smooth earth, not much water would be needed...
( but if local, why the need for a year to recover (snow run-off?); why collect animals (need to re-populate locally?); why marine fossils on top of (all?) mountains
( in any case, a catastrophic flood is also verified by extra-Biblical evidence and the validity of the story’s details
-many civilizations have a flood story (vs. an earthquake story, etc.)[65]
-dimensions of the ark—size and seaworthiness
-claims to have discovered the ark
-archaeological and geological evidences of a catastrophic flood—fossils require quick cover and rapid preservation (see: Mammoth “frozen dinner/last supper”, marine fossils on mountaintops, 11/29/99 USNWR & 9/13/00's WP and CNN on Ryan and Pitman (Columbia U. geologists)
-DNA evidence—should be wide range of DNA variation, but there isn’t; instead, a “bottleneck” implying a dramatic population drop (Discovery Channel program excerpt on volcanoes reducing worldwide population to “about 1000 people”! when was the bottleneck—50K years ago?)
6:14-16's ark details
-the first "Love Boat" in history
-14’s cypress wood and pitch (16b’s up to 18” from the top)
-16a's roof to keep rain out of the boat!
-16c’s (single) door
-entering the (only door of the) ark as a picture of salvation (Passover and Is 26:20-21; II Pet 2:5,9; Heb 11:7)
-15’s 300 * 50 * 30 cubits; about 450’ long * 75’ wide * 45’ high
-length = 1.5 football fields
-height = four-story building (with 16d’s three decks)
-length = 6 * width—same ratio as today's boats (vs. Babylonian flood account's 6x larger "cubical" ark [see: Sarna, p. 45] which only took 7 days to build)
( large, difficult to have perspective; 10% size of a modern aircraft carrier...
( in sum, significant detail as with Ark of the Covenant, Tabernacle, Temple; here, the first recorded need to measure things
( God chose to use an ark built by Noah's hand to save him—why?
-a trial of faith and obedience—and op for witness (w/ app. to our “ark-building”—both weird stuff and our daily work; Phil 2:12b-13)
-a picture of God's P & our P within S (vs. making A&E’s clothes as a picture of J)
-signals the price to be paid for their J and his S
-MH's "We cannot do it without God; he will not do it without us."
-allowed time for his vivid witness and their repentance (see: God’s justice in this)
-a greater sense of ownership and gratitude—probably understood “the gift” better; satisfaction vs. pride in his hand in this
-developing building skills, since he’s a farmer
( took a long time to build (I Pet 3:20’s patience)
-120 years if 6:3 (and parallels to Moses’ lifespan), but 5:32’s birth of three sons around 500 years old, 6:10’s 3 sons beforehand?; and 7:6’s 600 when flood started
-w/ app. to perseverance, finishing tasks; fruitful work while only occasionally seeing seemingly fruitful results (Dt 30:19-20; Jericho’s 7 days)
-and probably not told how long it would take—w/ God's grace at times as Ps 119:105 (manna, daily bread)
( virtually no detail of the work itself, but what was it like building the ark??
-for the people: curiosity, he's crazy or totally blind (esp. if built away from water), and eventually, complacency vs. ill at ease w/ someone putting in that much effort (esp. given his character, and after a LONG day at work—for an old man without a miter saw; did his family help out?)
-What is the rain of which you speak? Why are the animals coming to Noah (6:19)?
( what if some or even all had repented?!
-were some involved in its construction (as we pay non-C’s to help build our churches)?
-for Noah: explaining/preaching (I Pet cite); persecuted, ridiculed, vandalized?
-the comfort he would have had as a result of his earlier obedience (w/ app.; 6:9; Gen 22)
-120 years of preaching, with so little fruit?! at least he saved his own family—more than many “accomplish”
-for Noah’s family: presumably helped; either way, difficult without revelation
-impressive that he passes this vision along to his wife, sons, and daughters-in-law!
-still having to put food on the table; cooperation, reorganization and focus
( see: Noah’s "ark" in Genesis as same (Egyptian!) word in Ex 2:3,5 for Moses’ “basket”—vs. “ark” of the covenant; only two uses in the Bible!
-lit. “box, chest or coffin”—vs. potential Hebrew words (boat/abarah, ship/oniyyah, box/aron, basket/tene)
-making a clear connection between the two stories (see also: mini-version of Is 18:2's papyrus boats)
-floating containers preserving life vs. water/drowning and “the World” (I Pet 3:20-21)
-both daubed with pitch (Gen 6:14, Ex 2:3)
-both emphasize common Biblical theme of God delivering his (wholly dependent) servants from crisis
-old Noah vs. young Moses; near the beginning of Genesis vs. Exodus; saved the human race and animals vs. the deliverer of the Jews
6:18's But...
-underlines monogamy revisited (vs. Lamech/Cain)
-a “covenant” with the remnant—Noah and his family (anticipates no repentance from others or they’d be included if so?)
-to be explained/understood later (in Gen 9:8-17)
-the advantage of being in a godly family—with application and exceptions
6:19-21's animal details: the original “Endangered Species Act”!
-19-20's two animals of each kind—male and female
-“Noah was a brave man to sail in a wooden boat with two termites.”
-a picture of order and purpose within the chaos of the flood and Noah’s society
-Kass (169): “a microcosm of the projected new (ideal) earthly order”
-19’s “bring into” and 20’s “will come to you” as God’s P and his P
-something God had directed for Noah to do, but was largely out of his control (and in God’s hands)
-must have been weird to see animals come to Noah!
-21's provisions
-see: animals getting along—by God's government (Is 11:6-9)—including vegetarian (non-violent) nutrition
-animals under man's dominion, and here, also receive protection and sustenance
-Noah’s job as steward with dominion on the ark, not helmsman of the ark
-Noah as a type of Christ: providing salvation and (relatively) abundant life (vs. mere survival)
-unclean animals, given 7:2-3's seven of each clean animal (but not defined here)[66]
-did Noah think this was for eating, sacrifice, or other?
-in any case, setting the table for both (8:20, Lev 11:2-23 until NT) and food (9:3)
6:22
-obedience to the command of God—driven by faith in the word of God
-repeated in 7:5,9,16 (see also: degree of repetition of commands to emphasize import of reaching God's standards)
-they are safe because they heard, believed and obeyed; 2 out of 3 ain’t bad?!— no, here it gets you a long swim...
-no objections or even questions—vs. Abraham, Moses, Job, Mary (more later)
7:1,4
-1a’s God addresses Noah; waited for direction from God, not knowing His timing
-1b’s “righteous” (to his face!)
-Kass (169): “God tries to renew the first creation…under the leadership not of an innocent (Adam) but of the naturally righteous (Noah)”
-4a’s seven days until the “rain” begins
-time to organize; time to show prophecy, presumably with repentance still available—God's patience
-first time “rain” is specified; first time ever experienced? (see: first-time rainbow later; earth watered and mists beforehand; and longer-lived people)
-4b’s 40 days and nights of rain (Dt 9:11 & Mt 4's 40-day fasts)
-earth flooded by evil, now by rain
-vs. 6 days to create; again, slow to anger
-vs. Babylonian account's (far) less realistic 6 days with 7th to drain
-see: 400 years of Egyptian bondage and 40 years for Moses in wilderness as shepherd and then again as Israel’s leader (and Jesus’ 40 days in the wilderness)—as periods of “waiting”
-Jonathan Sacks: “a period in which nothing appears on the surface and yet quietly a seed is growing” (see also: pregnancy’s 40 weeks)
( the last (recorded) words to Noah until 8:16's "come out of the ark" (371 days later)
7:5-16 (read 7:11-12)
-11b’s poetry in the midst of destruction
-11b’s waters of “the deep” may mitigate most need for water from above (vs. Paulos)
-11a's detail about Noah's age and the date
-age and experience useful for dealing with trials of tremendous faith/obedience
-episode ends 370 days after the rains begin (8:14; 12 30-day months + 10 days)
-does 2nd month indicate post-harvest, when plenty of food would be available?
( Noah as Bible’s greatest financier: floating his stock while others were in liquidation
-vs. Bible’s other financially active character: Pharaoh’s daughter who “went down to the bank of the Nile and drew out a little prophet”
( if it took awhile, what would it have been like to endure the screams and pleas during the flood?
-thankful for God's grace, relieved that the trial (at least part!) was over
-perhaps praising God for his wrath (Pr 1:22-33)
-vs. feeling sorry/pity for them; some of them may have been friends/colleagues
-idea vs. reality vs. that people would die (w/ app. to people going to Hell)
-but note: 16b’s God shut them in; Noah couldn't open the door (see: Heb 10:26's judgment at a point in time, judgment irreversible once initiated)
-if some repented during the Flood, w/ app. to having to bear consequences anyway
-justice of children dying in the Flood? vs. all going thru a horrible pagan life and no heaven
-he had warned them and they had chosen: “I told you so” vs. “I told them so”
-w/ app. to the importance of doing all we can to save people before judgment—then not worrying anymore (Ez 34’s “watchman” and Paul’s perspective; Acts 20:26-27; I Cor 9:22; The Great Divorce)
7:17-20's flood
-17’s lifted up; MH's "The waters which broke down everything else bore up the ark...The
more the waters increased, the higher the ark was lifted up toward heaven. Thus,
sanctified afflictions are spiritual promotions." (Ps 32:6-7)
-18-20’s everything covered—at least from Noah’s vantage (couldn’t have seen easily over the horizon; e.g., if 100/500/1000 feet of land over waters, couldn’t see from 15/28/38 miles away—FF, p. 23)
-20’s “depth of more 20 feet” as detail indicating no way for something to survive &/or depth required for ark to float everywhere
7:21-24's destruction and death (Ps 91:7-8, Job 37:11-13)
-24’s 150 days of flooding, including 40 days of rain (with 7+ months of more drying out)
-22's “breath of life” as another creation ref
-fish not mentioned; 21’s birds dying through starvation (not carrion-eating? Chs. 3,9) or beaten down by rain
( nothing on keeping order or clean; an ag family, so used to it—but picture the problems on the inside
-eight family members traveling, cooped up, and dealing with uncertainty/tension
-having to work so hard would help
-all the animals; if it wasn't for the storm and cries of drowning people outside, the stench inside might have been unbearable
( analogy of the ark to the church: smelly and difficult, but the best available alternative and less noticeable if busy working on improving the environment
-w/ app. to why people don't get on the ark...
-or maybe it was idyllic; Kass (170): “the lion and the lamb broke straw together…rehabilitation of the entire living order seemed possible”
8:1-5
-1a’s "remembered" (9:15)—not literally!; anthropomorphism implies loving concern/care/action (Ez 5:13, Hab 3:2)
-1b’s "wind"
-wind along with gravity and evaporation to remove water (FF, p. 23 for #’s; although possibly countered by snow-melt run-off from mountains)
-“wind” = “Spirit” (1:2, 6:3); other analogies from Creation to follow (Ch. 1's original vs. Chs. 8-9's fresh start)
-2's springs, heavens closed; rains "restrained"—as Day 2's separation of sky from water
-3's waters begin to recede; 5's reappearance of land—as Day 3's land from water
-4's ark comes to rest in Ararat Mtns.—a key “landmark”
-increased physical security, incl. no more seasick
-up to then, merely faith about their deliverance (hoping for things not visible)—date for end of the flood not given to Noah, no sense of water depth, and a long time to wait
-5's land provided much needed/added perspective—to reward Noah's past faith and strengthen current faith; 4’s ark resting, then 5’s see/“visible”, but still have to wait
( once faith is served (in salvation), the New Creation (II Cor 5:17) begins with ark "coming to rest" and being "seated" on the mountains (Mt 11:28; Eph 1-3's "seated")
-see: new believers early-on (as with Paul)
-a true mountaintop experience—but soon called to come out of the ark (church) to go into the valleys… (w/ app.)
8:6-12's four reconnaissance flights
-10,12’s 7 days
-bird's appearance as in Day 5
-7's Raven: "back & forth"—carnivorous (at least later; word study on “raven”, esp. with Elijah); probably looking unsuccessfully for land and in the meantime, sitting on top of the ark, feeding on flotsam
-Noah: “no more ravens...”
-the first hint that the new creation will struggle as well
-8-9's Dove I—Striking Out
-herbivorous
-Noah welcomes dove back to the ark's rest
-w/ app. to our minds; Tozer: “Toward what has [our] inner heart turned when it was free to turn where it would? When the bird of thought was let go, did it fly out like the raven to settle upon floating carcasses or did it like the dove circle and return again to the ark of God?”
-10-11's Dove II—Striking Olive Oil
-12's Dove III—The Flight of No Return (c-ya)
( Noah expected relief (completion of deliverance) and was patient (still waits, beyond the birds), but also inquisitive
-still sensitive to God's prompting for action (see: Esther)
8:13-19 (read 8:13-17)
-13's “dried up…first day of the first month”: a birthday present and a sort of New Year's Day
-14's “completely dry”—even though it seemed/looked OK before, God had him wait
-practical reasons incl. health concerns &/or faith/patience/wait for God's timing
-390 days in total; almost 9x as long to dry as to flood; Kass (170): “To restore order is much harder than to destroy it.”
( 15 for God's reappearance and voice—first recorded since "get in the ark"
-did Noah (ever) think God had "forgotten" him?
-16-17's man and animals come out of the ark—as Day 6's animals and man—and exhorted to exercise dominion/multiply—although 18’s not in the proper order (more later!)
( how did animals eat post-flood? from ark’s provisions? (can't spare any animals; are the plants dead)?
( post-Flood overview: sacrifice, intro to (formal) law and covenant
8:20-22’s sacrifice revisited (from Cain/Abel)
-22’s poetry!
-20's altar, clean animals, burnt offering (Lev 1:4)
-to "the Lord": again, Yahweh-- the personal and covenant name for God
-Kass (170): “a strange and unforeseen event…[apparently] w/o any divine instruction”
-esp. given past, complete, silent obedience
( was Law given before? How did he know what to do? is it implied that he knows to do this, it’s a custom (post-Cain/Abel), or is he just guessing (as Cain seemed to do)?
-Noah “walked with God”, experienced God’s direction in building the ark, His awesome power and His gracious care and provision
-odd in that…
-the opposite of creation and re-creation
-runs counter (at least short-term) to God’s command that the animals be fruitful and multiply (8:17)
-these animals had just been his companions (vs. later refs in Lev)
-Kass (171): “Noah’s self-defining first act in the new world is an act of violence against the living world. A simple harmonious world order, led by a human being, seem to be impossible.”
-motive: thanksgiving &/or hoping to stave off more rain (both w/ app to us)
-Kass (171): “Overwhelmed by the destructive power of nature but perhaps even more impressed by his own salvation, [Noah] is moved by strong feelings of dread, awe and gratitude to acknowledge the superiority and importance of the divine.”
( in any case, Noah's voluntary response: worship (how much awe vs. fear?) and sacrifice
-spontaneous after God’s salvation and deliverance; gratitude for (any) grace (w/ app)
-though his stock of animals was small (had numbers grown on the ark? segregated on the ark?) ( maybe I should wait until I have more; trust/faith…
-w/ app. to our “sacrifice” (Pr 3:9, Rom 12:1) and its place in the heart of our “worship”
( God’s response?...
-21a's "pleased by the aroma" (II Cor 2:14-16a; Eph 5:2 for Christ's life/death as a fragrant offering and sacrifice, Phil 4:18b, our prayers as incense)
( pleased completely or pleased as when a kid picks a flower from your flower garden to present to you?
-not by the sacrifice per se, but what it represents; see also: how it’s given (Cain/Abel; I Sam 15, etc.)
-21b’s God "said in his heart" (would tell Noah shortly)
-21c's never again (22's forever—poetically) to
1.) curse the ground—a different Hebrew word used here but seems to refer to 3:17; maybe no more add-on curses (as with Cain in 4:12)
2.) destroy all living creatures—still judgment and occasional destruction, but not to the level...
--> 21d’s despite continuing sin nature
-closely related to 6:5 (except "childhood"—Ps 51:5, 58:3; Is 48:8 vs. age of accountability)
-an odd time to say this if God is totally pleased with Noah’s effort: re-Creation with a righteous family and its righteous leaders giving an excellent sacrifice??
-Kass assumes that the offering is also “sweet” to Noah (esp. if not sure what to do), indicating his willingness to shed blood and perhaps his preference for meat (especially given the permission to eat meat in 9:3)
-in any case, makes clear that starting over—with Noah or anyone else—is not “going to work” ( next step: formalized law and covenant—and eventually Abraham and a people/nation
9:1-7’s law introduced (covenant in 9:8ff)
-1,7’s blessing and commission to multiply/dominion (as w/ Adam—1:28[67])
-Kass (175) observes that 2-6’s law is wrapped in blessing; “the law’s paramount interest is in promoting human life”
-but the 2nd time Noah hears the blessing in this passage, it must sound different; Kass (176): “The natural good of life is now bound up with the legal good of right and the legal obligation to defend it.”
-2's fear and dread of the animals
-falling on “all the beasts” as hyperbole (today—unless you have a gun)
-MH's "man in innocence ruled by love, fallen man rules by fear"
-presumably connects to 1’s call to dominion and 3’s menu change…
-3's intro to meat: “I now give you everything”—God’s grace; new food chain as…
-“new-and-improved”
-or a “divine concession”—perhaps given violence/bloodshed remained in the world with Noah’s sacrifice (does God use this to reduce human violence against others?)
( although granted this freedom, it does not necessarily imply indulging that freedom (vs. legalism)
-had Noah considered this possibility? (see again: why the sacrifice? eat Fido? were others already doing this [unrighteously] pre-Flood?)
-in any case, Kass (178): the “hoped-for harmonious relation of man and animals—re-created aboard Noah’s ark—in which man, like a true ruler, rules in the interest of the ruled, is gone…the shepherd will now tend his flock with at least part of his mind on lamb chops. Yet the shepherd is not—and must not become—a wolf.”
( w/ app. to “animal rights” and vegetarianism (see: evangelism)
-bumper sticker: "I love animals; they taste great"
-vegetarians eat vegetables; does that make cannibals humanitarians?
-A. Whitney Brown's "I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals; I'm a vegetarian because I hate plants."
( how does one balance 1’s dominion with 3’s ability to eat
-see: KFC vs. PETA and David Novak’s promise to improve the lives and deaths of 350M chickens
-God cares for the animals, but in fallen Creation, animals treat each other roughly in the wild!
-Neuhaus: “animal rights”—not because animals are equal, but because they are unequal, dependent and vulnerable
-see: Christian call/treatment of other vulnerable populations; see also: how people mistreat animals as a signal
-w/ app. to animal abuse, and the limits of animal testing and factory farming; see also: circus, rodeos, horse-racing, dog shows
-perhaps better conceived not as animal rights, but as human responsibilities
-see also: excerpts from Christopher Killheffer, “Our Food from God”, Touchstone, 3/02, p. 38-39
-4's blood as a limitation to 3’s liberty (to be drained off & cooked)
-see: Lev 17:11,14's life in the blood; practiced by pagans, but prohibited by God
-only one prohibition within the blessing—as Adam and the tree of KGE (2:17)
-5's man and animal have to “account” to God for human death
-animal life is to respected; man's life is to be honored to an even greater degree
-Kass (180): “Animal blood may not be eaten, but human blood must not even be shed.”
-Ex 21:28-29 for same with animal (and owner?), Gen 4:9-11 for Cain; but “avenger of blood” later for premeditated murder, etc.
( ultimately, God also demands an account for all of our sin—dealt with by the atoning death of Jesus Christ and His blood shed on our behalf!
-6a’s “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed”
-poetry and symmetry: word repetition with inverted order—ABCCBA
-Jonathan Sacks (59): “This is a perfect picture of style reflecting substance: what is done to us is a mirror image of what we do.”
-Kass (183): “a picture of society set within bounds {man by man}. Beyond these bounds, there is bloodshed on all sides.”
( restricts justice to direct retribution (eye/eye) vs. subjective sense of what’s appropriate—e.g., killing the entire family; strict but proportionate/reciprocal justice
( not given as a negative command (10 C’s), but once the implicit rule is violated, it must be punished; God expects murder to continue, but it must not be tolerated
( for now, no distinction between manslaughter, homicide, murder (comes later)
-6b's “for in the image of God has God made man”
-6a’s disincentive (fear); 6b’s reason (mind/heart)
-killing as contempt for man and God
-Kass (191): “By willfully denying the god-like nature of human life, the killer denies his own share of god-likeness…[and] forfeits his claim to remain as a member of the human community.”
-6a implies equality; 6b makes it explicit—given who made each of us
( the “image of God” concept is seemingly verbalized to man for the first time (vs. the audience reading it in 1:28)
-Kass (184): “Man becomes conscious of his own god-likeness…enters human consciousness precisely at the point at which man becomes a moral and legal being. Absolutely fittingly, this teaching about man is here gained by man only when human beings, by deliberate action, undertake to rise above their animal condition. Man discovers, right here, his in-between status: we are higher than the animals, we are like—albeit lower than—a god.”
( the three Creation accounts tell us something different about our God-like status: speech, reason, and freedom in doing (for God and by implication, for us); man’s involvement with questions of good and evil; law, justice, and punishment
( 5’s “demand an accounting” is now specified: man becomes 6’s avenging agent
-allows or even endorses capital punishment (and alludes to govt)
-vs. Cain not murdered by God or allowed to be murdered by others without significant penalty
-Kass (192; in light of Gen 6:5,12) sees this as containing violence through disincentive—but also to allow killing, within this parameter; “Man’s bloody-mindedness, impossible to expunge, is licensed in the service of opposing bloody-mindedness.”
( a fresh start: from “might makes right” to law and justice—under God
-not discovered by Noah or his reason, but given by God’s revelation
-not Jewish per se but (pre-Abraham and) universal
-directed at all: “whoever”—not just Noah; no exclusions for rich/powerful
-to some extent: God takes man as he is, rather than as he might be—expects less of him but demands more from him (in terms of law’s requirements)
-presupposes an ability to be self-conscious and to self-restrain
( Kass connects this to Noah’s sacrifice (173): “makes explicit and also regulates what is implicit in Noah’s sacrifice”
-Noah sees himself as separate from the animals; law strengthens that, even allowing man to eat animals
-Noah shows willingness to shed animal blood; law prohibits eating the blood and demands retribution for shedding man’s blood
-Noah seeks relationship with God through sacrifice; God defines new relationship in terms of justice—love God/others!
( Noah’s response? silence (revisited; vs. sacrifice)…
-“God said” 4x in ch. 9 without a response from Noah (9:1,8,12,17)—indicates a significant silence from a failure to understand, a resistance to the speaker, etc. (Kass, p. 189)
-here, Kass (187): “We have no idea what Noah himself made of what he had just been told…silence, perhaps from incomprehension or puzzlement, perhaps from understanding all too well, perhaps from fear or reluctance to comply, perhaps from despair over the human prospect. God’s speech about bloodshed and retribution could hardly have been what Noah expected to hear in response to his sacrificial offering. To address the human silence, God has to say more. God makes Noah a crucial promise…”
9:8-17’s covenant introduced (8:22 made vocal)
-also unexpected!
( from 9:1-7’s sobering constraint to 9:8-17’s hopeful vision—the combo we seek in personal righteousness and civil society
-not just law, but covenant and blessing
-after God's flood, might think life was cheap/expendable (repeatedly wipe clean like a chalkboard?)
( 5-6's "life is sacred" with negative sanction; and here, (positive) covenant with Noah
-Kass (188): “Just as human nature, in the absence of law, always threatens human life through violence, so external nature, in the absence of covenant, always threatens human life through cataclysm.”
( both provide hope for the future…
-what all of us need, but esp. Noah given recent events and his likely PTSD!
-“covenant” (8x in passage)
-as berith—from a root word meaning to bind together, implying that it would not come &/or stay together without this effort
-here, unsolicited, unconditional and unilateral; voluntary and permanent restraint
-13's “sign of the covenant” between God and earth
-as circumcision for Abraham (Gen 17) and Sabbath for Israel (Ex 31:16-17)
-13’s rainbow as ironic symbol
-an ephemeral phenomenon points to an eternal promise
-for Noah (and often for us), rainbows require rain to start the sign!
( flood as monument to God's justice, rainbow to God's mercy
-without this promise, how would Noah and Co. react the next time it began to rain? rain as blessing…
-GCM's "The full value of the rainbow was not so much that when man looked at it he remembered the covenant; but rather that he remembered that God was looking and remembering."
All I Really Need to Know I Learned From Noah's Ark
1. Don't miss the boat.
2. Don't forget that we're all in the same boat.
3. Plan ahead. It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark.
4. Stay fit. When you're 600 years old, God might ask you to do something REALLY big.
5. Don't listen to critics, just get on with what has to be done.
6. Remember that the ark was built by amateurs; the Titanic was built by professionals.
7. Remember that woodpeckers inside are a larger threat than the storm outside.
8. No matter the storm, when you're one with God there's a rainbow waiting.
Genesis 6-9 Questions: Noah and the Flood
1.) Note the details of the author's description of Noah's contemporaries in 6:5,11-12.
2.) Explain God's emotion in 6:6. Draw an analogy to parents with their children.
3.) Why did God wipe out the animals too? Read Romans 8:19-21, Exodus 23:29-30.
4a.) God didn't choose to simply have the ark appear for Noah's use. Why did God choose to have Noah build the ark? Read Philippians 2:12-13.
b.) Noah took 120 years to build the ark. What would that have been like for Noah, his family and the pagans? Do you think their attitudes changed over the 120 years?
5.) What would it have been like to endure the begging and screaming of the people once the rains came? How would you have responded? Why is 7:16 relevant to this?
6.) In a sense, God is starting over with Noah-- a "new creation" of sorts. Do you see any parallels between Genesis 8-9 and the creation accounts in Genesis 1-2?
Genesis 9-11: Noah --> Abraham
Intro to an oft-overlooked story: brief, ugly, and not understood in its context
( given the post-Flood law/covenant to Noah, see: Kass (197) on “the founding of civil society, based on rudimentary but explicit notions of law and justice, rooted in the idea that all human beings are created equally in God’s image. Humankind now faces a new prospect, founded on the hope for an enduring human future protected against natural cataclysm, thanks to God’s covenant—and the hope for a peaceful social order protected against the violence of other men, thanks to the Noahide code.”
-so, the story is both domestic and political/social: Will the new order succeed? Is this law and covenant sufficient?
9:18-19
-19b's “scattered” descendants: alludes to flood and foreshadows events to follow (Ch 10's genealogy, Ch. 11's Babel)
( Kass (201): looking forward “to a time in which the whole earth will be overspread not with water, but with people”
-18-19a's reintroduction to Shem, Japheth and esp. Ham as Noah’s three sons
-as an aside, 2nd mention of Ham as Canaan’s father (more later)
-Ham’s name means hot/warm—from a verb meaning “to inflame oneself”
-Shem’s name means “name”—a word used often prior to this; a key to the Babel story; and eventually how he will earn his “name” through his lineage to Abraham
( Noah's sons and male ark companions—or in particular, our first [prototypical] (parent) father and son(s) story
-in context, the timing is not surprising: post-Law/Covenant, the ability of Noah (or not) to pass this on to his sons—the next generation, tradition
-from Noah’s personal piety to passing along law’s righteousness, covenant’s implied holiness, and most broadly, looking up to God
-Kass (197): “depends decisively on paternal authority and filial piety”
-vs. neither (a mess—individually, and if widescale, socially)
-vs. one or the other (exceptions)
-or hopefully both—see also: mom (!), but the importance of fathers AND the need for fathers to be exhorted (vs. sin of Adam’s silence, seeking esteem outside the home, etc.; Eph 6:4, Col 3:21)
-Kass (199): “because [the father] is capable of inspiring awe as well as security, shame as well as orderliness, distance as well as nearness, emulation as well as confidence, fear as well as hope, [he] is able to do the fatherly work of preparing boys for moral manhood, including, eventually, their own fatherhood.”
-can certainly be abused; difficult to balance encouragement and discipline
( two clues that something might be unusual here
-8:16’s command vs. 8:18’s different order (followed 6:18’s command on how to enter—the old world’s model!)
-Kass (202): “Noah, a new man rescued from the Heroic Age, nevertheless apparently still holds to a heroic model of family structure: it is only the men who count.” (!)
-see also: little mention of women (Noah’s wife’s name?) until their vital role with the patriarchs
-here, not listed in order; not Biblically unusual to have two siblings reversed, but here…
-Shem as middle son (given 5:32, 7:11, 11:10)—model son, and thus, always mentioned first; virtue trumps birth order
-Ham youngest (9:24)—central character, mentioned in the middle here
9:20-21
-20's vineyard (Ps 104:15, Pr 31:6-7, Dt 14:26, etc. for drink OK)
-follows Cain into agriculture
-moves into wine: here, portrayed as man’s invention vs. divine gift (as in pagan myths)—and thus, a mixed bag
-21's drunk and naked (19:30-35’s Lot with daughters; Pr 23:35)
-a one-time slip or a recurring problem?
-former as not knowing wine’s potence or a mistake / too far
-latter as “PFSD” (post-Flood stress disorder)?! Pre-Flood, flood, seeing desolate landscape littered with animal and human corpses; overwhelmed with his responsibilities
-perhaps related to more idle time for all of them!
-either way, robs him of (some of) his dignity and authority
-Noah's account parallels Adam's account (cont'd)
-20's vineyard vs. God's garden in 2:8
-21’s sin from the fruit of the vine/tree
-21's nakedness of degradation vs. 2:25 for Adam's innocence and 3:_’s recognition of guilt
-Adam sought cover for his shame; Noah not even conscious of his
-in both cases, a pivotal event/revelation
9:22-23’s sons’ responses
-22's Ham sees—and then, tells brothers
-again identified as "father of Canaan" (9:18), foreshadowing…
-first may have been accidental[68] (although what was he doing in his dad’s tent?); second as purposeful
-both as a breach of family/cultural ethic (see: 24's “done to him")
-vs. Cain: am I my father’s keeper?
-Kass (208): “What sort of human being is Ham? What sort of person delights in rebelling against…law and authority?...Most often, he is the would-be tyrant, a man who seeks self-sufficiency.”[69]
-see also: his grandson Nimrod in 10:8-12
-a form of patricide (a la Mt 5)
( had enough faith/respect to get on the ark, but not enough to respect his father here (had Noah gone downhill?)
( big picture: Ham implicitly rejects the new law/covenant
( w app. to how we handle others who have shamed themselves
-see: pop culture and talking about or even delighting in others falling
-public vs. private, mostly hurting self vs. others (drunk in house vs. driving or with grandchildren around)
-23's Japheth and Shem
-surely shocked to hear of the event—or at least, Ham’s account of it
-again, one-time or repetitive? in the past, had probably seen their father as courageous and authoritative (righteous; building/on the ark)
( what to do?
-where’s Noah’s wife?
-go and see; disbelieve; ignore/wait or proactive benevolence...
-confront Ham (nothing recorded)
-didn’t look—and covered Noah
-an act of grace (vs. mercy's just don't look—and wait ‘til he wakes up)
-Kass (209): “We readers are touched by this display of loyalty and filial piety…the perfect way they found delicately to correct the problem without participating in it…but they cannot erase the memory of their deed or of what made it necessary for them to perform it.” (and probably made things weird with Dad, from here forward)
-as God covers our shame/nakedness
-again underlines advantage of ears vs. eyes: once you see, it’s burned in your memory; if you hear, you may dismiss it as hearsay
-an interesting reference, again, to (appropriate) “knowledge”
( big picture: both embrace authority and law/covenant
( sobering: Cain/Abel’s first sibling story—rivalry; here, first parental story—Dad stumbles, struggles to pass on law/covenant and some conflict
-Kass (198): “fundamental and troublesome aspects of the natural relationship between father and sons…not how things ought to be but rather how they are, absent some additional, corrective teaching [or other intervention]”
9:24-29’s Noah’s response
-28-29’s Noah’s death/age
( Kass (210) quips: “Noah does not take his shame lying down.”—before observing “for the first time in the biblical narrative, we hear Noah speak…Noah’s anger is surely expected, as rage is the usual response to being shamed.”
-anger seems to stir Noah to rare words (and perhaps action—at least, in dealing with his sons)
( how did Noah know who did what? some combo of 24’s asked around and reasonable inferences given what he knew of his sons’ character
-25's “curse” for (Ham's son) Canaan and his descendants (fulfilled w/ Gen 14:4; Josh 9:27's Gibeonites, Judg 1, I Kings 9:20-21, etc.)
-“curse” communicates severity of the offense (Gal 1:8-9)
-curses and blessings as analogous to prayer (see: Psalms): supernatural petition—or at the least, what one hopes/wishes for another
-Kass (212): “exercising what he takes to be the magical potency of imprecatory speech, he summons the powers that be to exact vengeance upon Ham by punishing his son (and descendants)”
( did Noah over-react (kicking the dog and continuing his sin)? why curse Canaan vs. Ham?
-presumably, in context, the last straw
-fitting:
-breach in father's family ( curse on son's family
-Ham sought to be free from parental authority and will be held responsible by his own son
-as Ham had responded to Noah, so Canaan would respond to Ham
-25, 27’s slavery appropriate—might/right follows naturally without law/authority (what ch. 9’s law/covenant was trying to prevent and what Ham is militating against)
-probably more painful for Ham: for most fathers, worse that a child bears a cost
( but is it fair/just?
-things don’t turn out too well for Canaan’s descendants
-curses/blessings somehow effective at times within the divine economy, but not in a deterministic sense (see: 26, 27’s “may”)
-Canaan not punished for father's sins (Ez 18:2-4, incl. grapes/wine reference!); instead...
-God’s pre-destination and foreknowledge: a nation He knew would be wicked (vs. their future being actively cursed)
-Ham's nature would be transmitted to his descendants—the practicality of the sins of the fathers
-life as communal/relational vs. individual
-do we count the blessings of family/generations as unfair?
-whatever the justice, it’s almost inevitable that there will be some curse/blessing from one generation to the next (what kind of son would Ham likely raise?)
( practically, Noah as prophesying more than causing or wishing
( some of Ham's sons settled Africa, BUT unfortunately this verse has been used incorrectly to argue for the enslavement of blacks
1.) would contradict NT teaching
2.) Canaan didn't settle in Africa
3.) Canaanites were Caucasian
-see also: Moses’ Cushite wife (and God’s defense of their marriage—Num 12:1,9-12) and interracial marriage
9:26-27
-26's indirect blessing for Shem (through God); 27's direct blessing for Japheth
-Shem as father of Shemites/Semites—Jews
-Noah seems to attribute greater righteousness to Shem
-Japheth as father of non-Arab/European Gentiles
-lived on friendly terms with each other
-“tents”: Gentiles share in and sheltered by Jewish people / God’s blessing
-in inheritance terms, Shem receives priesthood/birthright, Japheth receives double blessing (27's "extend territory")[70]
( Kass argues that Noah’s three sons represent tyrannical man, noble/decent man, and pious man
( interesting that first post-Flood speech (Noah’s last recorded deed) is meant to divide
-this is Noah’s division not God’s (although God might concur)
-God had divided Noah & Co. from the unrighteous (pre-Flood) and his next division will be with Abraham
( why this story?
-as the Bible depicts (most) others “heroes of the faith”—with warts (w/ app.)
-sets up choice of Semites as the people with whom God would choose to work with more explicitly
-after the flood, evil reappears in a "godly man"—not a good sign!
-continuing to point toward the OC—and eventually, the NC
( what happened to Noah?
-starts off so strong (6:9’s character accolades), an amazing task, but a rough finish
-3 big actions—builds ark (good), offers sacrifice (mixed), gets drunk (ugly)
( bad ending or something larger? “the silence of Noah” (as Adam)…
-nothing recorded except post-drunk curse/blessing
-Rabbi Jonathan Sacks (45-47) points back to the flood narrative and is pretty rough on Noah
-what does Noah say to God when it’s time to build the ark and save his family? silent obedience—but maybe obedience is not enough…
-what did Noah say to those around him? unknown, except Heb 11:7’s “by his faith he condemned the world” (how much of that was spoken?)
-the biggie: no intervention with God on behalf of those to be destroyed
( “God seeks from us something other and greater than obedience, namely responsibility...the hero of faith was not Noah but Abraham”—fought a war for his nephew and prayed for the people of the plain, even challenging God: “What might an Abraham have said when confronted with the possibility of a flood?...Abraham might have saved the world. Noah saved only himself and his family. Abraham might have failed, but Noah—at least on the evidence of the text—did not even try…Noah’s end—drunk, disheveled, an embarrassment to his children—eloquently tells us that if you save yourself while doing nothing to save the world, you do not even save yourself…”
( Sacks notes that Noah walked “with God” (6:9) while Abraham walked “before God” (17:1)[71]
10:1-32's "table of nations" (skim)
-compared to Gen 11’s Babel, Kass: a “gentler account of the division of mankind”
-a horizontal genealogy showing the emergence of nations
-supported by archaeology (Nuzi tablets)
-70 names/grandchildren of Noah—70 as fig. and parallels Jacob’s family of 70 going to Israel (Gen 46, Ex 1) and heading to Canaan (Num 26)
-2-5’s descendants of Japheth (the oldest)
-21-32's sons of Shem: Semites
-21,25's Eber is origin of "Hebrew"
-23's Uz (see: Job 1:1!)
-24's Shelah (same as Gen 38)
-25's "division" dates Babel as five (half of ten) generations after flood
-25's Peleg: strange designation related to flood, Brown's "hydroplanes"??
-6-20’s descendants of Ham (the youngest; 9:24)
-13-14's sons of Mizraim (which means “Egypt”) notes Philistine origins (Jordan's Exodus chronology argues that this connects Philistines in Canaan with Egpyt)
-15-20's sons of Canaan lists all the Canaanites incl. 19's Sodom/Gomorrah
-7's sons of Cush, includes 8-12's Nimrod (one of Ham’s grandsons; "mighty hunter" or “rebellious”) whose kingdom included 11,12’s Nineveh and 10's Babylon/Babel
-connecting Ham’s character with Babel and Babylon
11:1-9’s overview
-a short, powerful story; Sacks (49): “a compact masterpiece of literary and philosophical virtuosity”; Kass (218): “It is astonishing how much is packed into this little tale.”
-last episode before Abraham—the end of the beginning
-first/prototypical story of a city (vs. 4:17’s mention)
-revisits earlier themes: speech, reason, arts and technology as human inventions and mixed bags; the quest for self-sufficiency, and man’s desire for fame
-Kass (222): “…a wonderfully artful narrative and the words it uses are most carefully chosen. Poetic craft and linguistic subtlety are enlisted to sound an alarm about language and craft.”
-in context, post-law/covenant and Noah’s mixed success in passing this along to the next generation—again, things don’t progress well..
11:1-4
-1's unity: language, speech (dialect?[72]) for “the whole world” (hyperbole?; 5x in passage, including 1,9’s beginning and end)
-vs. ch. 10’s genealogy on the differentiation of people as descended through the very different sons of Noah—of one family, but not one mind
-3,4’s “they said” emphasizes role of speech and reason in this story
-see also: language/speech implies correlation with 2-4’s worldview
-2’s “settled” at Shinar—in the fertile Euphrates valley to do agriculture
-leads to development and civilization for better and for worse
-more important: vs. dispersing, as commanded by God (9:1)
-4a’s “let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens”
-city (see: Cain in 4:17)—vs. Noah and God's chosen dwellings for Abraham & Co.: tents; again, hints at potential trouble with civilization
-tower as probably a "ziggurat"—a temple-tower with a small shrine on top
-at least later, this area featured a tower seven-stories and 300-ft. high with a base of roughly the same dimensions (Sacks, 50)
-Sarna (p. 75): “Modern scholars are [nearly] unanimous that the ziggurat symbolized a mountain…Rooted in the earth with its head lost in the clouds, it was the meeting point of heaven and earth. As such, it became the natural arena of divine activity. Here on its heights the gods had their abode, here they gathered in fateful assembly, and here they revealed themselves to man…The ziggurat constituted a man-made holy mountain in miniature...The ziggurat was thus a means by which man and god might establish direct contact with each other, and the construction of it would be an expression of the human desire to draw closer to the deity, an act of deep piety and religious fervor on the part of man.”
-but 4b’s goal I: "so that we may make[73] a name for ourselves"—reputation, fame
-given their motives, "coming near to God—not in holiness, but in height"
-as with 6:4's Nephilim as "renown"—lit. "name"
-heaven as another location to spread name—or reaching heaven would extend their name on earth
-post-flood unwillingness to move may have been rooted in fear, but grew into pride at some point
-4c’s goal II: not to be scattered—again vs. God’s command to exercise dominion—perhaps, alludes to some of that fear still remaining
( pride vs. humility; focus on self vs. God; the epitome of anti-God
-tower implies strength, independence; monument to achievement and glory; see also: 4's four 1st-person pronouns (and nothing on God)
-nothing wrong with fame per se—if grounded in God and His grace; by-product vs. goal (Eccl.; Gen 12:2!)
-on combo of city and (good?) work, Shapiro’s “Babel horrifies with the connotations of ceaseless metropolitan work.” and cites Rabbinic commentary “that a lost brick would cause more tears in Babel than a fallen worker” (as with Egypt towards Israel in Exodus)
-work as divine call vs. idol and end to itself
-3a’s lit. “brick bricks” and 3b’s bricks & tar vs. stone & mortar
-a seemingly minor detail (more later)
-were bricks and permanent buildings known before? (Noah lived in a tent)
-interesting that bricks were moistened dust from the ground, refined by fire; similar to God’s creation of dust moistened by God’s breath, cleansed by water and refined by fire
-God’s adamah (ground) became adam (man); but man’s brick turned clay into a white brick (levenah from root word lavan, meaning white)[74]
-note: brick substitute from resource scarcity (available in Palestine but not Mesopotamia)
-man-made brick not as strong as God-made stone; contrasts pagan idolatry with true religion
-3’s make (poor) bricks to 4’s make a name—points to project’s futility
-w/ app. to building a tower out of my own works within J or the things of my life; what kind of towers are you building? (Mt 7:26, Lk 14:28-29)
( united and godless ( trouble (see: mobs, etc.)
-vs. anarchy and murderous dis-unified sins of Noah’s day (the full range of sins)
-with unity, ironically, they were more capable of loving each other, but...
-vs. unity by inappropriate compromise
-vs. unity's purpose: to bring glory to God (Acts 2:4-11 as the opposite of this story--a very different kind of multicultualism; Rom 15:5-6, Ephesians)
-superceding language, race, gender (Gal 3:28, etc.)
-in body vs. spirit
( Babel as the anti-Pentecost or Pentecost as the anti-Babel
( building on a foundation other than God
-see: J&S (I Cor 3:11-15); mainline denominations
( at first, seems like an innocent project—perhaps even worthy: rational, unanimous, peaceful; but utopian foreboding as Kass (219): “Babel, the universal city, is the fulfillment of a recurrent human dream…of humankind united, living together in peace and freedom”—and more clearly, “God may not like the absence of reverence, the vaunt of pride, the trust in technique, the quest for material power, the aspiration of self-sufficiency, the desire to reach into heaven—in short, the implied wish to be as gods…”
11:5-9
( from their view to God’s—and off to an ominous start with “But…”
( in a word, what they propose in 11:1-4, God disposes of in 11:5-9
( passage/narrative centers on 5's "But the Lord came down" (and omitted by NIV in 11:9)—to deal with them/us
-Kass (232): “a wry comment on the gap between their aspiration and their deed”
-didn’t “reach” God, but got His attention and a response!
-see also: 3,4’s “come let us...” vs. 7’s “come let us [go down]…” (again, plural as in 1:26)
-can be read as sarcastic mimicking—from divine regret (6:6-7) to divine sarcasm (see: Num 11:23, Job)
-5’s “the Lord” vs. “the men”
-not God cooperating with them (as common in pagan myths)
-reminiscent of Eden:
-connections: “the men” as a euphemism for people in Gen 2-3 and the reference to “naming” of animals; “there”, “name”, and “heaven” prominent in each and all contain sh-m (vs. Shem!)
-problems: as in Eden…
-independent and disobedient to direct commands
-the pursuit of inappropriate knowledge
-Adam’s autonomy—choosing for self vs. Babel’s independent creation—making a name for self
( Kass (232): “The road from Adam to the builders of the city is straight and true.”
-vs. Creation: here, the attempted reversal of key theme in Gen 1 (5x divide/separate), trying to cross that divide
-6a’s unity, language[75], and technology vs. technology per se
-some of both for us in modern times
-on troubling technology, see: cloning, etc.
-on troubling unity in the sense of goals, see: UN as utopian
-on troubling language, see: English as primary technical language; computers and the internet; mathematics, scientific method, uniform accounting standards and same manufacturing standards as fig. language (Friedman’s p. 473, Lexus and the Olive Tree)
( but similar tech advances over time; and more unity and language/culture in the past under the Greeks and Romans?
-6's “nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them”—hyperbole?
-given their nature and ability to provide for themselves—outside of God intervening (at least with disease, etc.)—too much security, self-reliance, etc.
( NIVSB’s "If the whole human race remained united in the proud attempt to take its destiny into its own hands and, by its man-centered efforts, to seize the reins of history, there would be no limit to its unrestrained rebellion against God. The kingdom of man would displace and exclude the kingdom of God."
( punishment: from unity and language to scattered and confused
-a mild but specific/effective punishment/judgment (vs. death)
-God as seemingly not-so-angry (see also: response to sin in Gen 3,4,6)
-perhaps seeing this as them trying to reach Him or an “understandable” failure with this as necessary to promote scattering (see also: persecution and early Church in Acts)
-Borgman notes that the punishment is delivered without warning, visit, or explanation; little sense of divine hope—although it’s probably implicit in the “solution” (God isn’t happy!!)
-7’s “confuse” reverses the three letters of “brick” (lvn vs. nvl)
-8-9's scattered vs. 4b’s goal to "not be scattered"
-ideal punishment: their greatest strength: unity --> scattered and confused
-ironic that God injects chaos into (improper) order (vs. His chaos to order in Gen 1-2 and man’s order to chaos in Gen 3)
-God's design was for them to populate and have dominion over the Earth, not congregate together
-see also: divide them, so that He might elect Abraham
-9's wordplay on Babel, Babylon, confused vs. city named as (arrogance of) "city of the gods" (Ps 55:9)
-ironically, reached 4's goal-- made a name for themselves-- after all!
( nations as God's idea (Acts 17:26-27)
-vs. cities
-multiple nations challenges self-sufficiency—diversity; differences and competition between nations (esp. war) allow people to more easily focus on God (a la Lewis)
-Kass (238): “Opposition is the key to the discovery of the distinction between truth and error…The self-content have no aspirations…the self-content are closed to [what is higher].”
-see: again, it’s not good for man to be alone! the political analogue to the creation of woman
( see: Rev's one-world govt—unity of State and religion, and their combo
-see also: development of languages—which cannot be traced to one language (see: Hebrew, Japanese)
-see also: physical characteristics by race—apparently, begins at Babel, but extended from there by climate and genetics (given correlation between race and language)
-see: Darwin on race (and subtitle of Origin of Species)
( God lets them build the tower for quite awhile—not for God's knowledge, so why??
-to allow freedom and to more visibly show how far they had gone wrong (Rom 1)
-time for repentance; we see God’s patience here
-feeling a greater and more memorable loss; becomes a monument of sorts
-God's sovereignty perhaps more impressive with unity having been displayed
( Michael Horton's "The whole Christian faith rests on a scheme of redemption. It's not about men and women climbing up to God, it's about God descending to save a rebel race. God appeared in the flesh, coming down to us because we had proved we couldn't save ourselves."
-and for us, “The mission of the Church is to reverse Babel…Such a reversal began at Pentecost...The mission of the Church is to speak the language of Pentecost, to introduce this voice into the city of Babel, to find and engage those voices in Babel that seek out and give expression to truth.”
Genesis 9-11 Questions: Noah --> Abraham
1a.) How does 9:20-21 parallel or contrast with the creation accounts?
b.) In the big picture, why are we told this story?
2.) What happened in 9:22-24? If we trust Noah's response, what can we infer about Ham's behavior?
3a.) Note the details which describe the extent of their pride in 11:4.
b.) Unity is portrayed as a good thing by Paul. What's the difference here?
4a.) What is ironic about 4:8-9 in contrast to 4:4?
b.) Why did God let them build the tower for awhile (as opposed to stopping them
immediately)?
What Else I’ve Learned from Nahum Sarna’s Understanding Genesis
1.) The miraculous nature of the production and preservation of the Hebrew Scriptures (see: “Christian” manuscript evidence a la Geisler/Strobel), despite…
-the nearly incessant struggle for survival—economically and politically (incl. exile)
-perhaps because they had little else
-a predominately illiterate society (vs. priests)
-hand-copying on relatively expensive papyrus and animal skins (vs. unavailable clay, given soil and climate)
-rarely of much interest to outsiders
( in sum, “neither the demand for, nor the means of, commercial mass distribution”
( Sarna’s conclusion (excerpts from p. xix); evidence for Scripture’s inspiration
-see also: its kings were unable to create their own histories (see: power of oral tradition); it portrays the culture as marginal (and its heroes have warts)
2.) Pagan myths vs. Biblical accounts in general[76]
-at least wrt Gen 1-2, both (largely) “revelatory” by definition—since man couldn’t see it!
-Sarna’s take: Gen 1-11 as revelatory (vs. purely historical) and meant largely as polemic vs. contemporary pagan understandings; not at all my position, but Sarna’s angle results in focusing us on the interesting contrasts with the pagans and gives an historical approach even more meaning[77]
-see also: which came first? oral tradition, then pagan reformulations, then written Biblical accounts?
-pagan myths not as random “fairy tales”, but their attempts to tell stories that “have as their subjects the eternal problems of mankind communicated thru the medium of highly imaginative language” (p. 6)
( as we’ve seen with the Biblical account, myths systematically speak to the (very different) theology and practice of the pagans
-see: ritual, values, worldview, justification for the political status quo, etc.
3.) Pagan myths vs. Biblical accounts in particular (see: Sarna, p. 4-6’s excerpts on Enuma Elish)
a.) Creation
-Israel’s Creation account contains no “theo-biography” (nothing on God’s “birth” or “life”), but unconsciously assumes His pre-existence vs. the pagan myths which communicate the births of and personal tales about the gods—their limits and vulnerabilities, their dependence on physical existence
-thus, the gods’ limited freedom and power vs. power of God’s will happens merely at His spoken Word
-gods create thru pro-creation vs. God created sexual differentiation
-pagan myths view water as the “primal generative force” vs. God created the waters
-see also: virgin birth—w/o sex; the waters obeying Christ, walking on water, water to wine
-Evolution also built around water—life emerging from primordial soup
-both have man created from clay (EE uses blood, but unusual), but only the Bible has God’s breath of life to set apart man in value and purpose vs. pagan’s creation of man as an afterthought and to be a slave to the gods
( man with inherent dignity, but greater intimacy with and dependence on a dependable God in the Bible (vs. created for slave labor)
-see also: a God who can be depended on (vs. gods who cannot)—mixed morality and capriciousness in the polytheistic pantheon of gods vs. absolute standards, order, and capacity for a covenant relationship with God
( in pagan myths, gods move from human to divine; thus, no need for redemption
-myths feature the use of power and violence to get one’s way vs. God’s emphasis on free will, persuasion, choice, etc.
-see also: Israel’s Creation account serves no political or “cultic” function (e.g., no allusion to the Israelites, Jerusalem, and the Temple vs. Babylonian use to justify the political status quo)
b.) Garden of Eden
-Sarna (p. 27) on secondary role for the “tree of life” in the Biblical account (vs. pagan’s obsession about immortality) and focus on “tree of knowledge” (absent in pagan accounts—no problem to them!)
-see also: Israel’s God as Creator—important, but “only introductory to what is its central motif, namely…God’s acts in history”
c.) The Flood (vs. the Epic of Gilgamesh—as told to him by Utnapishtim)
-God’s decision to destroy Earth and save Noah as non-arbritrary
-gods frightened by the destructive forces
-U’s cube vs. Noah’s ark—that won’t float!
-N’s ark with no gold, silver, craftsmen, or helmsman
-on latter, U as “crafty commander”; N as “obedient servant” (Kass, 166)
-see also: U closes himself into his ark
-as in the other Heb. use of “ark” (Moses’ basket), required human participation (incl. Noah’s previous righteousness vs. U’s arbitrary choice)—but clearly, God’s gracious provision
-washing away the Heroic world and the temptation to pursue inappropriate heroism vs. pagan heroics alone (all about Mr. U.; see: desire to do what we want to do—as gods vs. God)
-for both, sacrificed immediately after leaving the ark, but God does not eat the sacrifice vs. “gathered like flies” and required material sustenance (Sarna, 54; Kass, 172 #3)
-Genesis: blessing and dominion, law and covenant/rainbow (vs. Sarna, 56-57’s gift of immortality for U and removed from human society!)
d.) the Tower of Babel
-bricks and tar/bitumen (11:3) vs. Israel’s stones and mortar—trash-talking their bricks
-mountains and ziggurats/towers as man’s attempts to “get closer to God”—but that God “came down” (*2) indicates their failure
-Babel’s wanting to make a name for themselves vs. God promising to do the same for Abraham
-the potential dangers of urbanization and “bad unity” vs. the journey and wandering tents of Abraham (in the next chapter)
What Else I’ve Learned from Nahum Sarna’s Understanding Genesis
1.) The miraculous nature of the preservation of the Hebrew Scriptures, despite…
( in sum, “neither the d________ for, nor the m_______ of, mass distribution”
2.) Pagan myths vs. Biblical accounts in general
-in part, Genesis 1-11 as polemic against contemporary pagan understandings
-myths not as random “f___________”, but pagan attempts to speak to eternal p________
-as with a Biblical worldview, myths systematically speak to t__________ & p_________
3.) Pagan myths vs. Biblical accounts in particular
a.) Creation
-pagan “theo-biography” vs. God’s pre-existence—the gods’ limited freedom and p_____ vs. power of God’s will and His W______
-both use clay, but God’s breath of l______ sets man apart man in value and purpose
( man with inherent d___________, but greater d______________ on a d_____________ God
b.) Garden of Eden
-Bible’s secondary role for the “tree of life” and focus on “tree of knowledge”
c.) The Flood (vs. the Epic of Gilgamesh)
-Utnapishtim’s c______ (vs. Noah’s ark): that won’t float!
-Bible’s human participation by the righteous within God’s provision vs. pagan’s arbitrary gods and human’s heroicism within a largely purposeless event
d.) the Tower of Babel
-bricks and tar/bitumen (11:3) vs. Israel’s s________ and m_________
-mountains and ziggurats/towers vs. God “came down” (*2) indicating their f__________
-Babel’s wanting to “m______________” vs. God promising to do the same for Abraham
( looking back: three sets of fours (the human #)…
-Babel as the last of four stories in Gen 1-11 where people have sought their own significance, independence, etc.—rather than going God’s way: Adam & Eve, Cain, Lamech, Babel
-four conditions of life in Gen 1-11: innocence, life without law, life under primitive law, the dispersion of people under their own laws
-Sacks (61-64) on four stories in Gen 1-11 on failures in responsibility: Adam and Eve’s downplay personal, Cain denies moral, Noah fails collective (saves family and himself, but nobody else), Babel fails ontological (being/relationship to God)
-Sacks: “The first thing we learn as children is that our acts are under our control (personal). The next is that not everything we can do, we may do (moral). The next stage is the realization that we have a duty not just to ourselves but to [our neighbors] (collective). Ultimately, we learn that morality is not a mere human convention, but is written into the structure of existence. There is an Author of being; therefore, there is an Authority beyond mankind to whom, when acting morally, we respond.”
11:10-26’s account of Shem (see: LaSor et. al., p. 74)
-another 10-name vertical genealogy (as Gen 5)
-10 as fig. for complete; gap theories??
-on genealogical gaps, see: Mt 1 vs. I Chron 23:15-16, 26:24; Ez 7:1-5 vs. I Chron 6:13-15; four missing kings in Mt 1; Lk 3:36's Cainan missing in Gen 11:12-13
-on father/son as ancestor/descendant, see: II Kings 16:1-2, Mt 3:9, Jesus as ‘son of David’
-but this one doesn't end with "altogether, Joe lived x years, and then he died"
-although shorter lifespans, a greater focus on life
-Gen 5 allows Enoch's "walk with God" to stand out more
-again, briefest history possible
-17's Eber as longest-lived (after Shem)
( looking forward, we’ll wonder: Why does God call Abram and why does he go? Nothing directly in the text (maybe to avoid distracting us), but the genealogy seems to connect Abram’s call to Babel’s failure
-Babel seeks to “make a name” for itself, but Abram is descended from pious Shem—whose name means name, who made a name for himself in how he handled Noah’s nakedness, and eventually how his name was passed to Abraham
-----------------------
[1] If Moses or any earlier compiler/writer, with minor editorial changes in (at least) 14:14, 36:31, 47:11 (updating city names, etc.).
[2] Kass (p. 14): Even granting that the material compiled in Genesis came, to begin with, from different sources, one must still consider what intention or idea of wholeness governed the act of compilation…Must one assume that the redactor was some pious fool?”
[3] Ex 20:11, I Sam 2:8, II Kings 19:15, I Chron 16:26, II Chron 2:12, Neh 9:6, Job 38 on heavens and Job 39-41 on animals; Ps 24:1-2, 33:6-7, 90:2, 95:5, 102:25-27, 104:5, 119:90, 121:2, 146:6, 148:5; Pr 8:22-23, Pr 30:4, Is 40:12,21-28, 45:12,18, 48:13, 51:13,16, 66:1-2, Jer 10:12, 32:17, 33:2, 51:15, Amos 4:13, 9:6, Mk 13:19, Acts 4:24, 14:15-17, 17:24-31, II Cor 4:6, Eph 3:9, Heb 3:4, 11:3, II Pet 3:5, Rev 14:7; Col 1:15-17 & Jn 1:1-3,10’s Christ; Ps 104, Jn 5:15-17 on God continuing; Heb 1:2-3,10 on Christ continuing; see: Elwell, p. 182-185 on cites for details of creation.
[4] See: World, 1/18/03, p. 13; 3 Views on WSJ article, p. 116.
[5] See: Mitochondrial Eve vs. evolution’s expectation that there would be many genetic lines.
[6] See: Kass, p. 41-45 on why it’s natural to worship nature.
[7] See: Jordan's argument that God's seven speeches to Moses in Ex 25-31 are a parallel to creation. See also: Beall’s JETS paper.
[8] From a comment on the blog: evening/morning as ereb/boqur—the beginning/ending of a yom, and “syntactically speaking…[with] no relationship to the actual duration of the yom.”
[9] See also: Lev 8:33 as direct comparison or metaphor? Lev 25:8’s “yom” refers to the Jubilee— after 49 years of “Sabbath” rest for the Land.
[10] Only if a day is like 1000 years. Interesting that Adam and everyone else’s death before turning 1000 years old! In any case, this is not a literal/physical day.
[11] “Yom” being attached to an ordinal is not relevant grammatically or biblically (Hos 6:2).
[12] See: 3V, p. 125, 148.
[13] See also: 2:19-20's birds and wild beasts are brought to Adam; may imply that tame beasts [20’s “livestock”] had already spent time with him.
[14] See: Tom, FF, 2000-1. Key/finer points: Paul uses ‘cosmos’ vs. ‘ktisis’; former as bigger picture vs. latter as ‘created order’—narrows focus to man vs. nature. Lit. ‘the death’—implying a specific form of death. Lit. ‘came into all men’—‘indicating who reaped the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin, and when those consequences began’. 5:12’s ‘entered’ as not ‘metaschematizo’ which would imply transforming the entire scheme—“thus offering no basis for the idea that A&E’s sin somehow instantly rewired the universe to manifest laws of physics that it had not manifested before the humans’ Fall.”
[15] 5:17’s ‘paratoma’—trespass, willful transgression (vs. hamartia—missing the mark), implying man’s will vs. animals’ inability to will
[16] See: Ross & Archer, p. 131, ftn 39 for Biblical use of “death” with plant life.
[17] Was 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the “law of decay”) in play before the Fall. Note: Rom 8:19-21’s caused by God’s will/purposes—not Adam’s sin (Is 24:4-6?).
[18] See: David Snoke’s “Why were Dangerous Animals Created?”
[19] On “gap theories”, Ross argues effectively against a gap between 1:1 & 1:2 in FF, 2001-1.
[20] 1:7 is the debut of “made” (asah; 1:16,25,31), which seems to be synonymous (when in context) with “create” (bara). Both are used in 2:4 and in Is 45:18. See: Vine, p. 51.
[21] Peterson also notes the double creations on days 3 and 6—and 12 acts of creation (8 verbs and 4 “let there be’s”).
[22] Other, more trivial differences: 1:2’s watery and formless vs. 2:5’s dry; male/female together vs. separate. And by the end of chapter 3, God names and blesses vs. man names and God curses; reproduction then food as all good vs. reversed mention and both tinged with sadness (ch. 2’s restriction; ch. 3’s shame, painful childbirth, toil); human freedom as “our badge of distinction” vs. “source of our troubles”.
[23] Literary framework sees this as highly problematic for sequential reading of Genesis (3V, p. 230-235). But these are different Heb. terms from chapter 1. As such, James Jordan argues 2:5's shrubs and “plants of the field” appear later—not contradictory.
[24] And becomes godlike in the end—by transgressing (3:22)!
[25] Somewhat similar to cloning…
[26] See also: potential of tsela as appendage (translated elsewhere as “side (room)”. Interestingly, perhaps the bone is taken from the penis (which all mammals have except spider monkeys and humans).
[27] Even to the point of overemphasis: Kass’ lit. “this is my flesh and bone; this is mine; this is me”.
[28] Wife is repeated in vs. 25. The references to man flip back and forth: Adam names himself in 23 and the same term is used in 24 before returning to the general term adamah in 25.
[29] Kass extends this to the psychology and male sexuality: “a permanent but invisible wound, signifying a deep and probably unfulfillable desire…Male erotic desire is a conundrum: it wants and wants ardently, but it is unsure of what exactly would fully satisfy it.” Kass also notes that the woman is actually endowed with an excess—the ability to generate new life.
[30] Anderson (p. 46) cites the apocryphal story Jubilees—where A&E are created outside of Eden, placed in this “sacred, temple-like garden” where they “refrained from sexual contact”. (This requires Genesis 2 to be non-chronological.)
[31] Anderson (p. 70, 72) cites Milton’s Paraside Lost and notes Augustine’s influence. Milton pictures God making a special chamber for A&E where they consummate the relationship in chapter 2. Milton inserts a gap between 3:6 and 3:7 and describes A&E having lustful sex as part of the awakening and shame: “They awaken from their slumber as would any self-deceived victim of a casual, one-night stand…more in common with adultery than a sacramental bond…had not violated the letter of the law…but the quality of their carnal knowledge was not what it should have been. It admitted no thought of person or sacramental bond.”
[32] Anderson (p. 48) notes that the high priest was kept awake on the night before Yom Kippur (Lev 16) to avoid an accidental nocturnal emission.
[33] Anderson (36) cites the apocryphal story Life of Adam and Eve. Christian writers were mixed on this, but it faded over time since Muhammad included it in the Koran! Anderson (39-41) describes what Milton does with God’s supposed announcements of elevating man and Christ.
[34] Vs. paternalism or LM within public policy; see: Rob Bass on apple prohibition: “the most famous story of substance abuse in the Bible. The substance was mind-altering. There was a pusher. The people involved were warned of its dangers. There were disastrous consequences for others as well. Their situation was under the direct control of God. If there was a case for prohibition, this was it. Infinite Wisdom could determine what to prohibit; Infinite Power could provide enforcement. Yet, God refrained. It is the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Every argument from within the Judeo-Christian tradition for legal prohibition runs up against this rock: that it is an attempt to second-guess Infinite Wisdom. It is not just an attempt to substitute our judgment for our neighbor’s, but an attempt to substitute our judgment for God’s”
[35] Anderson (100) notes that it “would be hard to overstate the difficulty these verses have provided modern readers.” See also: Anderson (102) for Ephrem’s analogy to the Church and his claim that I Tim 2:14-15 should be read ironically—of course, Adam sinned.
[36] Anderson (81) notes that the Septuagint improperly translated 2:17 to be plural (and thus, assumed that Eve was present too). This also required other shuffling of the text’s chronology, but not an impediment for early Christians. Anderson (82) also notes that Adam and Eve both appear in early iconography.
[37] Crabb describes the Babylonian and Greek creation myths—and their contrasts on this point, from chaos to chaos (p. 71-75).
[38] Caveat: guilty conscience as a possible signal to us, but JB Phillips' concerns (Ch. 1 of YGITS): "the perversion of that sense is largely a question of upbringing, training, and propaganda...there are many who are made miserable by a morbidly developed conscience which they quite wrongly consider to be the voice of God." Our consciences are less reliable as sin increases; it’s ironic that it becomes more necessary but is less useful as sin increases.
[39] Modesty as “positive” post-Fall (don’t want to be objectified), but negative (not open to each other).
[40] Lit. ruah—usually translated spirit, wind or breath—but works as an idiom.
[41] See: Anderson, p. 139-148, 153.
[42] “Deceived” translated in the Greek Septuagint with a term that implies sexual seduction, leading to a common belief/connection of original sin to sex.
[43] See: USN&WR article "Snakes didn't always slither". Were [are] they always 3:1’s ‘crafty’? See also: Kass, p. 93, FTN 42.
[44] See: Schlessinger's Ten Stupid Things Women Do...; Eldredge, p. 189-190
[45] Again, no response from Eve—although she owns it proudly in 4:1 (see: Kass, p. 117, FTN 18).
[46] This does not parallel sacrifice since entire animal would be offered or skin would be burned or given to the priest. This may also speak to the timing—perhaps on the evening of the Sabbath, when sacrifices were commanded.
[47] See: Anderson, p. 156b-160, 174b-175 on how Adam and Eve might figure into the plan of redemption after Christ’s victory.
[48] Kass favors an alternative translation (126): “I have gotten [or created] a man [equally] with God”—or “in plain speech, ‘God created a man and now so have I.’” Kass argues: “Who could blame Eve for such an attitude? Absent some divine revelation…” If Eve is boasting here, it’s interesting that three of the four Genesis matriarchs struggle with infertility and thus, avoid such boasting.
[49] 2’s ‘later’ as ‘again’ in NASB—perhaps twins (but doesn’t seem to read that way)
[50] If labeled/named afterward, more as a literary device.
[51] Another angle from Asaph Sagiv via Kass (132): Israel as opposed to fertile Egypt. Cain and Abel may also represent a countermyth to a prominent Egyptian story.
[52] Kass (130): “So impressive is this discovery that many other traditions ascribe it to a god. In contrast, the Bible treats all such discoveries…as of purely human origins…the divine gifts are moral and legal, not intellectual and technological.”
[53] Kass (132) observes that the herder probably precedes the farmer historically. Thus, the farmer would be the innovator. “But our text invites us to consider the shepherd as the innovator by making him the second born.” Kass pursue another angle—that the farmer mastering the earth is really just an illusion; farmer as really slave [servant] to the earth; shepherd as “true innovator”—not reliant on cursed earth. In this view, it’s Abel who “breaks away from the bondage of farming and rises up to exercise rule over the animals”.
[54] Kass wrestles with the possibility that God decides this purely on inscrutable election. He says this is possible, but argues that it is inconsistent with what God typically reveals about Himself.
[55] Kass (139-140) discusses an alternative translation; it’s not clear whether the subject is Cain or the offering—so perhaps, whether the offering “does well” or not. In other words, “Never mind the sacrifices, whether they go well or badly; the important thing is sin which is ready to pounce on you.” This would point to a common/huge Biblical theme—not sacrifice quality but quality of life that matters (I Sam 14:35; sabbaths and sacrifices per se vs. righteousness, relationship, and faith.)
[56] See: a confused ape reading Bible and Darwin simultaneously: brother's keeper or keeper's brother?
[57] Vine's argues that the Hebrew for city (1092x) allows for a permanent dwelling of any size, but provides no other exs. of that usage. See also: Booger Grove, AR—population 8 (incl. the dog)!
[58] See: Rana, Ross and Deem, FF, 2001-1, p. 19-27. On chronologies and potential numerology, see: Jordan’s three articles.
[59] Name means “when he dies, it will come”?? If so, named by Enoch to be prophetic for the flood to come (signals God’s patience; connected to Enoch’s [deeper] relationship with God?
[60] See also: “derivative” [Mt 1] vs. “foundational” [here] genealogies—and difficulties with archaeological record.
[61] See: Sumerian genealogy of 10 names with three kings said to have ruled 72K years each...
[62] May express fig. dominion revisited: God over man over daughters—or even leadership vs. lower-class in terms of power. If 4's Nephilim, why also called "men"?
[63] Godly men (Seth) and sinful women (Cain) intermarrying? This takes liberties with the Hebrew word for “son” (although “sons of God” as believers in Mt 5:9, Rom 8:14,19, Gal 3:26), godly men forming harems?!, and Cain's wife (4:17) is then assumed to be a "daughter of God"?
[64] Were 6:4's Nephilim prehistoric men? Unlikely, given 6:4's heroic deeds from animals?!
[65] According to Alcorn (p. 366), the Chinese character for boat combines those for vessel, eight, and people.
[66] No hint in the former passage; Friedman explains difference as two authors (p. 191).
[67] For differences between the two accounts, see: Kass, p. 175b.
[68] Later, the phrase “uncover the nakedness of” became a euphemism for “have sexual relations with”, but there is no sense of that context here. Kass (212-213) wonders whether its repeated use in Lev 18—with child sacrifice in the middle of a long list of sexual prohibitions—is a reference to Noah/Ham here. It’s also interesting that the Canaanites would struggle with sexual perversions.
[69] Kass also wrestles with the philosopher as antinomian. Here, Ham’s deed would be a function of curiosity, willing to look at/into anything. Ultimately, given that he also “tells”, Kass seems this as more tyrannical.
[70] 10:21’s Japheth as prob. older brother of Shem (but NIV text note). Judah/Joseph parallel would argue for Shem as oldest, but favoring oldest would be atypical in God’s economy.
[71] Sacks also points to the pace of the narrative: very quick until the waters recede; would expect Noah to emerge, but little action for 14 verses (ch. 8’s birds sent out); and then, he does not come out until commanded by God (good news earlier; other side of the coin here). Sacks concludes “It takes courage to rebuild a shattered world…When it comes to rebuilding the ruins of catastrophe, you do not wait for permission. You take the risk and walk ahead. Faith is more than obedience. It is the courage to create.”
[72] The Hebrew terms here are odd, esp. in terms of singular/plural. Kass (224) wonders if this is a hint that “confidence in their language was somewhat misplaced.”
[73] 4a’s “build” as banah; 4b’s “make” as asah (as in 1:26)
[74] In Enuma Elish, bricks come from the gods. Here, as an invention of man—a mixed bag.
[75] Kass (239) notes the irony that we might fool ourselves into thinking we are perfect or unified in our understanding of the language and the text. Instead, it “demands that we pay close attention to the voice that is calling to us out of the text.”
[76] See: Keizer (225-226) on Christ fulfilling not just Biblical prophecies but pagan archestypes.
[77] See: LaSor et. al. (74-75) on literary framework.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- richard c owen publishers inc a proven leader in quality
- 95 theses against the anti christ fathers manifesto
- re camping gaffes in adam when brainout
- one flu over this cuckoo s nest pure humbug
- b add applications to apologetics as relevant to gen 1 3
- wednesday morning 9 00 a m 12 30 p m home ncte
- fiction for emerging readers in giant print word 200kb
Related searches
- activity 1 3 3 thermodynamics answer key
- activity 1.3.3 thermodynamics answer key
- act 1 3 3 thermodynamics answer key
- 1 2 divided by 1 3 fraction
- 1 3 cup to tablespoons
- 2sinx 1 2sinx 1 3 4cos 2x
- is 1 2 or 1 3 bigger
- topics relevant to college students
- 1 john 3 1 3 nrsv
- an open letter to gen milley
- convert 1 3 to inches
- how many 1 3 cups 1 cup