# comment

text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The passage talks about “the serpent”. The words “satan” and “devil” do not occur in the whole book of Genesis. The serpent is never described as an angel. Therefore it is not surprising that there is no reference in Genesis to anyone being thrown out of heaven. Sin brings death (<em><a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a></em>). Angels cannot die (<em><a href='B:490 20:35-36'>Luk 20:35-36</a></em>) , therefore angels cannot sin. The reward of the righteous is to be made equal to the angels to die no more (<em><a href='B:490 20:35-36'>Luk 20:35-36</a></em>). If angels can sin, then the righteous will also be able to sin and therefore will have the possibility of dying, which means they will not really have everlasting life. The characters involved in the Genesis record of the fall of man are: God, Adam, Eve and the serpent. Nobody else is mentioned. There is no evidence that anything got inside the serpent to make it do what it did. Paul says the serpent “beguiled Eve through his (own) subtilty” (<em><a href='B:540 11:3'>2Co 11:3</a></em>). God told the serpent: “Because thou hast done this...” (<em><a href='B:10 3:14'>Gen 3:14</a></em>). If “satan” used the serpent, why is he not mentioned and why was he not also punished? Adam blamed Eve for his sin: “She gave me of the tree” (<em><a href='B:10 3:12'>Gen 3:12</a></em>). Eve blamed the serpent: “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat” (<em><a href='B:10 3:13'>Gen 3:13</a></em>). The serpent did not blame the devil - he made no excuse. If it is argued that snakes today do not have the power of speech or reasoning as the serpent in Eden had, remember that a donkey was once made to speak and reason with a man (Balaam); “The (normally) dumb ass speaking with a man’s voice forbad the madness of the prophet” (<em><a href='B:680 2:16'>2Pe 2:16</a></em>). And the serpent was one of the most intelligent <em>of all the animals</em> (<em><a href='B:10 3:1'>Gen 3:1</a></em>). The curse upon it would have taken away the ability it had to speak with Adam and Eve. But it was an animal. God created the serpent (<em><a href='B:10 3:1'>Gen 3:1</a></em>); another being called “satan” did not turn into the serpent; if we believe this, we are effectively saying that one person can enter the life of someone else and control it. This is a pagan idea, not a Biblical one. If it is argued that God would not have created the serpent because of the great sin it enticed Adam and Eve to commit, remember that sin entered the world from man (<em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em>); the serpent was therefore amoral, speaking from its own natural observations, and was not as such responsible to God and therefore did not commit sin. The serpent was a beast of the field which God had made (<em><a href='B:10 3:1'>Gen 3:1</a></em>). Yet out of the ground (Heb. <em>adamah-</em> earth, soil) God formed all the beasts of the field, including the serpent (<em><a href='B:10 2:17'>Gen 2:17</a></em>). So the serpent was likewise created by God out of the ground- it wasn't a pre-existing agent of evil. Note the snake, as one of the beasts of the field, was "very good" (<em><a href='B:10 1:31'>Gen 1:31</a></em>)- hardly how one would describe the serpent according to the orthodox reasoning. The Torah doesn't speak of purely symbolic, abstract concepts; there is always a literal reality, which may then be interpreted in a symbolic way. The serpent, therefore, begs to be understood in this context as just that- a serpent. The view has been pushed that the serpent is to be read as a symbol of our human or animal nature. This would mean that Eve's nature deceived Eve, and such a separation between a person and their nature is problematic to say the least. This view runs into huge difficulties- for how could Eve's nature be punished in a way separate to her punishment, in what way was her deceptive nature created by God like the animals, and how just was Eve's personal judgment in this case... and the questions go on, continuing to be begged the more we think about it. Some suggest that the serpent of Genesis 3 is related to the seraphim. However, the normal Hebrew word for “serpent”, which is used in Genesis 3, is totally unrelated to the word for “seraphim”. The Hebrew word translated “seraphim” basically means a “fiery one” and is translated “fiery serpent” in <em><a href='B:40 21:8'>Num 21:8</a></em>, but this is not the word translated “serpent” in Genesis 3. The Hebrew word for brass comes from the same root word for “serpent” in Genesis 3. Brass represents sin (<em><a href='B:70 16:21'>Jdg 16:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 3:24'>2Sa 3:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 25:7'>2Ki 25:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 33:11'>2Ch 33:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 36:6'>2Ch 36:6</a></em>), thus the serpent may be connected with the idea of sin, but not a sinful angel. Note that the enmity, the conflict, is between the woman and the serpent, and their respective seed. The serpent is presented not so much as the foe of God, but the enemy of mankind. The promise that the seed of the woman would crush his head is echoed in the words to Cain in regard to sin: "Its desire is for you, but you will be able to master it" (<em><a href='B:10 4:7'>Gen 4:7</a></em>). The snake is to be connected symbolically with human sin, not any superhuman Satan figure.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The entire Pentateuch is alluding to the various myths and legends of creation and origins, showing what the truth is. Moses was seeking to disabuse Israel of all the myths they'd heard in Egypt, to deconstruct the wrong views they'd grown up with- and so he wrote Genesis 1-3 to show the understanding of origins which God wished His people to have. The serpent had a major significance in the surrounding cultures. It was seen as a representative of the gods, a kind of demon, a genie. But the Genesis record is at pain to show that the serpent in Eden was none of those things- it was one of the "beasts of the field". No hidden identity is suggested for the serpent in Genesis. J.H. Walton comments: "The Israelites (made no) attempt to associate it (the serpent) with a being who was the ultimate source or cause of evil. In fact, it would appear that the author of Genesis is intentionally underplaying the role or identification of the serpent... In Canaanite literature the role of chaos was played by the serpentine Leviathan / Lotan. In contrast, the Biblical narrative states that the great sea creatures were simply beasts God created (<em><a href='B:10 1:21'>Gen 1:21</a></em>). This demythologizing polemic may also be responsible for avoiding any theory of conspirational uprisings for the existence of evil... there is no hint in the OT that the serpent of Genesis 2-3 was either identified as Satan or was thought to be inspired by Satan. The earliest extant reference to any association is found in Wisdom of Solomon 2:24 (first century BC)... the earliest reference to Satan as the tempter through the serpent is in <em>Apocalypse Of Moses</em> 16-19, contemporary to the NT... in the writings of the church fathers, one of the earliest to associate the serpent with Satan was Justin Martyr" (J.H. Walton, 'Serpent', in T.D. Alexander and D.W. Baker, eds, <em>Dictionary Of The Old Testament And Pentateuch </em>(Leicester: I.V.P., 2003) pp. 737/8). Even within Judaism, it is accepted that the idea that the serpent was Satan is not in the text itself, and arose only within later Rabbinic commentary: "The interpretation... according to which the serpent is none other than Satan... introduces into the text concepts that are foreign to it... the primeval serpent is just a species of animal... it is beyond doubt that the Bible refers to an ordinary, natural creature, for it is distinctly stated here: Beyond any best of the field that the Lord God had made" (Umberto Cassuto, <em>A Commentary On The Book Of Genesis</em> (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1998 ed.) Vol. 1, pp. 139,140). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now the serpent- </em>If the entire family or genus of snakes were intended, we would expect to read something like "the serpent and his kind". But the language here suggests we are reading of a specific singular animal, a unique creation. I suggest that "the serpent" was a specifically created animal, an "animal of the field" but a special creation, which died for all time as its punishment- thus looking forward to the final, eternal destruction of sin, all forms of temptation and death, as envisioned in <em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em>. The serpent was real enough, but it also represented sin and temptation. But the symbolic must have a basis in the literal and historical. Paul alludes to the serpent as if it were literal (<em><a href='B:540 11:3'>2Co 11:3</a></em>). The Hebrew word means literally to hiss or whisper, but it also has the idea of experience (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 30:27'>Gen 30:27</a></em> "I have learned <em>by experience</em>"). The root of temptation is the desire for experience, rather than accepting the experiences God plans for us.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Many of the creation myths feature some kind of serpent, but always as some entity far more than a literal animal. The Genesis record alludes to these myths, which Israel in Egypt would have been exposed to and probably accepted, in order to deconstruct them. This doesn't mean that Genesis is myth; the very opposite. It presents God’s take on those myths. The myths tend to present the serpent as a dragon figure, similar in appearance to the Biblical cherubim. Some cherubim-like figures uncovered in Egypt are in fact winged cobras (Bernard F. Batto, <em>Slaying the Dragon, Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition</em> (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster / John Knox Press, 1992) p. 60). But the Genesis record clearly differentiates between the serpent and the cherubim. "Serpents figure in various Ancient Near Eastern myths in a demonic way" (J. R. Porter, <em>The Illustrated Guide to the Bible </em>(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998) p. 29). The Sumerian god Ningishzida (meaning 'Lord of the tree') was portrayed as a serpent (John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews & Mark W. Chavalas, <em>The IVP Bible Background Commentary To The Old Testament</em> (Downers Gove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2000) p. 32). But the Genesis record is insistent that the truth is different, and that for the Bible believer, the serpent was an animal, not a god, not a cosmic dragon nor a demon, but a literal "beast of the field" created by the one God just as all the other animals were created.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Let's ever remember that Genesis was initially produced by Moses in order to educate the Israelites in the wilderness. The Egyptians venerated the serpent and glorified death as a reward; Moses shows that it is to be abhorred as the symbol of sin, and death is a curse and the wages of sin.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Was more subtle</em>- The great temptation for Israel in their <em>eretz</em> was Canaanite idolatry; the tribes of the land are described with the same word in <em><a href='B:230 83:3'>Psa 83:3</a></em> ("crafty counsel"). Baal was seen as a god of wisdom; perhaps the literal serpent represented all such idolatry, tempting Israel to ‘play God’, to assume His wisdom, which is the essence of every temptation. As there was a snake who was there in the 'land' of Eden, so there was the equivalent amongst Israel- the false teachers, the tribes who remained, etc., the "serpents of the dust" who would be the cause of Israel's destruction (<em><a href='B:50 32:24'>Deu 32:24</a></em> - an evident allusion to the language of the snake in Eden).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Than any animal of the field which Yahweh God had made</em>- This suggests the serpent was indeed an animal, created by God. The serpent was cursed more than the other beasts of the field (<em><a href='B:10 3:14'>Gen 3:14</a></em>); the most superior animal was brought down beneath the others, by having to crawl on its belly. Those who argue for a non-literal serpent would presumably have to read this as meaning: 'The serpent was more subtle than any of the animals God had made (although it was not an animal)'.&nbsp; I suggest the more comfortable reading of the text is: 'The serpent was one of the animals but was the most subtle of them all'. The question of interpretation is hard to resolve by appeal to the original Hebrew alone. The preceding chapters 1 and 2 have stated that all things and all categories of things exist because they were created by God. So the serpent was a created being- in which category was it to be placed, if not as an "animal of the field"? If we are intended to see the serpent as not created by God, then surely that would be stated. The whole context is about creation or bringing into being by God. The implication is surely that the serpent was one of the animals God had made. We can break down the text like this: The serpent (A) was more (B) than (C). The question is whether (A) is part of (C), i.e. was the serpent (A) one of the 'animals of the field' (C). The same kind of Hebrew construction is found elsewhere. In each case, the idea would be that (A) is part of and included within the category of (C). Thus Israel (A) were not more in number (B) than any other nation (C) (<em><a href='B:50 7:7'>Deu 7:7</a></em>). But Israel were a nation, included within the (C) category. "I (A) am more foolish (B) than any man (C)" (<em><a href='B:240 30:2'>Pro 30:2</a></em>). The writer was a man, he was a member of the category (C). Likewise <em><a href='B:290 52:14'>Isa 52:14</a></em> "His (Messiah's) (A) face was more marred (B) than any man (C)". Messiah was a man, He was part of the category of (C), but He had the most marred face. <em><a href='B:330 15:2'>Eze 15:2</a></em> might be the clearest: "What is the vine tree (A) more than (B) any tree (C)?". The vine tree is a tree, a member of the category (C). And so the serpent (A) was more subtle (B) than any animal of the field (C). The serpent was part of that category, it was an animal of the field made by God. Genesis 3 is right at the beginning of the Bible. It would seem to me inappropriate to begin the Biblical revelation with symbolic language. Symbol and figure don't function that way in literature. We begin with literal things, and then later in the literature, those literal things are employed as symbols. Thus Paul truly observed that "it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and only then the spiritual" (<em><a href='B:530 15:46'>1Co 15:46</a></em>). When we read Revelation and encounter dragons and the like, the genre clearly demands we understand them as symbolic of other things. But we don't have that kind of genre at the start of the Bible. So whilst the serpent clearly is used to represent things later on in the Bible, I believe that here at the start, it is a literal serpent which is in view.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Sin entered the world by Adam, not by the serpent (<em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em>). But see on <em><a href='B:10 3:14'>Gen 3:14</a></em> <em>eat dust</em>. If the serpent were purely figurative, then we would surely expect to find Paul giving the serpent a place in the entry of sin into the world. But he doesn't. I have suggested that the 'creation' account in Genesis 1 is a dramatic presentation explaining how <em>eretz</em> Israel was prepared for habitation. I then developed the similarities between that <em>eretz</em> and Eden. But Eden was a literal place; and Adam and Eve are understood in later Scripture as literal beings. And so I see no hint within the genre of Genesis 3 which suggests that the serpent is to be read purely symbolically. If <em><a href='B:10 1:2'>Gen 1:2</a></em> to <em><a href='B:10 2:4'>Gen 2:4</a></em> is poetic or dramatic, then there must come some point at which the genre changes- for the rest of Genesis is not in that genre. I suggest that cut off point is at <em><a href='B:10 2:4'>Gen 2:4</a></em>. The natural must come before the spiritual and allegorical interpretation of it. Just as Adam represented Israel, and his exile Eastward from the<em> eretz</em> looked ahead to Judah's exile to Babylon, so the creature known as the serpent represented that within the <em>eretz</em> which caused God’s people to sin and be expelled from it. Just as Eden, Adam and Eve were literal, so was the "serpent". But as they each represented things, so the serpent did too. The besetting temptation of Israel was the cult of idols, Baal in particular, and this was represented by the creature known as "the serpent". Just as the serpent "deceived" Eve (<em><a href='B:10 3:13'>Gen 3:13</a></em>), so the same word is used of how false teachers deceived Israel into idol worship (<em><a href='B:300 29:8'>Jer 29:8</a></em>). The Hebrew for "serpent" has a wide range of associations, most of them connected with false worship. Just as Adam and Eve should have not meddled with the serpent and instead brought it under their dominion, likewise Israel were warned not to meddle with those who 'serpent' (AV "use enchantment", the verb form of the noun for "serpent"; <em><a href='B:30 19:26'>Lev 19:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 18:10'>Deu 18:10</a></em>). The literal animal known as the serpent, which differed, I suggest, from snakes of today, represented various things- not least, the temptations which led to Israel, God’s specially created people, being exiled from the<em> eretz</em>. It represents other things too. But this is not to say that "the serpent" is merely symbolic. To say this runs the risk of a serious (and common) error in reasoning, whereby something abstract is made symbolic of something else. 'Love', e.g., an abstract concept, cannot be symbolic of e.g. grace. So a symbolic entity, e.g. "the serpent", could not be itself symbolic of something else, e.g. sin or temptation. Literal things can represent abstract things or point forward to other things- the blood of the Mosaic sacrifices symbolized the atoning work of the Lord; the High Priest symbolized the Lord; the manna symbolized the word of God; the waters of the exodus symbolized the water of baptism, etc. But the symbolism functions because a literal thing or entity is used to represent something more abstract. If Adam, Eve and Eden were literal, and the creation or placement of animals and plants in Eden was literal, then it would seem gapingly inappropriate for a symbolic non literal "serpent" to appear in the record.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said to the woman, Has God really said- </em>We note he omits the covenant name of God, Yahweh. The Hebrew interpretted as "really" could mean to the effect that "Yes, although God has said". The AV fumbles towards this with "Yea, hath God said...". The idea would then be to imply 'Although God has surely said this, are you sure that the sentence will really be carried out?'. This would then pave the way for the serpent's lie in :4: "You <em>won't</em> surely die". The temptation here is set up as the archetype of all human temptation. The thought is presented, and the fantasy extends from that thought. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden?’</em>- This was intentionally misrepresenting the commandment. They had been told to "eat, eat!" of all the trees, with the exception of one. Misrepresentation of God’s word, making God out to be unreasonable, is at the heart of all temptation. The Lord's wilderness temptations show the same process. God is not unreasonable, and He will not give us any temptation too great for us. Sin is not inevitable; and He doesn't wish us to be disobedient, but rather obedient. It is simply not so that the possession of human nature means that we shall inevitably sin; for the Lord had our same nature, but was undefiled. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The woman said to the serpent, Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat</em>- Eve knew the commandment, and that the serpent was either misrepresenting or misunderstanding it. She and Adam had been commanded to "eat, eat!" of all the trees. It was their lack of obedience to this which left them not satiated, not away from the middle of the garden, and therefore prone to greater temptation. She interprets that command to "eat, eat!" as simply meaning that "we <em>may</em> eat". If she had more zealously perceived God’s commandment to do positive things, she would not have struggled so much with the one negative commandment- to <em>not</em> eat of one tree.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Adam’s sin is indeed everyman’s. The account of Adam and Eve’s sin is in essence the account of every sin and fall into temptation, and is alluded to on nearly every page of the Bible. God had told Adam to each <em>in abundance</em> from <em>all</em> the trees of the garden (<em><a href='B:10 2:16-17'>Gen 2:16-17</a></em>). Eve tells the serpent that they can simply “eat” (she doesn’t mention ‘in abundance’) from “the trees of the garden” (she doesn’t mention ‘from <em>all</em> of them’; <em><a href='B:10 3:2-3'>Gen 3:2-3</a></em>). If Adam and Eve had enjoyed God’s blessings as He intended, there would not have been such a pull into the temptation. Appreciating the blessings God has given us, with regular prayers of thankfulness throughout the day (meal times are a great opportunity to remember to do this) will likewise lead us away from temptation; minimizing His blessings propels us towards it. Each time we fail in this, we are repeating Eve’s sin. Likewise we can discern a positive focus by Eve upon the object of temptation; God had told Adam and Eve to eat in abundance “from all trees of the garden” but not to eat “from the tree of knowledge”. Eve repeats this to the serpent by inserting the word ‘fruit’: “From the <em>fruit</em> of the trees of the garden we may eat, but from <em>the fruit</em> of the tree that is in the middle of the garden…”. Focusing on the forbidden fruit in such detail is a sure way to ultimately succumb to the temptation. Or again, the command to not eat of the tree was twisted by Eve into saying that God had commanded that they were to not even <em>touch</em> it. She put a fence around the law (or Adam did, in explaining it to her)- and it had the opposite effect. Paul alludes to this by saying that Jewish regulations such as “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch… are of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh” (<em><a href='B:580 2:21-23'>Col 2:21-23</a></em>). In all these things we find Adam to be everyman, to be me, to be you, to be us. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But of the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die’</em>- The command to "eat, eat!" of all the other trees was intended to keep them away from the temptation which was in the midst of the garden. For they would have been moving elsewhere in the garden to all the various trees, to taste their fruits. And they would have had no appetite for anything else, if they were satiated by eating the other fruits. God’s commandments are not mere tests of obedience; rather they are designed to elicit obedience, and to make the temptations less attractive. See on :2.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God had not told Adam not to touch the tree. The command not to eat the tree had been given to Adam alone, before the creation of Eve. He had relayed it to Eve, but had placed a fence around the law by telling her not to even touch the tree. He thus reveals a simple understanding of temptation and the need to try to ensure obedience to commandment. But he added to the commandment, rather than explaining to Eve and encouraging her to positively engage in the Lord's work elsewhere in the garden. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The serpent said to the woman, You won’t surely die</em>- The first lie, continued in various forms throughout all religions, not least in the false doctrine of the "immortal soul". The one true faith is unique in our belief in the mortality of man. And yet sin entered the world by Adam (<em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em>), not by the serpent. The serpent was a special creation, set up and positioned by God as part of the environment required for the testing of Adam and Eve. John Thomas helpfully described the serpent as "amoral", reasoning from an animal viewpoint but not ultimately the first sinner. This torpedoes any idea that the serpent was some kind of sinful being cast out of heaven onto earth. That whole fantasy is not only unBiblical, but is morally and logically as ridiculous as ordering a convicted pedophile and psychopath out of the courthouse into a school playground, with the judge arming him with a rifle.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Rather God knows that in the day you eat it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil</em>- It has been suggested that there was a creation previous to our own, i.e. to that recorded in Genesis 1. It is also conceivable that the present angels came to have an awareness of “good and evil” (<em><a href='B:10 3:5'>Gen 3:5</a></em>) through having been in a similar situation to what we are in this life. That some of the beings who lived in that age did sin is not to be ruled out; but all this is the kind of speculation which men love to indulge in. The Bible does not tell us of these things but tells us clearly what we need to know about the present situation, which is that there are no sinful angels; all angels are totally obedient to God.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The temptation here is set up as typical of every temptation. The essential desire is to play God, and to think that God somehow is holding cards close to His chest that He doesn't want us to see, that He is in a sense mean, trying to stop us enjoy ourselves. Perhaps all sin is a form of playing God, whereas Philippians 2 alludes here in saying that by contrast, the Lord Jesus did not even consider grasping such equality with God. The desire to experience "good and evil" is what makes so much fiction and entertainment so attractive to us; it is a vicarious experience ('knowledge') of good and evil. "Knowing" is often a Hebraism for 'experience'. The idea is not that the woman would receive theoretical knowledge of what was right and wrong. She could experience good and evil, so she thought, in a way which was forbidden. This desire for forbidden experience, or experience beyond our ability to cope with, is what drives so much human lust and misbehaviour. The experience we can cope with has been given to us by God. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'God knows... that you will know good and evil' is a play upon the word "knows", twice repeated. The idea is that God doesn't want you to share His knowledge / experience. Again, God is presented as unreasonable. God does indeed want to share Himself and His nature with us; but we must be educated and prepared for this. The essence of all temptation is to want to snatch it right now, to take the crown without the race or the cross. Hence Philippians 2 alludes to all this, in saying that <em>instead</em> of grasping such equality with God, the Lord died on the cross. We all think we can handle such experience right now; the primitive and inappropriate desires of a child actually continue throughout human life, just in different forms. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise</em>- We naturally enquire how she realized all this by merely looking at the tree. Surely there was no visual evidence of all these things. This leads to the suggestion that the serpent was implying that he had eaten of the tree, and had not died. The command not to eat of it was specifically to Adam and Eve. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Pride is the root of our desire for knowledge / experience. The later command not to covet what looks good is very much rooted in a warning not to commit Eve’s sin of seeing the fruit and yielding to temptation (<em><a href='B:20 20:17'>Exo 20:17</a></em> = <em><a href='B:10 3:6'>Gen 3:6</a></em>). <em><a href='B:690 2:16'>1Jn 2:16</a></em> surely alludes here, demonstrating again that this is the archetypical temptation, the essence of every human temptation; for like Eve, all men "would be wise" (<em><a href='B:220 11:12'>Job 11:12</a></em>): "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh ("good for food") and the lust of the eyes ("a delight to the eyes") and the vain glory of life ("to be desired to make one wise"), is not of the Father but is of the world". The last of the three parallels is especially instructive. Her desire to be wise was in fact the vain glory of life. Her desire for knowledge / experience was related to pride, "vain glory". Babylon and Tyre are presented as the corporate embodiment of all these things; their desire for wisdom and their pride are paralleled in the prophetic condemnations of them (<em><a href='B:290 47:10'>Isa 47:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 28:5'>Eze 28:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 28:7'>Eze 28:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 28:17'>Eze 28:17</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We have here exhibited the simple fact that desire of itself may be natural; but it is not therefore acceptable to indulge the desire. It is axiomatic that desire is natural; but Eve was called to self control, to not simply do what was her desire. This may sound obvious, but increasingly we are bombarded with the idea that whatever may feel natural is therefore legitimate to fulfil. But the Godly way of life is different, radically so.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It seems that God punishes sin in a way which is appropriate to the sin. Consider how David so often asks God to take the wicked in their own snare- and how often this happens. The punishment of Adam and Eve was appropriate to the sins they committed. What Adam wasn't bothered to do, i.e. have intercourse with his woman, became the very thing which now every fallen man will sell his soul for. They ate the tree of <em>knowledge</em>, they <em>knew</em>&nbsp; they were naked, and then Adam <em>knew</em> Eve (<em><a href='B:10 4:1'>Gen 4:1</a></em>); this chain of connection certainly suggests that sexual desire, whilst not wrong in itself, was part of the result of eating the tree. There is an artless poetic justice and appropriacy in this which seems simply Divine. What they couldn't be bothered to do became the very thing which has probably generated more sin and desire to do than anything else. Adam was to rule over Eve as a result of the fall- the very thing he wasn't bothered to do. Eve's punishment was that her desire was for her husband- perhaps suggesting that she too had no desire for Adam sexually, and therefore was willing to delay obedience to the command to multiply. They were both driven out of the garden- perhaps reflecting how they should have left the garden in obedience to God’s command to go out and subdue the natural creation to themselves. Because Adam wasn't bothered&nbsp; to do this, even when it was within his power, therefore nature was given a special power against man which he would never be able to overcome, and which would eventually defeat him (<em><a href='B:10 3:17-19'>Gen 3:17-19</a></em>). This all shows the logic of obedience; we will be made to pay the price of obedience even if we disobey- therefore it is logical to obey.&nbsp;Note in this context that the Hebrew behind "Desirable to gain understanding" in <em><a href='B:10 3:6'>Gen 3:6</a></em> "can also be translated, without notable alteration, as "desirable in order to become childless"" (H. Reckons, <em>Israel's Concept of the Beginning: The Theology of Genesis 1-3</em> (New York: Herder & Herder, 1964) p. 270)- suggesting they didn’t want to have children, they didn’t want to obey the command to multiply. And therefore the curse was that they would indeed have children and suffer in doing so.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The frequent command "You shall not covet" (<em><a href='B:20 20:17'>Exo 20:17</a></em> etc.) uses the same Hebrew word translated "desire" when we read of how Eve "desired" the fruit (<em><a href='B:10 3:6'>Gen 3:6</a></em>); yet Israel "desired" the wrong fruit (<em><a href='B:290 1:29'>Isa 1:29</a></em>). As Eve saw the fruit and fell for it, so the people of Reuben and Gad saw the land East of Jordan and imagined how good it would be to have it, despite having been given 'all the land' West of Jordan to enjoy (cp. Adam and Eve's dominion in Eden) (<em><a href='B:40 32:1-2'>Num 32:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:7'>Num 32:7</a></em>). In all these allusions (and they exist in almost every chapter of the Bible) we are being shown how human sin is a repetition in essence of that of our first parents. The insistent emphasis is that we should rise above and <em>not</em> be like them. And yet this call for personal effort and struggle with ourselves in order to overcome sin is muted and misplaced by all the stress upon a supposed Devil tempting Eve, pushing the blame onto him, and thereby de-emphasizing our role in overcoming sin within ourselves. And so we see so many loud-mouthed condemners of the Devil totally not 'getting it' about the need for personal self-control and spiritual mindedness in daily life and private character. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>What were the motives of Adam and Eve for sinning, for accepting the serpent's suggestion? Considering this can help open a window onto the question of the <em>origin</em> of Adam's sin. They were attracted by the idea of "knowing good and evil". But this phrase is elsewhere used in the Bible about how an adult 'knows good and evil', but a child can't (<em><a href='B:50 1:39'>Deu 1:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 19:35'>2Sa 19:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 7:16'>Isa 7:16</a></em>). Adam and Eve were immature; like children, they wished to 'grow up', they resented the restraints which their immaturity required them to be under; they wanted, just as children want, to be the all-knowing adults / mature people whom they had seen the Elohim as. As children long to escape from what they see as meaningless and onerous restrictions, whilst having no idea what this would really mean in practice and how un-free it would really be- so Adam and Eve were attracted by the idea of having the knowledge of good and evil just for the bite of the forbidden fruit. I find this a perfectly understandable explanation of the <em>motive</em> for Adam and Eve's sin. It seems a quite imaginable exercise of the freedom of choice and behaviour which God had given them. There is no hint that 'Satan made them do it', or that they were 'possessed' by some sinful spirit. They did just what we so often do- misused, wrongly exercised, their freewill and desired that which was inappropriate. Simple as that. There's no need to bring in an external Satan figure to explain what happened. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>She took of its fruit, and ate; and she gave some to her husband with her, and he ate</em>- The focus of the camera is zoomed in close up upon the couple and their eating. This sin is that of every man. In this sense, we all sinned "in Adam" (<em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em> Gk.) and therefore "in Adam all die" (<em><a href='B:530 15:22'>1Co 15:22</a></em>). We are not unjustly suffering; for each of our sins was a result of succumbing to the same essential temptations as Adam did. Even if we didn’t sin "after the similitude" of Adam's sin, we have done so in essence (<em><a href='B:520 5:14'>Rom 5:14</a></em>). We would have done the same if we were there; as our own history of sin and weakness makes clear. Eve was deceived; but Adam was not deceived (<em><a href='B:610 2:14'>1Ti 2:14</a></em>); yet they both suffered punishment. This opens a window onto the question of whether people are innocent before God if they sin as a result of having been deceived. Sin is sin, and therefore sins of ignorance had to be repented of and atoned for under the Mosaic law. Adam put up no resistance; he didn’t remind Eve of the law. Eve believed the lies of the serpent; Adam just "did it". Both received appropriate judgment. Adam may have reasoned that Eve had eaten the fruit and not died; therefore God’s word was not sure. In this case, he would have failed to give due weight and detailed reflection to God’s word; for the death penalty was to be in the day they ate of it. Perhaps his conception of days was limited, if this happened on the first day of the new world.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The beast systems, as Babylon and Assyria before them, were false Kingdoms of God. The beast has the power to give <em>pneuma</em> to the image / body of the first beast (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:13:15'>Rev 13:15</a></em>)- an evident mimicry of God’s creation of Adam. They appear to offer, here and now, the things of the Kingdom, and the fleshly-minded are persuaded by them. This is all playing out the drama of Eden again; the serpent offered equality with God, the wisdom of God, when it was actually the wisdom of the serpent. Adam and Eve grasped for what was offered, unlike the Lord Jesus, who refused to grasp at equality with God (Philippians 2 is full of allusion to the events of Genesis 3). What happened in Eden is in essence the epitome, the prototype of all temptation and sin (<em><a href='B:690 2:16'>1Jn 2:16</a></em> = <em><a href='B:10 3:6'>Gen 3:6</a></em>). Every one of our temptations has an element of this; we are tempted to grasp for&nbsp; what looks like the Kingdom here and now. Pentecostals are an evident example of this; they think they can obtain the full healing and physical ecstasy of the future Kingdom here and now. And on a more common level, there are many of us who reach out for the supposed fulfilment of hobbies, the supposed peace and 'security' of a nice home and bank balance, when these things are actually a false fulfilment, peace and security, the peace and security of Satan's Kingdom which is a counterfeit of the spiritual fulfilment, peace and security of Christ's Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked. They sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves loincloths</em>- Adam and Eve were “made naked” in the sense that they now realized their nakedness. The idea is alluded to in <em><a href='B:20 32:25'>Exo 32:25</a></em> and <em><a href='B:400 1:11'>Mic 1:11</a></em>, where we read that Israel were “made naked to their shame” by their idolatry. Again we see Adam’s sin as being presented as Israel’s sin; the punishment of being cast out of the <em>eretz</em> precisely matches that of Israel, who were cast out from the same geographical area. <em><a href='B:290 32:11'>Isa 32:11</a></em> also alludes here- Judah are as a naked woman revealed as naked, who makes a loincloth for herself in shame. The fig being a symbol of Israel, we have here the hint that the religion of Israel alone could not cover sin; the blood of the lamb provided by God was needed. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Nakedness being revealed is a figure of judgment (<em><a href='B:330 16:36-37'>Eze 16:36-37</a></em>). And yet we can pass beyond condemnation, through accepting the Divinely provided covering. The images here are used elsewhere of how nakedness can now be covered even in this life; <em><a href='B:20 20:26'>Exo 20:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 28:42'>Exo 28:42</a></em> has the priests covering their nakedness, <em><a href='B:330 16:8'>Eze 16:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 2:9'>Hos 2:9</a></em> speak of God covering Israel's nakedness; and we can now cover our nakedness and be unashamed before God (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:3:18'>Rev 3:18</a></em>). The idea seems to be that in this life, we can be covered in Christ and therefore be unashamed before God; but ultimately we shall return to the situation in Eden, naked before God and unashamed. We will really believe that our sin is no longer a barrier between God and man; we can be ourselves, unashamedly so. And in Christ we&nbsp; know something of that even in this life. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They heard the voice of Yahweh God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of Yahweh God among the trees of the garden- </em>For <em>Presence,</em> see on <em><a href='B:290 63:9'>Isa 63:9</a></em>. Strictly, "the face". The idea is surely that they spoke with God face to face before the fall. Revelation concludes the Bible with the promise that we shall (again) see Him face to face when Eden is restored on earth. The cool or evening of the day could well mean that this was the first day of their lives. If the fall happened soon after creation, this would explain why there was no fruit on the tree of life, which according to Revelation bore its fruit every month; and also why Adam and Eve had not yet gone forth and multiplied. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that God’s presence or face is parallel with His voice. This continues a theme of the narrative; creation was by a word, and God’s face is manifest in His word. It is before this that man experiences shame at his disobedience. This is not to elevate Bible study to the point of justification by intellectual prowess. But in our age, God’s word and voice is in the Bible, as articulated through the word made flesh, His Son.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The frequent statements that God will hide Himself from Israel as a result of their condemnation (<em><a href='B:50 31:17-18'>Deu 31:17-18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:20'>Deu 32:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 1:15'>Isa 1:15</a></em> etc.) must be balanced against the fact that in reality, it is sinful man who hides himself from God (<em><a href='B:290 29:15'>Isa 29:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 23:24'>Jer 23:24</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:6:16'>Rev 6:16</a></em>). And here in Eden, in wrath God remembered mercy. He didn’t hide Himself; instead He went out to encounter those who had hid themselves from Him. David complained that God was hiding His face from him (<em><a href='B:230 13:1'>Psa 13:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 27:9'>Psa 27:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 30:7'>Psa 30:7</a></em> etc.), which suggests that there is an element to which God’s face is not now generally hidden from those who live the spiritual life before Him. He hides His face from our sins (<em><a href='B:230 51:9'>Psa 51:9</a></em>) if we are justified / counted right in His presence by faith. Part of the new covenant we have entered is that God will not hide His face from us <em>because</em> He has poured out His Spirit upon us (<em><a href='B:330 39:29'>Eze 39:29</a></em>). The effects of the fall are being gradually undone in the lives of the believer, through the work of the Spirit. As God walked in the garden of Eden (<em><a href='B:10 3:8'>Gen 3:8</a></em>), so He would walk in the midst of the camp of Israel in the wilderness (<em><a href='B:50 23:15'>Deu 23:15</a></em>). Again we see the effects of Adam's personal fall being undone in the experience of God’s faithful people, even in this life.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are many allusions to Adam in the book of Job- Zophar in chapters 11 and 20 accuses Job of being as Adam, and Job denies this by way of allusion and specifically at <em><a href='B:220 31:33'>Job 31:33</a></em>. But then the whirlwind comes, and God speaks out of it to convict Job that he is indeed as Adam. The translation of <em>ruach hayom</em> in <em><a href='B:10 3:8-11'>Gen 3:8-11</a></em> as God walking “in the wind of the day” totally misses the point- the idea is of a theophany of <em>ruach</em>, Spirit wind, and Adam trying to hide and shelter among the trees from the blast of the wind. And out of that wind, God speaks and convicts him of his sin. This is what happened to Job as the wind approaches throughout Elihu’s speeches, and then he is called to account and recognition that he is as Adam. The description of Behemoth in <em><a href='B:220 40:15'>Job 40:15</a></em> is relevant, for this is the term used for the “cattle” above which the serpent was cursed (<em><a href='B:10 3:14'>Gen 3:14</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But Yahweh God called to the man, and said to him, Where are you?</em>- This and the questions in <em><a href='B:10 3:11'>Gen 3:11</a></em> and <em><a href='B:10 4:9'>Gen 4:9</a></em> are obviously rhetorical; God knew the answers, but was seeking to elicit something from the couple through His questions. And that "something" was repentance; and it could be that we are invited to judge to what extent their repentance was complete. What score would we give them out of ten? What God wanted them to ask themselves was "What have I done?". But He asks Adam "<em>Where</em> are you?". We too need to stop and let ourselves be asked this question in the midst of life. For where we are is effectively who we are, and a function of what we have done. This is why the Hebrew word translated "where" is also rendered "how"- e.g. "<em>How</em> shall I pardon you for this?" (<em><a href='B:300 5:7'>Jer 5:7</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The gathering is both then and now; our gathering into the net, our first response to the Gospel, is a gathering unto judgment. The Hebrew idea of 'calling' very often implies a calling to give account- e.g. God calling Adam to account (<em><a href='B:10 3:9'>Gen 3:9</a></em>), Pharaoh calling Abram to account (<em><a href='B:10 12:18'>Gen 12:18</a></em>), and Abimelech likewise (<em><a href='B:10 20:9'>Gen 20:9</a></em> - other examples in <em><a href='B:10 26:9-10'>Gen 26:9-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 25:8'>Deu 25:8</a></em>). Our calling to the Kingdom is effectively also a calling to give account. The point is, we must act now as men and women will do so on their way to judgment and the meeting with their ultimate destiny. Then we will not be bickering amongst ourselves or worrying about our worldly advantage; then, only one thing will matter. And so now, only one thing matters. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The man said, I heard your voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself</em>- The rejected one talent man says ‘I was afraid, and so I hid <em>my talent</em>’. Adam said: ‘I was afraid, and I hid <em>myself</em>’. The talent God gave that man was therefore himself, his real self. To not use our talent, to not blossom from the experience of God’s love and grace, is to not use ourselves, is to not be ourselves, the <em>real</em> self as God intended. Adam's fear and sense of shame is presented as being because of hearing God’s voice, rather than simply at the physical presence of God. Again we see the supreme status of God’s word. But like us so often, Adam laments and admits the consequence of his sin, rather than immediately confessing. In all this we see the frequent pattern of all sin and the slow, Divinely guided struggle towards repentance.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Assyrians led Israel away into captivity (s.w. to make naked), "they discovered her nakedness" (<em><a href='B:330 23:10'>Eze 23:10</a></em>), and yet in their sin Israel made themselves naked (<em><a href='B:140 28:19'>2Ch 28:19</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:20 32:25'>Exo 32:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 3:10'>Gen 3:10</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>So many commentators have noted that Genesis 1-3 is one of the most misused and misunderstood sections of the whole Bible. But why? They give no significant explanation. I'd suggest it's because humanity (and that includes theologians and formulators of church doctrine) squirms awkwardly under the glaring beam of the simple record of human guilt. And therefore the serpent has been turned into a superhuman being that gets all the blame; and human sin has been minimized, at the expense of the plain meaning of the text. The whole structure of the Biblical narrative is concerned with the guilt and sin of the man and the woman; the snake isn't where the focus is. Von Rad, in one of the 20th century's most seminal commentaries on Genesis, understood this clearly: "In the narrator's mind, (the serpent) is scarcely an embodiment of a 'demonic' power and certainly not of Satan... the mention of the snake is almost secondary; in the 'temptation' by it the concern is with a completely unmythical process, presented in such a way because the narrator is obviously anxious to shift the problem as little as possible from man" (Gerhard von Rad, <em>Genesis</em> (London: S.C.M., 1966) p. 85). The record keeps using personal pronouns to lay the blame squarely with Adam: "<em>I </em>heard... <em>I</em> was afraid... <em>I</em> was naked; <em>I</em> hid... <em>I</em> ate... <em>I</em> ate" (<em><a href='B:10 3:10-13'>Gen 3:10-13</a></em>; and compare Jonah's similar confession of sin in <em><a href='B:390 4:1-3'>Jon 4:1-3</a></em> - Jonah appears to allude to Adam here). Nobody reading the Genesis record with an open mind would surely see anything else but the blame being placed on humanity; as I have repeatedly stressed, the words 'Satan', 'Lucifer' and the idea of the serpent as a fallen Angel are simply not there in Genesis. They have to be 'read in' from presuppositions, which ultimately have their root in pagan myths. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said, Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?</em>- As noted on :9, these rhetorical questions were not for God’s benefit. They were designed to elicit fuller repentance from Adam. It was not the serpent who had told Adam that he was naked. It was Adam's own conscience, enlivened by the forbidden fruit. And so the loving Father's question pierced right through to Adam's conscience and innermost being. He works according to the same pattern in our lives too, arranging situations which elicit such questions and realizations within us. The required answer to the second question was obviously "Yes, and I am very sorry". We are surely being invited to grade the extent of Adam's repentance, in order to more quickly, openly, transparently and fully accept our own failures, and repent as required.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The man said, The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate</em>- See on <em><a href='B:10 2:17'>Gen 2:17</a></em>. As noted on :11, the man did not immediately come to total repentance. He states mitigating factors first, with the implication that God was somehow responsible for his sin because He had given Eve to Adam- and she had led him astray. We are left to conclude that we cannot blame sin on situation, nor on others. Ultimately, there is no situational ethic. We stand responsible for our sins before God, and we need to simply accept that. God makes no comment upon Adam's words; exactly because we are invited by the narrative to assess them. The Lord alludes to Adam's words in <em><a href='B:500 17:11'>Joh 17:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:24'>Joh 17:24</a></em>, where He describes His bride likewise as those whom God gave Him- but He died for her, the very opposite of what Adam did, allowing her to lead him to death.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh God said to the woman, What is this you have done?- </em>The question is broad, rather than a specific questioning as to whether the woman had eaten the fruit. What she had "done" was not only to eat the fruit, but to give it to Adam. But she at this stage doesn't respond to that aspect of the question; she wishes to blame everything on the serpent. Her repentance, as it stands at this point, is evidently incomplete; the narrative encourages us to imagine her later reflections and fuller repentance.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The woman said, The serpent deceived me, and I ate</em>- As noted on :12, we are invited to assess the level of repentance here. Like Adam, the woman blames her sin on mitigating factors, rather than simply accepting it and repenting. We are left to assume they repented more fully in due course; the question is left open ended in order to elicit our own reflections and introspection about the nature and extent of our own repentance. For their sin is that of every man and woman. Paul in <em><a href='B:520 7:11'>Rom 7:11</a></em> speaking of how sin “deceived me… slew me” is alluding here: “The serpent deceived me, and I ate”. In Romans chapter 5 (and see on <em><a href='B:520 3:23'>Rom 3:23</a></em>), Paul has repeatedly taught that Adam is everyman. And now he includes himself in this, by applying the language of the failure in Eden to himself. Likewise his finding the commandment ordained to life becoming the means of death (<em><a href='B:520 7:10'>Rom 7:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 7:13'>Rom 7:13</a></em>) may reference <em><a href='B:10 2:16-17'>Gen 2:16-17</a></em>. Yet whilst Adam is indeed everyman to Paul, Adam was perceived as Israel in much Rabbinic writing; and Paul saw himself as the personification and epitome of Israel (see on <em><a href='B:520 7:9-10'>Rom 7:9-10</a></em>). The Greek translated “deceived” really means to seduce. How did sin seduce Paul through or by means of the Law of Moses? Surely in the sense that Paul fell for the temptation to justify himself by means of obedience to that Law. The false prophets of Judaism deceived the people as the serpent did to Eve (s.w. <em><a href='B:300 29:8'>Jer 29:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 37:9'>Jer 37:9</a></em>). But because he didn’t keep the Law perfectly, he was therefore condemned to death, and in a sense, received the sentence- and in that sense sin by means of the Law “slew” Paul. The only other time the word for ‘deceived / seduced’ occurs in Romans is in the practical section, which in this case again alludes to this doctrinal section: “(the Judaizers) by fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple”, as the serpent deceived Eve (<em><a href='B:540 11:3'>2Co 11:3</a></em> s.w.). Just as Paul deceived himself, fell to the seductive idea that we can be justified by works of obedience to the Law, so the Judaizers were teaching the same. By so doing, they were sin personified- they were doing the work of “sin”- using the attraction of obedience to a legal code to seduce believers into a position where they were in fact going to be condemned to death- because under that sphere, there can be no justification, no declaring right, for those who have in even one sense infringed Divine law. It’s all a complicated yet powerful way of saying that we simply must not and cannot be in the sphere of relying upon works; which means we have to just accept the gift of salvation by grace, much as all within us cries out against it.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul's autobiographical passage in Romans 7, where he describes his sinfulness and the results of it, is actually expressed in terms of Adam's fall in Eden. So many phrases which he uses are lifted out of the LXX of Genesis 3. The evident examples are: "I would never have known what it is to covet, if the Law had not said, You must not covet (cp. Eve coveting the fruit)... when the command came... sin (cp. the serpent) beguiled me... to kill me... sin resulted in death for me by making use of this good thing... who will rescue me now from the body of death?". Adam is presented to us as 'every man'; and so Paul applies this to himself, and yet through the allusion to 'every man' in Adam, he sets himself up also as our example.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:540 11:2'>2Co 11:2</a></em> shows Paul likening Corinth ecclesia to the guileless Eve in Eden, not yet having sinned, all innocence and uncorrupted beauty. And yet he saw himself as the Eve who had been deceived and punished by death (<em><a href='B:520 7:11'>Rom 7:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 7:13'>Rom 7:13</a></em> = <em><a href='B:10 2:17'>Gen 2:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 3:13'>Gen 3:13</a></em>); but he saw them as the Eve who had not yet sinned. This was no literary trick of the tail; he genuinely felt and saw them as better than himself to be- such was the depth of his appreciation of his own failures. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew for "serpent" can suggest 'a whisperer'. It was the whisper of suggestion which was the deceit; and such whispering, within our minds, is the basis for our own temptations. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh God said to the serpent, Because you have done this, you are cursed above all livestock, and above every animal of the field. On your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life</em>- There were no rhetorical questions to the serpent, because God was not seeking to lead the serpent to repentance; it was an amoral creature. The Hebrew <em>min </em>translated "above" is also translated "among"; the radical idea is "a part of... out of". The same word is found in <em><a href='B:20 9:20'>Exo 9:20</a></em>: "He that feared Yahweh <em>among </em>the servants of Pharaoh"; <em><a href='B:20 28:1'>Exo 28:1</a></em> "Take Aaron and his sons... from <em>among</em> the children of Israel"; <em><a href='B:30 19:8'>Lev 19:8</a></em>:"That person shall be cut off from <em>among</em> his people". Both context and the meaning of the word surely require that the serpent was one of, amongst, the livestock and animals of the field- it was an animal. Snakes today can hardly be described as "livestock"- suggesting that the serpent was not a snake as we now know the species. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It's tempting to think that there must be a connection between the serpent and snakes we see today. But snakes do not eat dust; and in any case, there are many varieties of snake. Yet Genesis 3 speaks of a specific creature. My suggestion therefore is that the serpent was a literal animal, on legs, which could speak, or was given the power of speech, like Balaam's donkey. Its punishment was to crawl on its belly and eat dust. It's hard to describe snakes as 'crawling', which implies legs or paws; and they don't eat dust. The serpent was part of the environment required to bring about the testing of Adam and Eve. But its punishment was to crawl and eat dust- and then, this creature died and is now extinct. That is why we continue to read of the man and woman in the record, but nothing more is said about the creature known as the serpent. It died and was never any more, foretelling how the final conflict with the serpent's "seed" or spiritual descendant would likewise end in total and permanent destruction. In the description of Eden restored in Isaiah 65, we encounter the cryptic comment: "And dust shall be the serpent's food" (<em><a href='B:290 65:25'>Isa 65:25</a></em>), as if to say that although Eden will be restored, the judgment upon the serpent was permanent, and there will be no serpent in the restored Eden. It did not reproduce, in contrast to the curse on the woman, which allowed for reproduction. The comment that he was to eat dust "all the days of your life" could suggest that this creature would eat dust and then die- and never reproduce. The "seed" of the serpent refers to those having the characteristics of the historical serpent. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Php_3:19</em> has a number of allusions to the serpent, the conflict predicted in <em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em> and the fall of Adam in Eden: “<em>Enemies</em> (cp. ‘enmity’) of the cross of Christ. Their end is <em>destruction</em>, their god is the <em>belly </em>(s.w. <em><a href='B:10 3:14'>Gen 3:14</a></em> LXX), they glory in their <em>shame</em>”. The context speaks of the Judaizers- they are presented, by way of allusion, as the serpent.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will put enmity</em> <em>between you and the woman</em>- In contrast to the friendship between Eve and the serpent. I have argued that whilst the serpent in Eden was a literal serpent, it represents the conflict within the<em> eretz</em> between God’s people and sin / temptation / idol worship etc. <em><a href='B:330 25:15'>Eze 25:15</a></em> and <em><a href='B:330 35:5'>Eze 35:5</a></em> use the same word to speak of "the old enmity" between Israel and the other inhabitants of the land. This old enmity continues to this day. The 'oldness' of it refers surely to the enmity in Eden, between the serpent and the children of God.&nbsp;In the first instance, we can imagine some undefined particular conflict between the serpent and Eve. Perhaps she particularly hated the creature, and fought with it until she killed it by a blow to the head, after it had initially wounded her heal. This scenario would be absolutely psychologically likely; and the serpent would likewise have hated Eve. In the bigger picture, Eve's conflict with the serpent speaks of the struggle unto death between her great descendant, the Lord Jesus, and all the things represented by the serpent- the temptations, sins, wicked persons, deceivers who have all the family likeness of that creature. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em> prophesies that God <em>will </em>put hostility between the serpent and the woman. This is not what we would expect to hear if this were indeed speaking of a pre-existent Christ and Satan. According to the orthodox understanding, the enmity between them occurred in Heaven <em>before</em> Satan supposedly came down to earth. Notice, too, that according to the Biblical record in <em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em> it is God who created this hostility, whereas the common view implies it was Satan's hatred of God which was the original enmity. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And between your offspring and her offspring</em>- Most usages of <em>zera</em>, “offspring” or “seed”, when referring to a singular individual, refer to an immediate offspring rather than to some far off descendant. Perhaps the promise of salvation could have potentially been fulfilled in a son of Eve, but this didn’t happen, the required conditions weren’t met (whatever they were), and so the fulfilment of the promise was deferred until the Lord Jesus. This kind of promise and then deferment and reapplication of fulfilment is common in the Bible’s prophecies. In Hebrew thought, to be "a son of" something or someone means to be identified with that entity, and to have its characteristics. If indeed the offspring of the woman is the Lord Jesus, we are surely to read Eve ultimately in a positive light; despite her sin and the slowness we have noted in her repentance. That initial inadequacy in repentance was presumably replaced by not only full repentance, but also a spiritually minded desire to put right the damage she had done; not least by perhaps literally fighting the serpent unto its death. It was this characteristic which was seen so fully in the Lord Jesus. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He will bruise your head, and you will bruise his heel</em>- There's something of a wager here. Either the man kills the snake by hitting it on the head, or the snake will bite the man’s heel. He has to kill it outright, first time. See article "David and Goliath" in 1 Samuel 17. <em><a href='B:520 16:20'>Rom 16:20</a></em> implies that all Christian believers have a part in this victory bruise over the serpent, in finality at the last day. In the Lord's death, we see Judaism as the "generation of vipers" (<em><a href='B:470 23:33'>Mat 23:33</a></em>), and the Lord as the offspring of the woman overcoming them and their particular manifestation of the serpent. "His heel" and not "their heel" suggests that the offspring of the woman refers to a singular individual, the Lord Jesus. It refers to all believers insofar as they are in Him.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord was beaten up at least three times: by the Jewish guards, by Herod's men and by the Roman soldiers. In a literal sense He was bruised for our iniquities, and chastised for us to obtain the peace of sin forgiven (<em><a href='B:290 53:5'>Isa 53:5</a></em>). And the Father surely foresaw all this back in <em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em>, where the promised seed was to be <em>bruised</em>. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We have so often over-reacted against others’ error to the extent that we ourselves almost fall into error. A classic example of this is in our perception of Mary. We all tend to be children, and therefore victims, of reaction. Our recoil so often blinds us to some aspects of value in the things we reject. Over reaction against Roman Catholic abuses can lead us to almost overlook the woman who was and is to be blessed and honoured above all women; the woman whose genes and parenting contributed to the sinless Son of God. <em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em>, the classic prophecy of the birth of Jesus, is actually a specific prophecy of Mary <em>the</em> woman who would give birth to the Lord. It was not to be merely " <em>a</em> woman" &nbsp; but the seed of a specific woman, the Hebrew implies- &nbsp;<em>the</em> woman, i.e. Mary. Her spiritual perception is really something to be marvelled at, bearing in mind it was developed and articulated in a teenager who was likely illiterate. All this said, Elisabeth Fiorenza sums up the other side of the reality of Mary: “The (correct image of the) young woman and teenage mother Miriam of Nazareth, probably not more than twelve or thirteen years old, pregnant, frightened and single… can subvert the tales of mariological fantasy and cultural femininity. In the center of the Christian story stands not the lovely ‘white lady’ of artistic and popular imagination, kneeling in adoration before her son. Rather it is the young pregnant woman living in occupied territory and struggling against victimization and for survival and dignity. It is she who holds out the offer of untold possibilities for… christology and theology” (Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, <em>Jesus- Miriam’s Child, Sophia’s Prophet: Critical Issues In Feminist Theology</em> (New York: Continuum, 1994) p. 187).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The mutual antagonism between the two groups of travellers in Proverbs is rooted in the opposition between snake and woman in <em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em>: "He that is upright in the way is abomination to the wicked" (<em><a href='B:240 29:27'>Pro 29:27</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em> clearly prophesies the hope of redemption from human sin, through the descendant of the woman (the Lord Jesus Christ). The pagan myths had no such concept of salvation from sin. Sin against the gods could hasten death and obedience to them could prolong life, but there was no hope of real forgiveness of sin. And therefore there was no hope of eternity in a promised land such as was preached to Abraham in later sections of Genesis and which was developed as a golden thread throughout the entire Bible, namely the good news of the future Kingdom of God on earth. Even a superman like Gilgamesh had to face the day of death, “the unsparing death”. The hope of the resurrection of the human body implied in the promises to the Jewish patriarchs in Genesis and made explicit in later Scripture was simply unknown in the pagan myths. It should be noted too that obedience to Yahweh wasn’t seen as always, in every case, extending mortal life now; because from Genesis onwards, the Bible presents the perspective of God’s future, eternal Kingdom as the time for reward and immortality. There are times when God takes away the righteous from the evil of this life (<em><a href='B:290 57:1'>Isa 57:1</a></em> - probably alluding to what God did to Joash, <em><a href='B:120 22:20'>2Ki 22:20</a></em> cp. 23:29). There are other Biblical instances where the wicked have long life and prosperity in this world. This is because the Bible presents the ultimate judgment and reward of human life and faith as being at the last day, and not right now. In Gilgamesh and the pagan myths, only some of the gods had hope of resurrection, e.g. Marduk (as mentioned in the Enuma Elish, Tablet 6:153,154). But humans certainly didn’t. The implication of resurrection in the promises to Abraham, and the specific statements about it in the later Old Testament (e.g. <em><a href='B:220 19:25-27'>Job 19:25-27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 12:2'>Dan 12:2</a></em>), thereby reflects a colossal value and importance attached by God to the human person. What the pagan myths reserved only for a few gods, Yahweh offers to every human being who believes in His promises. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It's noteworthy that the prophecy of Christ's crucifixion in <em><a href='B:290 53:10'>Isa 53:10</a></em> underlines that it was <em>God</em> who 'bruised' Christ there. <em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em> says it was the seed of the serpent who bruised Christ. Conclusion: God worked through the seed of the serpent, God was (and is) totally in control. The serpent is therefore not a symbol of radical, free flying evil which is somehow outside of God’s control, and which 'bruised' God’s Son whilst God was powerless to stop His Son being bruised. Not at all. God was in control, even of the seed of the serpent. However we finally wish to interpret "the seed of the serpent", the simple fact is that God was in powerful control of it / him. Walter Brueggemann summarizes the situation: “The Old Testament itself offers none of the material through which Satan emerges as the popular figure of tempter and devil. The propensity of Christians to reach such a role in Genesis 3 is to project backward into the text from later texts” (Walter Brueggemann, <em>Reverberations of Faith: A Theological Handbook of Old Testament Themes</em> (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), p. 188). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To the woman He said, I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you will bear children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you</em>- All judgment is appropriate to the sin which it is a response to. Perhaps Eve ought to have concentrated upon obeying the commandment to multiply, and she could have done so before the fall without pain. She likewise ought to have had more desire to support Adam in his mission and work in God’s garden; but instead she desired the serpent's rulership rather than her husband's. And so she was punished by losing the psychological independence which she had previously had. Childbirth had been possible before the fall; that was not the punishment. It was pain therein which was the punishment. Her husband was to have ruled over her in that she was designed to support him in her work; but now she was to have a desire towards him which would effectively rob her of the independence she had once enjoyed and abused. "Desire" is literally a reaching out towards; instead of putting forth her hand to reach out to the forbidden fruit, she would instead reach out towards getting a husband, which would result in him ruling over her. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The same Hebrew words for "desire" and "rule" occur in <em><a href='B:10 4:16'>Gen 4:16</a></em>: "And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him" (AV). The referent in the context is unclear; it could be sin, or it could refer to Abel, whom Cain was jealous of. But the idea is that whatever or whoever we desire ends up effectively ruling over us. Whatever is desired comes to dominate the desirer. This is not therefore a command for men to rule over their wives; rather is it an observation on the nature of things, stating that by reason of having a desire for a man, the woman thereby allows the man to ruler over her. And this is part of the curse.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To Adam He said, Because you have listened to your wife’s voice</em>- Maybe the emphasis is on "your wife's voice", rather than God’s voice. Romans 5 describes Adam's failure in a number of parallel ways: "transgression ...sin ...offence ...<em>disobedience"</em> (<em><a href='B:520 5:19'>Rom 5:19</a></em>). "Disobedience" translates a Greek word which is uncommon. Strong defines it as meaning 'inattention', coming from a root meaning 'to mishear'. It is the same word translated "neglect to hear" in <em><a href='B:470 18:17'>Mat 18:17</a></em>. Adam's sin, his transgression, his offence was therefore not eating the fruit in itself; it was disobedience, neglecting to hear. That this neglecting to hear God’s word seriously was at the root of his sin is perhaps reflected in God’s judgment on him.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And have eaten of the tree, of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’</em>- There is so often a connection between sin and its punishment. The sin of eating (3:6,12) called forth a judgment which five times uses the word ‘to eat’ in 3:17-19. Clearly judgment is appropriate to the nature of the sin; the judgment is often to actually do the forbidden action. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Cursed is the ground for your sake</em>- The same words are used about the cursing of the ground of <em>eretz</em> Israel because of Israel’s disobedience, with associated cursing of the animal creation there (<em><a href='B:50 28:18'>Deu 28:18</a></em>). This yet again confirms that the <em>eretz</em> in view is that of Israel rather than the whole planet. So we are not to imagine the Angels as it were smashing up the whole planet because Adam sinned. Rather, the paradise in Eden, the <em>eretz</em> whose preparation was described in Genesis 1, was again overrun by the vegetation and beasts of the surrounding world; just as happened in a moral sense when God’s people went into captivity. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The classical view of the fall supposes that as Eve's teeth sunk into the fruit, the first sin was committed, and soon afterwards Adam followed suite, resulting in the curse falling upon humanity. But was the eating of the fruit in fact the first sin? If it was, then Eve sinned first. Straight away, the Bible-minded believer comes up with a problem: the New Testament unmistakably highlights Adam as the first sinner; by <em>his</em> transgression sin entered the world (<em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em>). So sin was not in the world before <em>his</em> transgression. The ground was cursed for the sake of <em>Adam's</em> sin (<em><a href='B:10 3:17'>Gen 3:17</a></em>). This all suggests that Eve wasn't the first sinner. The fact Eve was deceived into sinning doesn't mean she didn’t sin (<em><a href='B:610 2:14'>1Ti 2:14</a></em>). She was punished for her sin; and in any case, ignorance doesn't mean that sin doesn't count as sin (consider the need for offerings of ignorance under the Law). So, Eve sinned; but Adam was the first sinner, before <em>his</em> sin, sin had not entered the world. We must also remember that Eve was deceived by the serpent, and on account of this was "(implicated / involved) in the transgression" (<em><a href='B:610 2:14'>1Ti 2:14</a></em>). "The transgression" . Which transgression? Surely Adam's (<em><a href='B:520 5:14'>Rom 5:14</a></em>); by listening to the snake she became implicated in Adam's sin. The implication is that "the transgression" was already there for her to become implicated in it by listening to the serpent. This is the very opposite to the idea of <em>Adam&nbsp; </em>being implicated in <em>Eve's</em> sin.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The record of Adam's sin and the resulting curse can seem simplistic; the punishment seems to far outweigh the crime, the colossal penalty appears out of proportion to the sin. And yet in that apparent lack of proportion is the very essence of the message- that sin, any sin, is really that serious. There can never again in our understanding be any such thing as a little sin, a breaking of God’s law which is inconsequential. The more we reflect upon the deceptively simple record of Adam's sin, the more we perceive how Adam's choice is that of everyman in every sin; it was a choice between a total "yes" or a total "no" to God. The desire was to know "good and evil"; and this term is used as an idiom for "everything" (<em><a href='B:10 24:50'>Gen 24:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 14:17'>2Sa 14:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 14:20'>2Sa 14:20</a></em>), the whole area in between good and evil is in this sense "everything" (cp. <em><a href='B:10 31:24'>Gen 31:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 13:22'>2Sa 13:22</a></em>). Adam and Eve were attracted by the possibility of experiencing everything, of having the total knowledge, the omniscience, which is with God alone. Their failure was more than simply eating a fruit; it involved rebellion and pride, a desire to be equal with God. It was <em>human</em> pride which clearly lead to the greatest fall imaginable; it was <em>man</em> who wanted to rise up to be like God. To fantasize about <em>Satan's</em> pride and fall is to tragically miss the entire point of the narrative. It seems that human religions have struggled by any means to wriggle out of the simple message- that human sin brought about the fall.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>&nbsp;In toil you will eat of it all the days of your life- </em>God had stated that Adam would surely die in <em>the day</em> he ate the fruit. He is made to suffer consequences for his sin, but God forgave him and did not slay him that day. He was told he must till the ground “all the <em>days</em>” (plural) of his life (<em><a href='B:10 3:17'>Gen 3:17</a></em>)- reflecting how in wrath God remembered mercy and gave Adam many more days.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It will yield thorns and thistles to you</em>- The terms occur together only in <em><a href='B:350 10:8'>Hos 10:8</a></em>, speaking of judgment to come upon <em>eretz</em> Israel. <em><a href='B:290 32:13'>Isa 32:13</a></em> speaks of thorns and briers coming upon the <em>eretz</em> of Israel. Again I suggest we are to see this curse as a de-creation of the paradise prepared within <em>eretz</em> Israel, rather than a global, blanket statement about changed conditions throughout the planet. As thorns and thistles came up in the land (and those plants are unknown in some parts of the planet), so they did again when Israel were driven from their land (<em><a href='B:10 3:18'>Gen 3:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 10:8'>Hos 10:8</a></em>). As Adam was punished by returning to dust, so Israel would be destroyed by dust (<em><a href='B:50 28:24'>Deu 28:24</a></em>). The judgments on the <em>eretz</em> are therefore appropriate to <em>Israel</em> and do not, I suggest, generally describe things on a global scale. Literal thorns and thistles only afflict parts of the planet- they are appropriate to the land promised to Abraham but not to the tundra or the Polar regions. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:240 24:30-31'>Pro 24:30-31</a></em> envisage a field overgrown with thorns and thistles as a result of a man's lack of wisdom and hard work. The way of wisdom is to accept the parameters within which we must now live; <em><a href='B:600 3:10'>2Th 3:10</a></em> seems to argue that those who deny these parameters, not working yet expecting to eat, are not to be assisted. We are to work by wisdom to live as far as we can beyond the curse rather than glorifying it. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And you will eat the plants of the field- </em>The command had been to "eat, eat!" of all the trees of the garden. Adam and Eve had presumably not been obedient to this, and therefore were attracted to the forbidden fruit. As noted on :17, the judgment was appropriate to the sin being judged, in this case, the sin of omission in not eating all the fruits of the trees. Now, they were to have to eat the fruit of the earth, in order to survive. Instead of eating the fruits of the trees within Eden, they were to eat the plants of "the field", the area outside Eden. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>By the sweat of your face will you eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For you are dust, and to dust you shall return</em>- The picture is of a man sweating even as he eats his food. The command to cultivate the earth is therefore an invitation to working on ourselves to bring forth fruit. The simple truths taught here are resisted by almost every culture and religion; there is always the idea of conscious survival of death, and that somehow we are more than dust. It's possible to argue that many aspects of the judgments were specifically relevant to Adam and not necessarily to his posterity; for unlike Adam, we are not taken out of the earth at our conception or birth, we are not built from literal dust. And not all men work in agriculture for a living. And some "eat bread" without labouring for it (<em><a href='B:600 3:10'>2Th 3:10</a></em> alludes here), and many do not go on working their fields literally right up to their deaths, as implied here.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew for "ground" is also translated "land". The idea of returning to the land is therefore laced with hope; the same words are used in <em><a href='B:10 28:15'>Gen 28:15</a></em> of Jacob returning to the land promised to Abraham. Likewise of "returning to the land You gave to their fathers" (<em><a href='B:110 8:34'>1Ki 8:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 16:15'>Jer 16:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 42:12'>Jer 42:12</a></em>). It was to therefore be through death and resurrection that we can return to the ultimate land. In wrath He remembers mercy; throughout these judgments there is laced the hope and language of redemption. And in any situation we too are called to discipline others, there must be this same hope and working towards redemption.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The punishment of death which is introduced in early Genesis was created and executed by the same one God who also created the world and the opportunity of eternal life. Gilgamesh and the pagan myths presented whole groups of gods as responsible for and presiding over death and the underworld, and another, separate, pantheon of gods as involved in creation. The Biblical emphasis upon one God is significant and unusual; it is Yahweh who sends man back to the dust from which He created him, and the same Yahweh who is in total control of <em>sheol</em> (the grave or underworld), and in a sense even present there (<em><a href='B:50 32:22'>Deu 32:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 26:6'>Job 26:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 139:7-8'>Psa 139:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 15:11'>Pro 15:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 9:2'>Amo 9:2</a></em>). The state of the dead is defined in Genesis as a return to dust, and later Scripture emphasizes that this means unconsciousness, for the righteous merely a sleep in hope of bodily resurrection. This was radically different to the ideas espoused by the peoples amongst whom Israel travelled and lived. The dead dwell in silence (<em><a href='B:230 94:17'>Psa 94:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 115:17'>Psa 115:17</a></em>) having returned to dust, and as such don’t become disembodied spirit beings which were later understood as ‘demons’. The whole concept of demons was in this sense not allowed to even develop in the minds of God’s people by the definitions of death which Moses presented in the Pentateuch.&nbsp; The utter supremacy of God is taught in the Genesis record in a way it never is in any of the other myths.&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses speaks of how God says to each dying man "Return, you children of men" (<em><a href='B:230 90:3'>Psa 90:3</a></em>)- as if Moses understood to speak the words of <em><a href='B:10 3:19'>Gen 3:19</a></em> to every man who dies. Likewise the Lord spoke as if the Jews of His day ought to be&nbsp;<em>hearing</em> Moses and the prophets speaking to them in urgent warning (<em><a href='B:490 16:31'>Luk 16:31</a></em>); yet despite studying their words syallable by syllable, the Jews didn’t in fact perceive it was a living word speaking to them directly and urgently. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The man called his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all living</em>- If Adam only named his wife after the fall, we find yet another reason for thinking that the fall occurred very soon after creation. Everything in the surrounding context here is negative, and this probably is too. Adam first called his wife "woman", but after the fall he called her "Eve" because he recognized she was the mother of living ones. By doing so he seems to be recognizing his failure of not reproducing through her as God had originally asked him. The way they immediately produce a child after the fall is surely an expression of their repentance. The curse upon them involved bringing forth children, and this is effectively Adam’s curse of Eve. Similarly he names his son “Abel”, the Hebrew word usually translated “vanity”, also in allusion to the curse. Read this way, we can more comfortably understand “the mother of all living” as not necessarily meaning that all human beings descended from Eve. For I have demonstrated at length that the focus of the Genesis creation is upon the situation in <em>eretz</em> Israel, and there is no attempt at explaining the origins of things on the level of the cosmos or the planet earth. When we read that Eve was "the mother of all living" (<em><a href='B:10 3:20'>Gen 3:20</a></em>), this was in its primary application explaining to the Israelites in the wilderness where they ultimately originated from. Israel were to trace their first origins and parents back not merely to Abraham, but to Adam and Eve. <em><a href='B:40 35:3'>Num 35:3</a></em> (Heb.) uses the term to describe the "all living" of the congregation of Israel; indeed, that Hebrew word translated "living" is translated "congregation", with reference to the congregation of Israel (<em><a href='B:230 68:10'>Psa 68:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 74:19'>Psa 74:19</a></em>). Note how the Hebrew idea of 'all living' repeatedly occurs in the account of the flood (<em><a href='B:10 6:19'>Gen 6:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 8:1'>Gen 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 8:17'>Gen 8:17</a></em> etc.)- which we will later suggest was a flood local to the area which the Israelites knew and which had been ultimately promised to Abraham. "All living" things which were taken into the ark therefore needn't refer to literally every living thing which lives upon the planet, but rather to those species which lived in the flooded area, the earth / land / <em>eretz </em>promised to Abraham. I've explained elsewhere that the garden of Eden can be understood as the land promised to Abraham, perhaps specifically being located around Jerusalem, the intended geographical focus for God’s people; and that the term <em>eretz</em> can be used to describe the land promised to Abraham rather than the whole planet.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>3:21<em> Yahweh God made coats of skins for Adam and for his wife, and clothed them</em>- Adam sinned, and God responded to that ineffable tragedy by giving him a “coat” of skin. The same Hebrew word is used concerning the priestly robe. Here we see again the positive nature of our God. There was Adam, pining away in the shame of his sin; and God dresses him up like a priest, to go forward to gain forgiveness for him and his wife; and perhaps later on he used that same coat in coming to God to obtain further forgiveness for others through sacrifice. <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:13:8'>Rev 13:8</a></em> speaks of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world; so presumably a lamb was slain, setting up the principle that without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. And here we meet the idea of the imputed righteousness of the slain lamb (the Christ) being imputed to us. Note that "made" is the same word used of God’s 'making' of things in the creation record of chapter 1. That creation was a 'making' from pre-existing material, rather than <em>ex nihilo</em>. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>- see on <em><a href='B:10 1:7-8'>Gen 1:7-8</a></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh God said, Behold, the man has become like one of us</em>- One of a number of examples in Genesis of God being in internal dialogue and almost struggle towards a decision (<em><a href='B:10 1:26'>Gen 1:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 6:3'>Gen 6:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 6:7'>Gen 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 8:21-22'>Gen 8:21-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 11:6-7'>Gen 11:6-7</a></em>). It could refer to Angels, but it could equally be the Hebrew plural of majesty, whereby a plural is used for a singular being. In a sense, God allowed man to become like Him. This is a guarantee that He is just as capable of allowing us to be coming fully like Him in the promised transformation to the Divine nature at the last day.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Knowing good and evil</em>- The Hebrew idea of 'knowing' effectively speaks of experience or relationship. The idea here is not so much that Adam and Eve now knew how to tell good from evil in moral terms, but rather that they would now experience good and evil. One simple implication is that God almighty has experience of evil; He is not separate from our sufferings nor is He unable to enter into them. And that feature of God was expressed in its ultimate term in His begetting a Son, who would suffer across the entire physical and psychological spectrum of human experience.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If we insist that the "us" refers to Angels, then we reflect that it was presumably in one of the previous creations that the Angels were developed. They have knowledge of good and evil, just as fallen man has. This could suggest that they too had the experience of temptation and choice between sin and obedience. Job speaks of the angels who were charged with folly as if this fact was well known (<em><a href='B:220 4:18'>Job 4:18</a></em>). John Thomas suggests that the "angels that sinned" in <em><a href='B:680 2:4'>2Pe 2:4</a></em> lived at this time. There is no doubt that this passage in Peter, and the parallel in Jude, has some reference to Korah's rebellion. However, there are many such warnings to God’s people which combine reference to more than one historical event, and it could be the same here: as if to say, 'History repeats itself. The angels that sinned so long ago went through in principle the same process of apostasy as Korah's company, and you too are capable of falling from grace in the same basic way'.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now, lest he reach out his hand, and also take of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever…</em>- Here again in wrath God remembered mercy. To allow fallen humans to live eternally in that state would have been cruel. Again, judgment for sin still expresses God’s grace and sensitivity toward the human condition. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Therefore Yahweh God sent him out from the garden of Eden</em>- As noted on :22, the "therefore" means that the sending of Adam out of Eden was an act of grace, albeit shrouded in the experience of judgment. We note that the couple are addressed in Adam; "him" and not "them". This may explain why Adam is spoken of in <em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em> as the "one man" by whom sin entered the world, when in fact it was Eve who appears to have sinned first in chronological terms. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To cultivate the ground from which he was taken- </em>Adam was made from that "ground" and was to return to it. But in his lifetime, he was "to cultivate" that ground. This suggests that human life is lived within the parameters of the curse, but throughout it, we are to cultivate that condition to produce fruit. Solomon makes the point that he who cultivates his ground shall have blessing, and this is the way of wisdom (<em><a href='B:240 12:11'>Pro 12:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 28:19'>Pro 28:19</a></em>). Again we have the hint that accepting the parameters of our fallen condition, but working within them for fruit, is the way of wisdom and blessing. Indeed <em><a href='B:300 27:11'>Jer 27:11</a></em> speaks of cultivating the ground (the same words are used) within the <em>eretz</em> as the sign of blessing. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So He drove out the man</em>- Just as Adam and Eve were exiled to the East, so Judah fled East of Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:300 52:12-16'>Jer 52:12-16</a></em>) and then further East, to Babylon. Babylon (which is Babel) was built by men travelling East from Eden (<em><a href='B:10 11:2'>Gen 11:2</a></em>). Again we see an identity between Eden and the land of Israel. The garden is not spoken of as being destroyed, suggesting that the hope of returning to Eden was always the ultimate plan God worked towards. The Hebrew for "drove out" is used of the Canaanite nations being driven out of the <em>eretz</em> (<em><a href='B:20 23:28-31'>Exo 23:28-31</a></em>) by an Angel (<em><a href='B:20 33:2'>Exo 33:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:11'>Exo 34:11</a></em>), and of Israel too being driven out of the same area (<em><a href='B:330 36:5'>Eze 36:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 9:15'>Hos 9:15</a></em>). The language of driving out suggests reluctance on Adam's part; another indication that his response to his sin was not initially of an ideal quality. He excused himself, and then resisted the judgment which came. Instead of dying the very day he sinned, Adam was instead driven out of Eden. This seems to be an example of where God can change His mind and ameliorate His judgments, by grace alone, as He did with Nineveh. And He does so even when His grace isn't appreciated by those like Adam who are experiencing it.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And He placed Cherubs at the east of the garden of Eden, and the flame of a sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life- </em>Eden, the trees of life and knowledge and the Cherubs are no longer around, and there is no record of their removal. We are therefore encouraged to see this entire situation as the creation account of chapter 1- a kind of vision, which is all the same to be treated as real and literal enough, and yet which cannot be pushed to its final term as literalism. That is not the genre of the material. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It could be argued that the Cherubs were not Angels but some visual representation of Divine entities; on the basis that there was to be no image made of anything in heaven, and yet the pattern of cherubim are found in the tabernacle (<em><a href='B:20 25:20'>Exo 25:20</a></em>) and the temple, and here we have what appear to be literal visual replicas, as were the winged figures over the mercy seat. But it has to be said that the visions of the cherubim and living creatures all seem to have Angelic associations. One of the clearest is that the cherubim were to keep "the way" to the tree of life (<em><a href='B:10 3:24'>Gen 3:24</a></em>), whereas the keeping of the way is later said to be in the control of Angels- e.g. in <em><a href='B:10 18:19'>Gen 18:19</a></em> the Angels decide Abraham will keep "the way of the Lord", implying&nbsp; they were the ones guarding it; and in <em><a href='B:20 32:8'>Exo 32:8</a></em> the Angel talking with Moses on Sinai comments "They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them" (see too <em><a href='B:50 9:10'>Deu 9:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:12'>Deu 9:12</a></em>). But this is not to say the cherubim were themselves Angels. They appear to be identified here with the flaming sword, and we recall&nbsp; <em><a href='B:230 104:4'>Psa 104:4</a></em> "Who makes His angels spirits; His ministers a flaming fire". </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Umberto Cassuto, as one of Judaism's most painstakingly detailed expositors of the Torah, has observed that the entities referred to in Genesis 1-3, such as the serpent, the cherubim etc., are spoken of in such a way that implies that Israel were familiar with the ideas. Cassuto notes the use of the definite article- <em>the</em> cherubim, <em>the</em> flaming sword- when talking about things which have not been mentioned earlier in the record. He concludes that therefore these things "were already known to the Israelites. The implies that their story had been recounted in some ancient composition current among the people . The intention of Genesis was therefore to define these ideas correctly, to explain to Israel the truth about the things of which they had heard in very rambling and incorrect form in the various legends and epic stories they had encountered in Egypt and amongst the Canaanite tribes. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew idea of 'placing' has the sense of tabernacling. Hence Vine: "At the east of the Garden of Eden, He caused to dwell in a tabernacle the Cherubim and the flaming sword". Both the wilderness tabernacle and the Jerusalem temple faced east. The idea was that Adam was being taught that there was a way back to Eden although in this life, Eden was unobtainable in its full sense. And by offering sacrifice and worshipping East of Eden, he was as we are- on the very brink of eternity and direct face to face fellowship with God. Perhaps the fire from the flaming sword devoured the sacrifices as a sign of acceptance. According to <em><a href='B:330 1:10'>Eze 1:10</a></em>, the cherubim had faces, and this would explain why Cain lamented that he had been driven out from the faces (plural) (<em><a href='B:10 4:14'>Gen 4:14</a></em> Heb.). In our days we have no such visible sanctuary; but we can in Christ partake in some sense of the tree of life (<em><a href='B:240 3:18'>Pro 3:18</a></em>), so certain is the offer and experience of the life eternal for the believer today. We stand both in the tabernacle, and in some hazy sense even beyond it- in Christ.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>According to <em><a href='B:490 19:23'>Luk 19:23</a></em>, the Lord will shew the unworthy how they could have entered the Kingdom. This is after the pattern of rejected Adam and Eve having the way to the tree of life clearly shown to them after their rejection (<em><a href='B:10 3:23-24'>Gen 3:23-24</a></em>). Again, notice how the judgment is for the education of those judged and those who witness it. He will shew them how they should have given their talent, the basic Gospel, to others, and therefore gained some interest.</p>Adam: The First Sinner<p style='margin-left:1em'>The classical view of the fall supposes that as Eve's teeth sunk into the fruit, the first sin was committed, and soon afterwards Adam followed suite, resulting in the curse falling upon humanity. What I want to discuss is whether the eating of the fruit was in fact the first sin. If it was, then Eve sinned first. Straight away, the Bible-minded believer comes up with a problem: the New Testament unmistakably highlights Adam as the first sinner; by <em>his</em> transgression sin entered the world (<em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em>). So sin was not in the world before <em>his</em> transgression. The ground was cursed for the sake of <em>Adam's</em> sin (<em><a href='B:10 3:17'>Gen 3:17</a></em>). This all suggests that Eve wasn't the first sinner. The fact Eve was deceived into sinning doesn't mean she didn’t sin (<em><a href='B:610 2:14'>1Ti 2:14</a></em>). She was punished for her sin; and in any case, ignorance doesn't mean that sin doesn't count as sin (consider the need for offerings of ignorance under the Law). So, Eve sinned; but Adam was the first sinner, before <em>his</em> sin, sin had not entered the world. We must also remember that Eve was deceived by the snake, and on account of this was "(implicated / involved) in the transgression" (<em><a href='B:610 2:14'>1Ti 2:14</a></em>). "The transgression". Which transgression? Surely Adam's (<em><a href='B:520 5:14'>Rom 5:14</a></em>); by listening to the snake she became implicated in Adam's sin. The implication is that "the transgression" was already there for her to become implicated in it by listening to the serpent. This is the very opposite to the idea of <em>Adam&nbsp;</em>being implicated in <em>Eve's</em> sin.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>So I want to suggest that in fact the eating of the fruit was not the first sin; it was the final physical consequence of a series of sins, spiritual weakness and sinful attitudes on Adam's part. They were mainly sins of omission rather than commission, and for this reason we tend to not notice them; just as we tend to treat our own sins of omission far less seriously than our sins of commission. What happened in Eden was that the garden was planted, Adam was placed in it, and commanded not to eat of the tree of knowledge. The animals are then brought before him for naming; then he is put into a deep sleep, and Eve is created. <em>Then</em> the&nbsp;very first command Adam and Eve jointly received was to have children, and go out into the whole earth (i.e. out of the Garden of Eden) and subdue it to themselves (<em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>). The implication is that this command was given as soon as Eve was created. There he was, lying down, with his wife beside him, "a help meet"; literally, 'an opposite one'. And they were commanded to produce seed, and then go out of the garden and subdue the earth. It would have been obvious to him from his observation of the animals that his wife was physiologically and emotionally designed for him to produce seed by. She was designed to be his 'opposite one', and there she was, lying next to him. <em><a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a></em> implies that he should have cleaved to her and become one flesh by reason of the very way in which she was created out of him. And yet he evidently did not have intercourse with her, seeing that they failed to produce children until after the fall. If he had consummated his marriage with her, presumably she would have produced children (this deals a death blow to the fantasies of Adam and Eve having an idyllic sexual relationship in Eden before the fall). Paul saw Eve at the time of her temptation as a virgin (<em><a href='B:540 11:2-3'>2Co 11:2-3</a></em>). Instead, Adam put off obedience to the command to multiply. There seems an allusion to this in <em><a href='B:530 7:5'>1Co 7:5</a></em>, where Paul says that married couples should come together in intercourse "lest Satan (cp. the serpent) tempt you for your incontinency". Depending how closely one reads Scripture, there may be here the suggestion that Paul saw Adam's mistake in Eden as not 'coming together' with his wife.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But Adam said something to Eve (as they lay there?). He alone had been commanded not to eat the tree of knowledge. Yet when Eve speaks to the serpent, it is evident that Adam had told her about it, but not very deeply. She speaks of "the tree that is in the midst of the garden" rather than "the tree of knowledge". She had been told by Adam that they must not even touch it, even though this is not what God had told Adam (<em><a href='B:10 2:16-17'>Gen 2:16-17</a></em> cp. 3:2,3). So we are left with the idea that Adam turned to Eve and as it were wagged his finger at her and said 'Now you see that tree over there in the middle, <em>don't you even touch it</em> or else there'll be trouble, O.K.'. She didn’t <em>understand</em>, he didn’t <em>explain</em> that it was forbidden because it was the tree of knowledge, and so she was deceived into eating it- unlike Adam, who understood what he was doing (<em><a href='B:610 2:14'>1Ti 2:14</a></em>) (1). Adam's emphasis was on not <em>committing&nbsp; </em>the sin of eating the fruit; he said nothing to her about the need to multiply and subdue the earth.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The next we know, Adam and Eve have separated, she is talking to the snake, apparently indifferent to the command to <em>subdue</em> the animals, to be their superiors, rather than listen to them as if they actually had superior knowledge. When the snake questioned: "Yea, <em>hath </em>God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree..." (<em><a href='B:10 3:1'>Gen 3:1</a></em>), Eve was in a weak position because Adam hadn't fully told her what God had said. Hence she was deceived, but Adam wasn't.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>So, <em>why</em> didn’t Adam tell her more clearly what God had said? I would suggest that he was disillusioned with the wife God gave him; he didn’t have intercourse with her as he had been asked, he separated from her so that she was alone with the snake. "The woman, whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree..." (<em><a href='B:10 3:12'>Gen 3:12</a></em>) seems to reflect more than a hint of resentment against Eve and God’s provision of her. &nbsp;Not only was Adam disillusioned with Eve, but he failed to really take God’s word seriously. Romans 5 describes Adam's failure in a number of parallel ways: "transgression... sin... offence... <em>disobedience</em> (<em><a href='B:520 5:19'>Rom 5:19</a></em>)". "Disobedience" translates a Greek word which is uncommon. Strong defines it as meaning 'inattention', coming from a root meaning 'to mishear'. It is the same word translated "neglect to hear" in <em><a href='B:470 18:17'>Mat 18:17</a></em>. Adam's sin, his transgression, his offence was therefore not eating the fruit in itself; it was disobedience, neglecting to hear. That this neglecting to hear God’s word seriously was at the root of his sin is perhaps reflected in God’s judgment on him: "Because thou hast hearkened unto <em>the voice of thy wife</em>..." rather than <em>God’s </em>voice (<em><a href='B:10 3:17'>Gen 3:17</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Adam's sin was therefore a neglecting to seriously hear God’s word, a dissatisfaction with and effective rejection of his God-given wife, a selfish unwillingness to leave the garden of Eden and go out and subdue the earth (cp. our natural instincts), and a neglection of his duty to multiply children in God’s image (cp. preaching and pastoral work). All these things were sins of omission; he may well have reasoned that he would get round to them later. All these wrong attitudes and sins of omission, apparently unnoticed and uncondemned, led to the final folly of eating the fruit: the first sin of commission. And how many of our more public sins are prefaced by a similar process? Truly Adam's sin was the epitome of all our sins. Romans 5 points an antithesis between Adam and Christ. Adam's one act of disobedience which cursed us is set off against Christ's one act of righteousness which blessed us. Yet Christ's one act was not just His death; we are saved by His life too (<em><a href='B:520 5:10'>Rom 5:10</a></em>). Christ lived a life of many acts of righteousness and refusal to omit any part of His duty, and crowned it with one public act of righteousness in His death. The implication is that Adam committed a series of disobediences which culminated in one public act of commission: he ate the fruit.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are three lines of argument which confirm this picture of what happened in Eden which we have presented. Firstly, Adam and Eve were ashamed at their nakedness. Perhaps this was because they realized what they should have used their sexuality for. Eating the tree of knowledge gave them knowledge of good (i.e. they realized the good they should have done in having children) and also evil (the capacities of their sexual desire?). Adam first called his wife "woman", but after the fall he called her "Eve" because he recognized she was the mother of living ones (<em><a href='B:10 3:20'>Gen 3:20</a></em>). By doing so he seems to be recognizing his failure of not reproducing through her as God had originally asked him. The way they immediately produce a child after the fall is surely an expression of their repentance.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Secondly, it seems that God punishes sin in a way which is appropriate to the sin. Consider how David so often asks God to take the wicked in their own snare- and how often this happens. The punishment of Adam and Eve was appropriate to the sins they committed. What Adam wasn't bothered to do, i.e. have intercourse with his woman, became the very thing which now every fallen man will sell his soul for. They ate the tree of <em>knowledge</em>, they <em>knew</em>&nbsp; they were naked, and then Adam <em>knew</em> Eve (<em><a href='B:10 4:1'>Gen 4:1</a></em>); this chain of connection certainly suggests that sexual desire, whilst not wrong in itself, was part of the result of eating the tree. There is an artless poetic justice and appropriacy in this which seems simply Divine. What they couldn't be bothered to do became the very thing which has probably generated more sin and desire to do than anything else. Adam was to rule over Eve as a result of the fall- the very thing he wasn't bothered to do. Eve's punishment was that her desire was for her husband- perhaps suggesting that she too had no desire for Adam sexually, and therefore was willing to delay obedience to the command to multiply. They were both driven out of the garden- perhaps reflecting how they should have left the garden in obedience to God’s command to go out and subdue the natural creation to themselves. Because Adam wasn't bothered to do this, even when it was within his power, therefore nature was given a special power against man which he would never be able to overcome, and which would eventually defeat him (<em><a href='B:10 3:17-19'>Gen 3:17-19</a></em>). This all shows the logic of obedience; we will be made to pay the price of obedience even if we disobey- therefore it is logical to obey.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Thirdly, there seems evidence that the eating of the fruit happened very soon after their creation. Eve hadn't seen the tree before the serpent pointed it out to her (<em><a href='B:10 3:6'>Gen 3:6</a></em>); and consider that they could eat of all the trees, but not of the tree of knowledge. But what about the tree of life? This wasn't forbidden, and yet had they eaten of it, they would have lived for ever. We are told that this tree brings forth fruit every month (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:22:2'>Rev 22:2</a></em>); so presumably it had not fruited, implying the fall was within the first month after creation.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The practical outcome of what happened in Eden is that we are to see in Adam's sin an epitome of our essential weaknesses. And how accurate it is. His failure was principally due to sins of omission, of delaying to do God’s will because it didn’t take his fancy. Time and again Biblical history demonstrates that sins of silence and omission are just as fatal as sins of public, physical commission (e.g. <em><a href='B:10 20:16'>Gen 20:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 38:10'>Gen 38:10</a></em>). To omit to hate evil is the same as to commit it (<em><a href='B:230 36:4'>Psa 36:4</a></em>). Because David omitted to enforce the Law's requirements concerning the transport of the tabernacle, a man died. His commission of good didn’t outweigh his omission here (<em><a href='B:130 15:13'>1Ch 15:13</a></em>). The Jews were condemned by the Lord for building the sepulchers of the prophets without erecting a placard stating that their fathers had killed them. We have a debt to preach to the world; we are their debtors, and yet this isn't how we often see it (<em><a href='B:520 1:14'>Rom 1:14</a></em>). Israel sinned not only by worshipping idols but by thereby omitting to worship God as He required (<em><a href='B:90 8:8'>1Sa 8:8</a></em>). Adam stayed in the garden rather than go out to subdue the earth. Our equivalent is our spiritual selfishness, our refusal to look outside of ourselves into the world of others. Because things like disinterest in preaching or inattention to subduing our animal instincts are sins of <em>omission</em> rather than commission, we too tend to overlook them. We effectively neglect to hear God’s word, although like Adam we may make an appearance of half-heartedly teaching it to others. And even when we do this, like Adam we tend to focus on <em>avoidal of committing sin </em>rather than examining ourselves for the likelihood of <em>omission</em>, not least in our lack of spiritual <em>responsibility</em> for others. Because of his spiritual laziness, Adam's sin led Eve into deception and thereby sin, and brought suffering on untold billions. His sin is the epitome of ours. So let us really realize: none of us sins or is righteous unto ourselves. There are colossal ramifications of our every sin and our every act of righteousness on others.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Notes</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>(1) There are similarities in more conservative Christian groups; e.g. the father or husband who lays the law down about the need for wearing head coverings without <em>explaining</em> to his wife or daughter <em>why</em>. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The man knew Eve his wife</em>- See on <em><a href='B:10 3:6'>Gen 3:6</a></em> <em>To be desired to make one wise. </em>The couple had been commanded to have children before the fall. Perhaps their sin of omission was appropriately judged by humanity being given such a strong desire for sexual experience, which is designed for procreation. What they couldn't be bothered to do now became the very thing humans are crazy to do at all costs. Or it could be that they sinned on their first day of life in the garden. For Adam only got around to naming Eve after the fall; and there was apparently no fruit on the tree of life, which according to Revelation bore its fruits every month. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>She conceived, and gave birth to Cain- </em>Think of what the Hebrew word “Cain” means- for he is alluded to by the Lord as the epitome of the “devil”, the “murderer from the beginning”, the archetypical sinner (<em><a href='B:500 8:44'>Joh 8:44</a></em> - perhaps because Adam and Eve’s sin was forgiven, whereas Cain was the first impenitent sinner). “Cain is defined on the basis of a double Hebrew etymology, as ‘possession’ (from <em>qana</em> = acquire) and ‘envy’ (from <em>qana</em> = be envious)” (Martin Hengel, <em>Property And Riches In The Early Church</em> (London: S.C.M., 1974) p. 1). Personal possession is almost- almost- inextricably linked with envy, and led to the lies and murder for which Cain was noted by the Lord. To have a strong sense of our personal ‘possessions’ will lead us into the same sins. Indeed, it’s the epitome of ‘the devil’. The naming of Cain would suggest a cynicism in Adam and Eve, although Eve is set up as the prototype for the Lord Jesus (as the seed of the woman) and Adam is the basis for the second Adam, the Lord Jesus. This could all suggest that they later repented more fully. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is no direct linguistic connection between 'Cain' and 'Canaan', but there may well be a word play, as they sound similar. In this case, the Canaanites with whom Israel were to struggle were to be seen as the spiritual descendants of Cain. But Moses wrote Genesis, presumably during the 40 years wandering. He therefore wrote it in a context- of explaining things to Israel as they stumbled through that wilderness, wondering who they were, where they came from, where they were headed- and which of the myths about 'beginnings' they heard from the surrounding peoples were in fact true. The Israelites, for example, encountered the Kenites (Heb. <em>Qeni</em>), a wandering, nomadic tribe whom nobody wanted much to do with as they were perceived to be cursed (<em><a href='B:10 15:19'>Gen 15:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 24:21-22'>Num 24:21-22</a></em>). Genesis 4 explains <em>why </em>they were like this- they were the descendants of Cain (Heb. <em>Qayin</em>), who was punished with an unsettled existence because of his sin. &nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And said, I have gotten a man with Yahweh’s help- </em>"Gotten" is really 'redeemed' or 'purchased', and is a play on the word 'Cain'. It could be that Eve hoped that their redemption was to be achieved through this child. Her disappointment in Cain would therefore look ahead to the failure of Israel and the Jewish system to bring about redemption, even if it were in some ways potentially possible through them. It has been suggested that the Hebrew here could be translated "A man, the Yahweh", Rotherham "I have gotten a man even Yahweh", as if she hoped to see Yahweh manifest in this man child. In this case, we would have another indication that Cain could have potentially been the Divinely provided seed and Saviour- but he messed up, because he failed to perceive the need for blood sacrifice to atone for sin. This again would confirm how <em><a href='B:500 8:44'>Joh 8:44</a></em> reads him as a prototype of Israel gone wrong. It could be that we see similar Messianic hopes in the naming of Seth, and also of Noah, whom it was hoped would remove the curse upon the earth (<em><a href='B:10 5:29'>Gen 5:29</a></em> LXX). These early people clearly expected the coming of a Messianic man child, born of their seed. But they were disappointed at every turn- sharpening their need for the Son of God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Again she gave birth, to Cain’s brother Abel. Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a cultivator of the ground- </em>Adam's curse had been to cultivate the ground; but Abel evidently saw beyond the parameters of the curse, and kept sheep instead. Just as we too can see and act beyond the parameters of our fallen condition, whilst still subject to it. Or this could be another evidence that the judgments pronounced upon Adam were directed at him personally, and not all his descendants were to experience every aspect of them. For not all get their living from the soil. Perhaps we can see in Cain's love of the ground a glorification of the curse; for "cultivator" translates a Hebrew word more commonly translated "servant" or "worshipper". It was by their choice of employment that the brothers were demonstrating their thinking about God. They knew animal sacrifice was required; and Abel concerned himself with this as a means of daily livelihood. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>As time passed- </em>This could refer to some appointed feast or sacrifice day approaching. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened that Cain brought an offering to Yahweh from the fruit of the ground- </em>The fact his offering wasn't accepted suggests that animal sacrifice had already been instituted, and Cain was not simply judged as having offered a second best, but rather as having offered something distinctly unacceptable. He failed to perceive that he too was a sinner, needing remission of sins connected with the shedding of blood (<em><a href='B:650 9:22'>Heb 9:22</a></em>). Perhaps he like many today chose to blame his weaknesses on his parents and environment, rather than taking personal responsibility. Perhaps he lacked the humility to ask his brother for an animal. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abel also brought- </em>The Hebrew can mean that he also brought an animal, as if he also brought fruits of the earth as Cain had done. In this case, we see Cain representing the Judaist attitude of justification by works; whereas Abel recognized his sin, and the need for atonement through blood shedding. The works of his hands were offered as gratitude for that gracious forgiveness; whereas Cain thought that his own works alone were the basis for acceptability with God. This same difference in motivation for works is alive and well today.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Some of the firstborn of his flock and of its fat. Yahweh respected Abel and his offering- </em>Many connections are visible in early Genesis to the later law of Moses (here to <em><a href='B:40 18:15-17'>Num 18:15-17</a></em>). There were elements of that law in existence from these early days onwards. The respect of Yahweh was presumably shown by the fire from the cherubim / flaming sword consuming the sacrifice, as happened when Samson's parents offered (also <em><a href='B:30 9:24'>Lev 9:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 18:38'>1Ki 18:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 7:1'>2Ch 7:1</a></em>) . Yahweh's respect was to "Abel (personally) and his offering", as if a person's sacrifice is "them". We are not simply acceptable to God by making a few cursor movements on a screen, by purely internal ideas. There has to be sacrifice in some form. <em><a href='B:650 11:4'>Heb 11:4</a></em> says that God testified to Abel's sacrifices, because he was "righteous". But his shedding of blood was a recognition of his own unrighteousness. Belief in forgiveness therefore of itself makes us "righteous" in that if sin is forgiven, then righteousness is imputed to us. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But He didn’t respect Cain and his offering. Cain was very angry, and the expression on his face fell- </em>The 'faces' of the cherubim and flaming sword did not accept Cain's offering, God did not "look" ("respect") toward it, and so Cain's face also fell. <em><a href='B:690 3:12'>1Jn 3:12</a></em> explains that Cain slew Abel because his own works were "evil" and his brother's "righteous". To trust in our own works is "evil", and to confess our sin and throw ourselves in faith upon the Lord's shed blood is "righteous". We have here presented for all time the root of jealousy- a sense that another is closer to God than ourselves. This has been the deep motive for so much tension and evil between brethren. And we are warned against it right at the beginning of the Biblical record.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Cain, Why are you angry? Why has the expression of your face fallen?</em>- Another example of the questions in early Genesis being rhetorical. God was as ever, seeking repentance and reformation; and He provokes questions in our consciences for the same reason. We too need to probe the reasons for our anger. The question "Why are you angry?" often reveals our own inadequacies and depth failings. The instinctive reply is "Because he / she / you... did this or that". But the ultimate reason is because we have sinned or failed. All through these early chapters we see God’s earnest passion for human repentance in the light of human sin, rather than judging or rejecting immediately. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If you do well, will it not be lifted up?- </em>The Hebrew in this verse is hard to conclusively translate. I have earlier suggested that Cain assumed he was 'doing well', was justified by his own works, and had no sin to be atoned for. In this case, the idea would be: 'If you really are righteous by your own works, would your sacrifice not have been accepted?'. And so the paradox is that by confession of sin and recognition of weakness, we are righteous before God. Acceptable sacrifice, in whatever form, is based around recognition of sin and a rejection of all works-based thinking.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The LXX here is worthy of consideration. Due weight must be given to the fact that the New Testament nearly always quotes from the LXX rather than the Masoretic text (the Hebrew Old Testament); and when there is a difference between the two texts, the New Testament often quotes the LXX rather than the MT. The LXX here suggests what I have developed elsewhere in this exposition- that the sin of Cain was not in offering non-blood offerings, but in his attitude to his brother Abel: "Hast thou not sinned if thou hast brought it rightly, but not rightly divided it?". His offering was "right", but his attitude to his brother was wrong. It could even be that the Lord alludes here in saying that if we bring our gift to the altar and <em>there</em> remember that we have some issue with our brother- we are to sort that out first, as a priority, otherwise we will be offering unacceptably (<em><a href='B:470 5:23-24'>Mat 5:23-24</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If you don’t do well, sin crouches at the door. Its desire is for you, but you are to rule over it- </em>"Sin" could here be read as referring to a sin offering, an animal which God had sent to the door of the sanctuary, providing Cain with every opportunity now to do what was right. Likewise, the sacrificial lamb has been conveniently provided for all sinners and all those who think they can be justified by works. Just as the animal was made to come and crouch down at the entrance to the sanctuary, so God really does all possible to provide us with the way to acceptable fellowship with Him. Cain as the firstborn was the family priest. He apparently lost credibility when the fire came down and consumed Abel’s offering, but not his. Immediately it seemed that Abel was going to usurp Cain as the family priest. Therefore he was told to offer the animal that was ‘crouching’ at the door of the meeting place, and then “unto thee shall be his (Abel’s) desire, and thou shalt rule over him” (<em><a href='B:10 4:7'>Gen 4:7</a></em> AV). <em>&nbsp; </em>Surely this means that if Cain had openly recognized his mistake and then done the right thing, he would have risen to even higher levels of spiritual credibility with his younger brother.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The language of desire and rulership is taken directly from the curse upon Eve in relation to her desire for Adam.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Sin" however can be read literally, as sin. There is a doctrine of a new creation in Christ (<em><a href='B:540 5:17'>2Co 5:17</a></em>), whereby we really can be made new people. This is a ladder to reach to the stars. We can overcome sin, bad habits and thought patterns; sin may seek to get us, but we can rule over it. We may well think that we can’t; the way was set, the die cast, the destiny mapped out, the genes determined; our background, upbringing, life path was as it was, and so we are as we are. But we <em>can</em> be made new. Sin need no longer have dominion over us, as Paul says in Romans 6; or as early Genesis puts it here, “you shall rule over (sin)”. We are not debtors to sin (<em><a href='B:520 8:12'>Rom 8:12</a></em>)- sin is not inevitable. But most people fail to see beyond the very limited horizons of both their nature and their immediate life. Earth’s curvature means that we can’t see beyond horizons; but we can, if we wish,<em> know</em> what is there. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>John Steinbeck, who was hardly a Biblical Christian, was fascinated by the early chapters of Genesis, and his 1952 novel <em>East Of Eden</em> is evidently his commentary upon them. And he finds no place for a 'Satan' figure. Instead, he is struck by the comment to Cain that although sin crouches at the door, "do thou / thou mayest rule over him". Steinbeck concluded from this that victory over sin and the effects of Adam's sin is possible; and therefore we're not bound by some superhuman Satan figure, nor by an over-controlling Divine predestination to sin and failure. There's a passage in chapter 24 of the novel that bears quoting; I find it deeply inspirational, and another example of the practical import of the correct understanding of early Genesis: "It is easy out of laziness, out of weakness, to throw oneself onto the lap of the deity, saying, "I couldn't help it; the way was set". But think of the glory of the choice! That makes a man a man. A cat has no choice; a bee must make honey. There's no godliness there... these verses are a history of mankind in any age or culture or race... this is a ladder to climb to the stars... it cuts the feet from under weakness and cowardliness and laziness... because "thou mayest" rule over sin". The practical inspiration ought to be evident; all further commentary is bathos. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Cain said to Abel, his brother, Let’s go into the field- </em>This may simply mean that they exited the sanctuary together. The whole record here is replete with connection to the sin of Adam and Eve, Divine questioning, and the subsequent punishment and banishment expressed in very similar terms. At this point, the parallel is that as the serpent "talked" to Eve, so Cain "said" or 'talked' with Abel- the same word is used (<em><a href='B:10 3:1'>Gen 3:1</a></em>). We could therefore infer that perhaps the 'going into the field' was a going away from the sanctuary of God, and the talking together was about some form of rebellion against Divine commandment; to which Abel, unlike Adam and Eve, refused to listen. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel, his brother, and killed him</em>- The reason is supplied in <em><a href='B:690 3:12'>1Jn 3:12</a></em>: "And why did he kill him? Because his works were evil and his brother's righteous". Spiritual jealousy is the root of murder, literal and symbolic. Jealousy of this sort is indeed as cruel as death. John's argument continues, presenting Cain as representative of "the world", the Jewish world in John's immediate context, and "whoever hates his brother" within the ecclesia. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Cain, Where is Abel, your brother? He said, I don’t know. Am I my brother’s keeper?</em>- Again, the questions in early Genesis are rhetorical, and this interrogation of Cain matches that of Adam and Eve ("Where are you?", <em><a href='B:10 3:9'>Gen 3:9</a></em>); see on :8. Cain, the epitome of 'the devil' (<em><a href='B:500 8:44'>Joh 8:44</a></em>), was characterized by the attitude that he was not his brother's keeper. It was for this reason that his sacrifice wasn't accepted; it was not impossible for God to accept non-blood sacrifices (<em><a href='B:40 15:17-21'>Num 15:17-21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:12-13'>Num 18:12-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 26:1-4'>Deu 26:1-4</a></em>). But the Lord Jesus perhaps offered a commentary on the incident when he said that our offering can only be accepted if we are first reconciled to our brother (<em><a href='B:470 5:24'>Mat 5:24</a></em>). Cain's insistent lack of responsibility for his brother was the real sin, and therefore his sacrifice wasn't accepted by God. He wanted to serve God his own way, disregard his brother, justify his jealousy and disagreement with him... to be a private person. But this was the basis of his rejection. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"I don't know" may effectively mean "I know (him) not". Not recognizing our brethren as brethren is an age old sin. Cain as the older brother was indeed his brother's "keeper". Here we see another connection with the sin of Adam and Eve, noted on :8. They were to "keep" the garden (s.w., <em><a href='B:10 2:15'>Gen 2:15</a></em>); and they didn’t, instead they lusted after the forbidden fruit and Eve chatted with the serpent. We could infer that keeping his brother had been a commandment to Cain; it is this lack of responsibility which is the root of all hatred of our brethren. If care for them is paramount, then hatred is excluded. If they offer better than we do, then our basic sense of care for them will preclude all jealousy complexes.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said, What have you done?- </em>The Hebrew can as well be translated "Why" or "How". Again, God was seeking to probe Cain's conscience, to lead him to repentance. Mary’s words to the Lord Jesus “Why have you done this to us?” are a rebuke- as if she implied that Jesus had sinned / done wrong by what He had done? Surely her faith in a sinless Messiah was now put to a brutal test by a domestic upset; just as, in barest essence, ours is too by such things. Yet notice that she frames those words in the LXX language of <em><a href='B:10 3:14'>Gen 3:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 4:10'>Gen 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 13:11'>1Sa 13:11</a></em>. Those allusions would imply that she felt Jesus had sinned; and yet at the same time as revealing that gross lack of perception, another part of her mind is still back in Scripture. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The voice of your brother’s blood cries to Me from the ground</em>- Perhaps the implication is that Cain had covered Abel's body and blood with soil, thinking God wouldn't notice it. The same idea is found in the souls beneath the altar, where the blood drained down to, crying for vengeance (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:6:9'>Rev 6:9</a></em>). This again makes Cain the prototype of all persecutors of the Lord's true people, represented by Abel. Whilst there is no conscious survival of death, these metaphors indicate the degree to which the lives (blood) and record of dead believers live on within God. And their lives as it were cry to God for response from Him. The teaching of <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:6:9'>Rev 6:9</a></em> is that this response will ultimately be at the Lord's return and the final judgment. The phrase 'crying unto the Lord' is frequently used for prayer. But prayer is perceived by God as far more than words verbalized; our life situation, our essential spirit, is read by Him as prayer. It matters not how good we are at verbalizing things; He reads our lives and spirits as a prayer to Him. And so God read the blood of Abel; and that of the Lord "speaks better things than that of Abel" (<em><a href='B:650 12:24'>Heb 12:24</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The blood of Christ is personified as a voice that speaks to us, a better word than the voice of Abel's blood which <em>cried out</em> it's message (<em><a href='B:650 12:24'>Heb 12:24</a></em> NIV; <em><a href='B:10 4:10'>Gen 4:10</a></em>). This is after the pattern of how the commanding voice of Yahweh was heard above the blood sprinkled on "the atonement cover of the ark of the Testimony" (<em><a href='B:40 7:89'>Num 7:89</a></em> NIV). The blood of both old and new covenants enjoined the obedience of God’s <em>word </em>upon those sprinkled with it (<em><a href='B:650 9:19-20'>Heb 9:19-20</a></em>). The blood and God’s word were linked. The blood of the dead believers in Christ likewise cries out from under the altar, demanding vengeance on this world: on the Catholic, Protestant, Babylonian, Roman, Nazi, Soviet systems that slew them for their faith (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:6:9'>Rev 6:9</a></em>). To God, their blood is a voice, just as real as the voice of Abel, which cried out (in a figure) for judgment against Cain (<em><a href='B:10 4:10'>Gen 4:10</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand</em>- The idea may be that the ground cursed Cain by becoming barren for him (:12); and he was a cultivator of the ground. Hence the Amplified Version: "You are cursed by reason of the earth". Earth opening its mouth may suggest there was an earthquake, as in <em><a href='B:40 16:32'>Num 16:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 26:10'>Num 26:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:6'>Deu 11:6</a></em>. The blood was "received"; and the words for receiving blood are used multiple times of how the priests took or received the blood of the sacrifices, reflecting God’s acceptance of them. Abel's death was therefore accepted by God; and Cain's evil hand in it was actually part of Abel's final acceptance with God. Truly no weapon formed against us can ultimately prosper, even if it leads to our death. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>From now on, when you cultivate the ground, it won’t yield its strength to you- </em>Again, judgment was appropriate to the sinner. For Cain had cultivated the ground and had thought that the fruits of such labour would be acceptable with God<em>. </em>Perhaps again we see God remembering mercy in this judgment; for cutting off Cain's ability to do his preferred works, of producing agricultural produce, might have led him to subsequently throw himself upon God’s grace. And as noted on :8, this is another link with the judgment of Adam. We note that the land not 'yielding her strength' is a term used of how God would judge Israel within the same <em>eretz</em> if they sinned (<em><a href='B:30 26:20'>Lev 26:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:18'>Deu 8:18</a></em> Heb.). As with the judgment upon Adam, I am inclined to see the judgment as specifically upon Cain, as it was specifically and uniquely upon Adam. We die in that we sinned in Adam, we would have done what he did, and we in essence have done the same (<em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em>). But all the details of his specific judgments are not necessarily true for all men. Likewise, the land would yield its strength to the obedient, and would not do so for the disobedient. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer in the land</em>- Again, it appears that a particular area is in view rather than the entire planet. Such wandering until death is the language of the condemnation at the last day, "wandering stars" (<em><a href='B:720 1:13'>Jud 1:13</a></em>), dogs wandering rejected outside the city (<em><a href='B:230 59:15'>Psa 59:15</a></em> s.w.). "Fugitive" implies he was being hunted, and that there was some concept at this stage of the Mosaic "avenger of blood" in such cases. Who would have persecuted him? Presumably the other, unrecorded, children of Adam and Eve. Or if indeed Genesis 1, 2 speak specifically of a creation within the <em>eretz</em>, there would have been other people around. "Fugitive" is the same word used of Israel's condemnation in the wilderness, wandering in rejection (<em><a href='B:40 32:13'>Num 32:13</a></em>), and "wanderer" of their wandering in the Gentile world under Divine condemnation (<em><a href='B:120 21:8'>2Ki 21:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 4:1'>Jer 4:1</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Cain said to Yahweh, My sin- </em>He puts "sin" for "condemnation for sin". In this sense the Lord bore our sins; He was not a personal sinner, but He died the death of a condemned sinner. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Is greater than I can bear</em>- Put together two Bible passages: Cain felt that his condemnation was greater <em>than he could bear</em>, and so God put a mark upon him so he wouldn’t be slain (<em><a href='B:10 4:13'>Gen 4:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 4:15'>Gen 4:15</a></em>). Now <em><a href='B:530 10:13'>1Co 10:13</a></em>: God will not allow us to be tested <em>more than we can bear</em>, but will make a way of escape so we can bear it. I take this as meaning that if God is even sensitive to the feelings of a condemned man like Cain, rather like putting an animal to sleep in a humane way... then we who are saved in Christ can take comfort that even in this life, we will not be asked to bear the unbearable, and yet we have the prospect of eternity in front of us when this life is through. And in a very quiet, sober way, we have to respond with gratitude: ‘Wow’. God will not even punish the rejected more than they can bear. This reflects His ultimate grace.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Recognition of personal sinfulness will finally swamp the rejected, as it should have done in their day of opportunity. There may be with some a desperate further appeal for mercy, after the pattern of Cain, who tried to desperately reason with God: "My punishment (220 times rendered "iniquity") is greater than I can bear" (<em><a href='B:10 4:13'>Gen 4:13</a></em> AV). "Bear" is the Hebrew word usually used for bearing away of sin. Cain finally recognized his own sin, and the need for atonement. Adam likewise confessed his sin as a result of God’s questioning (<em><a href='B:10 3:10'>Gen 3:10</a></em>). Realization of sin will finally be elicited (<em><a href='B:40 32:23'>Num 32:23</a></em> LXX; <em><a href='B:330 6:9'>Eze 6:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:15'>Jud 1:15</a></em>). Cain saw that he couldn't carry away his own sin. His words are surely a reference to the Lord's invitation to take hold of the animal sin offering that was crouching at the door (<em><a href='B:10 4:7'>Gen 4:7</a></em> Heb.). The Lord had offered Cain a way of escape through the blood of the lamb, a recognition that his own works couldn't save him. But he refused that knowledge; only to be finally and unalterably condemned, and thereby taught his desperate need to resign his own works and trust in the blood of the lamb. And so it will be at the last day. If men refuse to&nbsp; know their own desperation and need for the Lord's sacrifice now, then they will be made to realize it all too late. Zedekiah likewise wept in his condemnation (<em><a href='B:330 7:27'>Eze 7:27</a></em>), knowing that he could have taken hold of God’s offer through Jeremiah. Note how Cain is "cursed from this land" (<em><a href='B:10 4:11'>Gen 4:11</a></em> LXX)- the land / earth of Israel, the area of Eden before the flood. Being expelled from the land was his condemnation; just as Israel were later cast out of their land in condemnation. He left God’s land and lived in the land of Nod / wandering, at the entrance to Eden (4:16). According to the RV margin of <em><a href='B:10 4:16'>Gen 4:16</a></em>, Cain lived "in front of Eden"- he didn’t go far away from it, he set himself as near to the entrance as he could. Likewise Israel chose to stay "many days" in Kadesh (<em><a href='B:50 1:46'>Deu 1:46</a></em>), on the very border of the promised land, after their rejection from inheriting it. It is significant that Israel and Judah were taken into captivity in areas on the edge of the land promised to Abraham- Babylon, just the other side of the Euphrates, and to Egypt, just the other side of the Nile. The point simply is that the rejected will so want to get back into the land / Kingdom. Like Israel, hanging their harps on the trees by the rivers of Babylon, pining for the land they had been rejected from.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:230 112:10'>Psa 112:10</a></em> speaks of the wicked gnashing with their teeth and melting away, suggesting that the slinking away process goes on even in the outer darkness; they wander, but in their aimless wandering they slowly slink yet further away from their Lord- the one who once fain would have carried them on His shoulders, gathered them under His wings. It's a terrible picture. Cain, in typifying all the rejected, felt that his condemnation was something greater than he could bear (<em><a href='B:10 4:13'>Gen 4:13</a></em>). This is alluded to in a telling way in <em><a href='B:530 10:13'>1Co 10:13</a></em>: for the righteous, they will never be tested more than they can bear, but a way of escape will always be made possible. But for the rejected, there will be no escape. It will be something too great to bear, and somehow they have to go on existing in that state. Thus the rejected will seek death and not find it (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:9:6'>Rev 9:6</a></em>), after the pattern of Judas bungling his own suicide after realising his condemnation (thus his bowels gushed, although he was attempting to hang himself); they will also seek the Lord, all too late, and not find Him either (<em><a href='B:240 1:28'>Pro 1:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:34'>Joh 7:34</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Behold, you have driven me out this day from the surface of the ground- </em>Cain reasons against God’s judgment of him; and to some extent he is successful. The judgment is ameliorated. On :8-12 I have suggested that Cain's sin and judgment is based upon that of Adam and Eve. And likewise, the judgment that they would die in the day they sinned was ameliorated. And so for all time we have established God’s openness to dialogue, His grace, His willingness to change His judgments, as Israel so often experienced. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Being driven out from the literal ground of the <em>eretz</em> was what happened to Israel when they were taken away from their land&nbsp; into captivity. Thus again we see Cain set up as representative of rejected Israel, which is how John's gospel and letters likewise understand him.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will be hidden from your face, and I will be a fugitive and a wanderer in the land. It will happen that whoever finds me will kill me</em>- "Face" can be "faces", and may refer to his expulsion from the sanctuary where the cherubim stood, between man and Eden. There was clearly some kind of vengeance for blood system, as we find later in the Mosaic law. The people he feared would presumably have been his own brethren. Cain seemed to assume that if he was near the sanctuary, he would not be killed; and we see this idea perpetuated in <em><a href='B:110 1:50-51'>1Ki 1:50-51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 2:28'>1Ki 2:28</a></em>. To be sent away from the faces / presence / sanctuary of Yahweh was a tragedy for him; likewise the rejected in the last day will not shrug it off, they will desperately wish to abide in His presence whom they didn’t care for in their lives. We today are to love the Lord's presence, and rejoice in it, as David often does in the Psalms. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>After the pattern of Cain and Adam (<em><a href='B:10 3:24'>Gen 3:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 4:14'>Gen 4:14</a></em>), and also the idea of the wicked being <em>cast </em>into the darkness of condemnation, it seems that the rejected will be forcibly driven away. Cain was driven out from the faces, the presence of the land of Eden, where the Lord's presence was (<em><a href='B:10 4:14'>Gen 4:14</a></em>). Presumably this driving out was done by the Angels. We are left to imagine the ultimate tragedy of Cain going forth from the presence of the Lord (<em><a href='B:10 4:16'>Gen 4:16</a></em> s.w. "face" 4:14), and the rejected 'going away into...' (<em><a href='B:470 25:46'>Mat 25:46</a></em>). The tragedy of rejection is well reflected in the way the Lord speaks of how "great was the fall" of the poorly built house (<em><a href='B:470 7:27'>Mat 7:27</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to him, Therefore whoever slays Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold. Yahweh appointed a sign for Cain, lest any finding him should strike him</em>- There is no promise that Cain will not be killed, but rather some kind of sign was placed upon him, warning of sevenfold vengeance for taking his life. And this apparently worked, for we will not read of Cain's death at the hands of men, and indeed he went on to have his own children. Again we see God’s gentleness even to the condemned; He didn’t wish Cain to suffer unbearably, and modified the judgment to that end. And this God is our God. He was open to dialogue even with the rejected Cain; how much more to us. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Cain went out from Yahweh’s presence- </em>This interview between God and Cain therefore occurred in the sanctuary, with Eden just the other side of it.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden</em>- "Nod" is literally "exile". But he chose to live East of Eden, as near to the sanctuary as he possibly could. Again, we see how the rejected do not just shrug and run away from it all. They will desperately seek acceptance, until the second death takes them. And we too should earnestly seek His sanctuary now, and do nothing at all which might exclude or discourage others from it. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Cain knew his wife- </em>She could have been his sister. But if we understand the record in early Genesis as only concerning the <em>eretz</em>, the land later promised to Abraham, then she may have been a woman from outside that area. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>She conceived, and gave birth to Enoch. He built a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch</em>- Cain's judgment to wander and be a fugitive was therefore mitigated in response to his wishes; for he became a settled urban dweller. We marvel at God’s consideration even to the rejected. Such is His grace and gentleness. "The way of Cain" is associated in <em><a href='B:720 1:11'>Jud 1:11</a></em> with rampant materialism which replaces God, and also with false religion. "Enoch" means 'dedicated' or 'initiated'; "the way of Cain" was of false religion. Having been expelled from Yahweh's sanctuary, he built a city and dedicated his son as the priest- all east of Eden, as if he liked to think that his city and priest could become the way back into Eden. The city was "dedicated" or "initiated"; it was a city which was identified with a person, namely his son Enoch. All this suggests a religious element to the settlement. Rome likewise was a city founded upon the murder of the founder's brother. "He built" is rendered "he was building" by Keil, as if building the city was what consumed the rest of Cain's life. He spent his lifetime trying to prove the curses upon him as untrue- and yet all the same he died, separated from the sanctuary. And this in essence has been the pattern in so many sad lives.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To Enoch was born Irad- </em>According to some (H.P. Mansfield, Basil Atkinson), "Irad" means 'urban dweller', and as noted on :17, the idea of urban dwelling had become an obsession with Cain and his family, as if to try to prove wrong God’s judgment that he would wander and be a fugitive. All men try to act outside of the parameters of our own judgment for sin, effectively denying their humanity; but unless we throw ourselves upon God’s grace, as Cain failed to, then we shall likewise eternally perish. But "Irad" can also mean "fugitive". In this case we would see evidence of the failure of Cain's attempt to stop the curse of being a fugitive, through setting up a walled urban environment for his family. Ultimately, the parameters set by Divine judgment cannot be slid beyond, even though many devote their lives to trying.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Irad became the father of Mehujael- </em>"Formed of God". This might suggest some re-thinking, a recognition that human beings are not brought into being solely by the power of the flesh. But the problem with Hebrew names is that they are capable of a very wide semantic range- Mehujael can also mean "smitten of God", as if God judged him. The same root word for "Mehuja" is soon to be used of how God "destroyed" the earth through the flood (<em><a href='B:10 6:7'>Gen 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 7:4'>Gen 7:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 7:23'>Gen 7:23</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Mehujael became the father of Methushael- </em>"Strengthened man of God". If names are indeed significant, then we may be justified in hoping that for these two generations, of Methushael and Mehujael, there was some revival of spirituality, which came to an end in Lamech. This is typical of human families- generations of unbelief interspersed with occasional generations of belief. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Methushael became the father of Lamech</em>- "Strong youth" or "striker down", as if he rejoiced in his own strength. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Lamech took two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah</em>- Polygamy is mentioned here along with a number of other things which whilst not sinful in themselves at the time, were all indulged in to a point where finally the earth was full of wickedness and needed judgment. Their names also suggest an emphasis upon the cosmetic and superficial; "Adah" = "ornament", "Zillah" = "shadow". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Adah gave birth to Jabal, who was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock</em>- "Jabal" means "wanderer". As noted on :17 and :18, Cain had spent his life trying to ensure that the curse of being a nomad would not pass upon him and his descendants. But God’s judgment will finally come true, as we see here. The tent dwellers were not a reference to all nomadic peoples on the face of the planet; clearly the reference is to a limited group of people, presumably in the area of the <em>eretz, </em>the land promised to Abraham. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>His brother’s name was Jubal, who was the father of all who handle the harp and pipe</em>- "Jubal" can mean "jubilant". The impression given is of a family who were intelligent, resourceful and given to worldly pleasures. But "Jabal" can also be defined as "pleasure". The picture presented is of a family devoted to their own pleasures and profit. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Zillah also gave birth to Tubal Cain, the forger of every cutting instrument of brass and iron- </em>"The lance forger", according to some readings. The idea is of weapons. Lamech not only alludes to Cain (see on :23,24), but includes the name of Cain in his own son. Lamech clearly was the seed of Cain and glorified the fact.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Tubal Cain’s sister was Naamah</em>- "Pleasant / sweet". Her name may be mentioned because of her significance; perhaps she was one of the daughters of men whom the sons of God, the righteous line, intermarried with and were caused to fall away by (<em><a href='B:10 6:2'>Gen 6:2</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Lamech said to his wives, Adah and Zillah, hear my voice. You wives of Lamech, listen to my speech, for I have slain a man for wounding me, a young man for bruising me. If Cain will be avenged seven times, truly Lamech seventy-seven times</em>-This proud boast was effectively playing God. For it was God who pronounced seven fold vengeance upon any who touched Cain; and Lamech with no justification simply appropriates such protection to himself, and declares the vengeance even greater. He twisted God’s words in order to justify killing a man who touched him in some way (:23). So often this happens; God’s words of judgment against a person or His promise of protection for them are twisted around in order to justify human pride and vengefulness. The way the Lamech of Seth's line dies at 777 (<em><a href='B:10 5:31'>Gen 5:31</a></em>) might suggest that his proud boast came to an end in death, as does every form of pride.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If Cain will be avenged seven times, truly Lamech seventy-seven times</em>- The Lord in turn switches Lamech's words around when He urges us to <em>forgive</em> seventy times seven each day (<em><a href='B:470 18:22'>Mat 18:22</a></em>), i.e. even when repentance appears insincere. In the Lord's book, forgiving is the opposite to the desire for vengeance; our unforgiveness can therefore be traced to a mistaken, misplaced desire to take vengeance ourselves.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Adam knew his wife again. She gave birth to a son, and named him Seth, for God has appointed me another child instead of Abel, for Cain killed him</em>- Here we see yet another hope for a Messiah, a Saviour figure who would be appointed (= "Seth") by God as the seed of the woman. All these hopes didn’t come to anything; perhaps they potentially could have done, and were only ruined by human dysfunction. The whole experience was used to deepen an understanding and desire for the Lord Jesus. "Appointed" can also mean "substituted", which is the more exact meaning of "Seth". He was hoped to be a substitute for Abel, a kind of resurrected form of Abel; but in the end, death is death, and there can be no substitute; only a representative sacrifice which we identify with in faith. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There was also a son born to Seth, and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call themselves by Yahweh’s name</em>- "Enosh" is the usual Hebrew word for "man" in the sense of a mortal, coming from the root meaning frail or feeble. Perhaps it was this recognition of weakness and mortality which led men at that time to call themselves by God’s Name; and the same principle is to be seen today. It is those who perceive their own frailty who call upon themselves the Lord's Name in baptism into Jesus (<em><a href='B:510 2:21'>Act 2:21</a></em>). "Call... by" can as well mean to call out to, or to name. The idea may be that the believers now began to call God by His Name Yahweh, although <em><a href='B:10 4:1'>Gen 4:1</a></em> could imply that Name was always known from the beginning. Calling upon His Name may suggest that there developed a conscious division between those following "the way of Cain", and those who identified with Yahweh. To call Yahweh's Name upon you was another way of saying that you had entered covenant relationship with Him (<em><a href='B:50 26:17-18'>Deu 26:17-18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 44:5'>Isa 44:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 63:19'>Isa 63:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:430 3:9'>Zep 3:9</a></em>), just as believers do so today through the conscious act of baptism. So maybe this was part of the conscious division developed between the "way of Cain" and that of Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is the book of the generations of Adam- </em>A Hebraism for "an account of the story of...". This phrase is found throughout Genesis, introducing the various sections: <em><a href='B:10 2:4'>Gen 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 5:1'>Gen 5:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 6:9'>Gen 6:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 10:1'>Gen 10:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 11:10'>Gen 11:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 11:27'>Gen 11:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 25:12'>Gen 25:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 25:19'>Gen 25:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 36:1'>Gen 36:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 37:2'>Gen 37:2</a></em>. The focus of the material reduces each time; from the heavens and earth, to Adam, to the faithful line through Seth, to Noah, to Abraham, to Jacob, to Joseph.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the day that God created man, He made him in God’s likeness</em>- This is to be connected with how Adam had a son "in his own likeness" (:3), as if to imply that the Divine likeness is passed on through procreation. This "likeness" therefore refers to something physical rather than spiritual or mental; for His ways are far above ours, and we are to take on His mind through wilfully being open to His Spirit. The word is used of how Ahab had an image made in the likeness of a god in Damascus. The word definitely has 'physical' suggestions. These reflections are hard evidence that God is not totally immaterial, but exists as an actual entity. Admittedly all terms such as corporeal, physical, material etc. leave us beneath "the tyranny of words"; but all the same God is real and actual, creating a man after His likeness, in the same way as that man then procreated according to his likeness, which was God’s. &nbsp;</p><p>The common view of the times was that only the ruling classes were created in the image of God. The Ancient Near East was full of images to rulers which were called "images of God". The Caesar cult continued this. Only the supreme ruler was the image of God. But Genesis deconstructs this, and states that each and every man is in the image of God. The prophets lament how Israel worshipped images which had no breath / spirit in them (Hab. 2:19; Jer. 10:14; 51:17). Rather than perceive that they were each living images of God, filled with His Spirit, Israel preferred to avoid such personal responsibility by instead creating and worshipping another image of God. Perceiving we ourselves are in the image of God inspires responsibility. And we would rather avoid that and try to claim that God's image is not in me, but in something else. The Ancient Near East considered priests to be men in the image of God who had His Spirit in them. Genesis is saying that every man has this; we are all priests. It was God's intention that Israel should be a nation of priests, as the new Israel are to be a "royal priesthood". But both natural and spiritual Israel have largely shrunk from this responsibility, and preferred to see the image and spirit of God in others or elsewhere, anywhere, apart from in themselves.</p> <p> Egyptian inscriptions show that the Pharaohs were considered to be made in the image of God, unlike the mass of society who were supposedly not in God's image and could therefore be abused as animals through heavy taxation etc.. For humanity were seen as born into slavery. The name of the Pharaoh Tutankhamen means the “Living image of Amun”.  Later, the Assyrian king Esarhaddon was described as "the very image of Bel" the god of Assyria. The theology of Yahweh directly challenges this. All men are in His image, and there is no two or multi tier view of society, whereby just the ruling caste was in God's image. And this has meaning for today, where effectively a hyper wealthy class has emerged sitting on the backs of a vast majority of minimum wage labour. And indeed there is developing a servile, standardised mass mentality. Man is becoming dehumanized, personality is becoming bleached to conformity, strong characters are fewer, as society drowns in depression and nihilism. All because we resist the call of our own bodies and natures, to understand that we are in God's image and can rise above to something infinitely more noble and worthy.</p> <p> We see the Ancient Near Eastern view of these things challenged again when the Torah declares that all land belongs to Yahweh and shall be the eternal possession of His people. Not some propertied class. There are many Egyptian references to the Pharaohs being begotten in the image of the gods; the Biblical record states that we are created in His image and likeness. I suggest the "likeness" is an invitation to see that we have the potential to "be like Him" in a mental and spiritual way; a dimension quite missing in the Egyptian theology which Moses is here deconstructing. "We shall be like Him / Oh how rich the promise". Creation has indeed been made subject to vanity, but for the believer, it has been "subjected in hope" (Rom. 8:19-21).</p> <p> Another aspect of the Egyptian / pagan idea which is deconstructed is the idea that gods only beget gods in their image. Thus the Enuma Elish 1:16,  “Anu begot Nudimmud in his likeness".  But in reality, God begets children in His image who are all of humanity; for Gen. 5 is a genealogy of men. And they are in the image of man as well as in God's image. We see here the value and dignity attached to the human person, reflected in our respect for all persons, including our enemies. To treat others as made in the image of God is so difficult when they are the brutal, cruel, foolish, dogmatic, judgmental, unkind... but they are still in the image of God, no matter how marred and distorted, and we are to treat them accordingly.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created</em>- The record intentionally confuses the singular "Adam" with the married couple. This may explain why <em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em> speaks of sin entering the world by one man, Adam- when Eve was equally part of the transgression. We also see a reflection of the unity God perceives between married couples whom He joins together. Here and in :1, we are reading of the events of "the day when they were created". The fall of Adam and Eve and the issues with Cain and Abel are overlooked; because this account is focusing upon the development of the more spiritual line which emerged through Seth, culminating in Noah; whereas chapter 4 has given us the line of evildoers through Cain, and this will climax in the way that the sons of God (the righteous) intermarried with the daughters of men (the line of Cain) until only Noah was left righteous.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and became the father of a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth</em>- As noted on :1, this begettal of a son after his own image and likeness is to be connected with how he had been created in God’s image and likeness; which surely refers to the physical rather than the moral. Much is therefore implied here about the nature of God Himself.  This is why Israel were not to make any physical form or image of God; because it would take them away from appreciating that they themselves as persons were the image of God. God has a form, for we are made in His form and likeness; but Israel didn't see that form and were not to make any image of it (Dt. 4:12,15).  And as the Lord reasons, what has God's image on it must be given to God. We are His, wholly and totally, by reason of the image we bear. As noted on <em><a href='B:10 4:25'>Gen 4:25</a></em>, here we see yet another hope for a Messiah, a Saviour figure who would be appointed (= "Seth") by God as the seed of the woman. All these hopes didn’t come to anything; perhaps they potentially could have done, and were only ruined by human dysfunction. The whole experience was used to deepen an understanding and desire for the Lord Jesus. "Appointed" can also mean "substituted", which is the more exact meaning of "Seth". He was hoped to be a substitute for Abel, a kind of resurrected form of Abel; but in the end, death is death, and there can be no substitute; only a representative sacrifice which we identify with in faith. </p><p>We naturally enquire of the connection between the statements that God created man after His own image and likeness, and that then man begat children after his own image and likeness. There is a correspondence between father and son, clearly seen between Adam and Seth. And we are being told that this reflects the correspondence between Adam [and every man] and God. Adam was in this the sense "the son of God" as Luke 3 states. This is why God describes Himself as our "kinsman redeemer" (Ps. 9:11-13; 2 Chron. 24:22). Man is therefore God's nearest kin, because the avenger of blood was the nearest kin to the man slain. In the context of Genesis, God has just now shown in Gen. 4 that He is the avenger of Abel's blood. Genesis 1 repeatedly states that everything in creation was created "according to its kind", its own distinctive type or class. But when we come to the account of man's creation, we read that he was made in God's image and likeness. After His, Divine, kind. This gives yet more dimension to the simple invitation to view God as our Heavenly Father.</p> <p> We could read :1 as implying that Adam was created after God's image and likeness in the day that he was created [otherwise that phrase is somewhat redundant], but that image was marred as a result of the fall. And over the generations, that image becomes progressively less as men beget their children after their image and likeness. Or we can take this :3 as explaining to us in what sense we are created after God's image and likeness. We are to Him as a child is to its human father. We have the father's image, but somewhat uniquely refracted in a way that means we are not the splitting image of our fathers, but yet our image and likeness is related to them in a distorted, diluted sense. It is emphasized twice in :1,2 that God made man in His image "in the day that God created him". This phrase would appear redundant, especially as it is stated twice, unless we understand it to mean that before he sinned, Adam [which was the name for 'Adam and Eve'] was in God's image. But man is still in that image, although not completely. This is why the genealogy of Genesis 5 starts with God. "The book of the generations of Adam" begins not with Adam, but with God begetting Adam. In this sense Adam was the son of God (Lk. 3:38). He is the Father, and we are a family begotten in His likeness. But that family is all humanity. "We are indeed His offspring" (Acts 17:28). And so all men are to be respected; James says we should not curse men because they are made in God's image. This likely interprets Gen. 9:6 "Whoever sheds man’s blood, his blood will be shed by man, for God made man in His own image".</p> <p> In this sense, God's creation of Adam was a begettal of a son. And thereby we are empowered to understand the new creation of a spiritual man within us as being also a kind of begettal by the Spirit. In this sense, the virgin birth of God's Son the Lord Jesus doesn't unduly set Him apart from the rest of us who have been begotten by the Spirit, as John's writings make clear. So whilst we are physically in God's image and likeness, the degree of likeness is at times obscure, and at best diluted, distorted and only a refraction of the original light. But in the Lord Jesus at the time of His death, in the mind and character He had there, we see "the form of God"; and we are invited to let that mind be in us which was in Him there (Phil. 2). He there was the supreme manifestation or image and likeness of God, in human flesh. He was a man amongst men, man as God intended man to be, and as we shall finally be. And that mind, image and likeness is to be allowed in us ["let this mind be in you..."]. Just as Adam was in God's image 'in the day that he was created', so we can return to that image and even fuller, through the Lord Jesus who is the image of God, and His exact likeness (Col. 1:15). As Alan Hayward put it, He was "the man with the face of God". The Lord Jesus in His time of dying reached the exact image and likeness of God, although He was in the form / image of a servant as well as being in the form / image of God. The Father's side was refracted through His humanity, being "found in fashion as a man". And through the work of the Spirit, we are being conformed and transformed into that same image (2 Cor. 3:18; Col. 3:9,10 "Do not lie to each other, seeing you have put off the old man with his doings, and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator"). For "He shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor. 4:6). And we are not to turn away from that face, but to let it transform us through allowing the work of His Spirit in the new creation of men and women after His image and likeness, which is that of God: "Now the Lord is the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there the heart is free. But we each, with an unveiled face and reflecting the glory of the Lord [Jesus], are all transformed into his likeness from glory to glory by the Lord the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:17,18).</p> <p> We don't fully get there in this life, but the joy of resurrection is that we will: "And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly" (1 Cor. 15:49). Paul there alludes to Gen. 5:3 LXX , where Adam produces a son who bears his image, just as God made Adam in His image. Paul sees this as coming true at resurrection, but of course right now the Lord is a "life giving spirit" in our new creation and new birth of water and spirit. We are now being progressively changed into His image, from glory to glory (2 Cor. 3:18). We as believers were predestined to be conformed to the image of God's Son (Rom. 8:29); a process that starts now and comes to final conclusion at the day of judgment. Then, God's desire to have children in His image and likeness shall be finally fulfilled.</p> <p> And so by following this theme through the Bible, we come to understand ourselves, who we are. We are shown what it is, to be human; how high we are rather than how low we are, and what great potential there is in being human. Every man being in the image of God, there are no 'mere mortals', no 'ordinary people', 'standard blokes', produced by some random evolutionary process. Recall how in the account of creation, everything was brought into being by the statement "Let there be...", but man is different: "Let us make man after our likeness". God will finally make a man more precious than fine gold, even the gold of Ophir (Is. 13:12). The Lord had totally our nature, and showed us what was possible. We see that we were born for great things, we see how high is our potential, and so we are inspired to rise above our human side. For we are made in the image and likeness of God, but also in human image and likeness. The teaching of Gen. 5:1,3 can perhaps be seen as a balancing out of the dimension presented in Gen. 3 and Gen. 4- that we are indeed fallen and sinful. But that does not consign us to inevitable failure. And if we are in Christ and open to His transforming Spirit, we shall progressively be changed [back, or more fully] into the Divine image as it is in Him; and then be physically and totally changed into it at His return, although the Father's image and likeness will be refracted through us each in a unique way, just as Adam's image and likeness was in his children. Man was born to respond to God; He is not far from any one of us, because we are made in His image and there is something intuitive about relationship with Him. Altheism is therefore an unnatural denial of our own Father- usually because of false images of Him. As made in God's image, we are half way there as it were.</p> <p> But so many don't want it, or pull out of the formation process, declining the new creation. Ps. 82:6,7 implies Israel were given that option, but instead they allowed the side of being in their father's image and likeness to dominate: "I had taken you for divine beings [I said 'You are gods']... but you shall die as humans / men".  And their father was "the devil", the flesh, the Lord commented. This is why He quoted these words to them when they wrongly accused Him of pretending to be God. The Lord's quotation was therefore saying that yes, He was indeed in His Father's image and likeness- but that was possible for them also. But they were allowing the side of "their father the devil" to dominate. Perceiving these things provides the pastoral answer to our complaints about our sins. People tell us they are having an affair, are secretly addicted to alcohol, or whatever. And we point out to ourselves our own failures. And what are we to say, to ourselves and to others? "You can do better than that. You were born to better things". For we are in the image of God, and can be transformed into it far more. And so it can help at times to reposition our understanding of sin, in terms of failure and immaturity in rising up to reflecting the glory of God as we have seen it in the face of Jesus Christ.</p> <p> The connection between :1 and :3 further shows that we have the image of God and also the image of our earthly father. Adam's son was both the image of God and of Adam. We are mixed, mongrels between flesh and Spirit. Which is why all bad men have some good in them, something of the Divine; and all good men are never completely good but have the human image and likeness as well in some points. But we are offered the opportunity to be reborn, reformed, recreated, after God's image and likeness which was seen perfectly in the Lord; to become the image of the Heavenly just as surely as we bore the image of the earthly.</p> <p> Time and again, the Torah told Israel to live justly in things great and small, because "I am Yahweh your God". We are made in His image, and should live like Him in respect of all men who are all also in His image.  To be like Him becomes our passion; to be holy "because I am holy". As the old hymn says,

"Be Thou my vision, O Lord of my heart;

Nought be all else to me, save that Thou art".

Who He is, His image, "That Thou art", is to be all for me, our vision and our heart's sole desire. To be like Him.

"Be Thou my vision, O Lord of my heart;

Nought be all else to me, save that Thou art.

Thou my best thought, by day or by night

Waking or sleeping, Thy presence my light.

 

Riches I need not, nor vain empty praise;

Thou mine inheritance, now and always.

Thou and Thou only, first in my heart,

Great God of Heaven, my treasure Thou art.

 

Be Thou my wisdom and Thou my true word.

I ever with Thee and Thou with me Lord.

Heart of my own heart, whatever befalls.

Still be my vision, O Ruler of all

 

Be Thou my battle shield, sword for the fight,

Be Thou my dignity, Thou my delight.

Thou my soul's shelter, Thou my high tower

Raise Thou me heavenward, O Power of my power.

 

Thou my great Fatherand I Thy true son,

Thou in me dwelling, and I with Thee one.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he became the father of sons and daughters</em>- We can assume that he had many. But the faithful line was through only one of them, Seth; and that too had all but spiritually died out by the time of Noah. It must've been hard for Adam and Eve to see their scores of children and thousands of grandchildren, great grandchildren etc. all fall away from the faith; for there were none righteous by the time of Noah. We can assume that they themselves kept the faith; for Eve's later hatred of the serpent and struggle with it until she killed it became programmatic for the true "seed of the woman" subsequently. The line of Seth alone were the only "seed of the woman" whilst Cain's line, and presumably the rest of the children, were the seed of the serpent. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, then he died</em>- The genealogies emphasize "death", a reminder that indeed death passed upon all men (<em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em>). The longer lifespans could be explained by the different environment and climate before the flood; there had been no rain before the flood, and the canopy of water came down to earth at the deluge. This canopy may have shielded people from harmful radiation. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Seth lived one hundred and five years, and became the father of Enosh</em>- There is an Enoch around the same time in the line of Cain, as listed in Genesis 4. And there are several similar names at the same points in the genealogies through both Seth and Cain. I have suggested above that these two lines are effectively the seeds of the serpent and the woman developing, although by chapter 6 they have intermarried until Noah alone is left faithful. Why the similarities, and at the same time? Perhaps we are to conclude that the seed of the serpent appears similar to the seed of the woman and even imitates her, externally. Just as the Assyrians offered life in their kingdom to Judah in the language of the Kingdom of God on earth- sitting under their own vine and fig tree etc. Likewise the antiChrist is a fake Christ, an imitation of the true.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Seth lived after he became the father of Enosh eight hundred and seven years, and became the father of sons and daughters</em>- The ages recorded here differ markedly between the Masoretic (i.e. Hebrew) text, the various versions of the LXX, and Josephus. The New Testament, under inspiration, repeatedly quotes the LXX in preference over the MT (Hebrew text). Luke's genealogy of Christ only makes sense when compared against the LXX rather than the MT. It is worth noting that if the LXX genealogies and ages are followed, and the manner of New Testament quotation encourages us to follow them, then the Lord was not born at 4000 years after Adam, and so 2000 AD was not 6000 years after creation. This has drastic implications for the "6000 year plan" theory, with the Millennium anticipated as the seventh day "sabbath of rest".&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years, then he died</em>- "He died" runs as a refrain here (<em><a href='B:10 5:5'>Gen 5:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 5:8'>Gen 5:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 5:11'>Gen 5:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 5:14'>Gen 5:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 5:17'>Gen 5:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 5:20'>Gen 5:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 5:27'>Gen 5:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 5:31'>Gen 5:31</a></em>). The reality of the curse upon Adam, of paradise lost, is being brought home.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Enosh lived ninety years, and became the father of Kenan</em>- The longer lifespans would imply a far stronger race than we now experience. Each woman may well have had a few hundred children. Coupled with the long lifespans and healthy environment, there would have been a few million people alive by the time of the flood. And out of all of them, only Noah was found righteous. This mass population explosion is another connection between our last days and "the days of Noah".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Enosh lived after he became the father of Kenan, eight hundred and fifteen years, and became the father of sons and daughters</em>- Perhaps this was from whom the faithful Heber the Kenite was descended (<em><a href='B:70 4:11'>Jdg 4:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 4:17'>Jdg 4:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 5:24'>Jdg 5:24</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years, then he died</em>- "Enosh" is translated "mortal man" in <em><a href='B:220 4:17'>Job 4:17</a></em>, and is used in the sense of man in his humanity and weakness. And so man dies.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Kenan lived seventy years, and became the father of Mahalalel</em>- "Praise of God". It's questionable how much significance we should attach to the meaning of names; but this meaning would encourage us to again see some spirituality in the line of Seth. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Kenan lived after he became the father of Mahalalel eight hundred and forty years, and became the father of sons and daughters</em>- We may enquire as to why one son is chosen for mention, when that son may not have been the firstborn, and then this point is made a measuring point in the life of the person. Perhaps the idea is that the birth and raising of the faithful seed who would continue the line of the seed of the woman was the most significant point in their long lives. And so in many ways it is with believing parents and family lines today.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And all the days of Kenan were nine hundred and ten years, then he died</em>- "All the days" is a metaphor meaning "the length of the life". Our lives are counted in days by God; for each day ought to be significant.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Mahalalel lived sixty-five years, and became the father of Jared</em>- The rubric in the genealogies is clear- how long a person lived before they had a significant child, how long they lived afterwards, and then a note that they died and their final age on death. This is exactly the style of the king lists found&nbsp; amongst the Egyptians and Sumerians. We must ever remember that the Pentateuch was originally produced for the Israelites in Egypt. The idea would have been that this line of the seed of the woman were actually kings; such rubric was only used for the kings. That might have been literally true, but I suggest the idea is that ordinary faithful people within the seed of the woman were kings in God’s eyes. Indeed all the faithful shall be king-priests (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:5:10'>Rev 5:10</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Mahalalel lived after he became the father of Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and became the father of sons and daughters</em>- The mention of other sons and daughters may be to highlight the significance of the one who was faithful and through whom the line of the seed of the woman continued. In some genealogies, being the father of a person may simply mean that you were their ancestor. Generations were skipped. But giving the ages of the person when they had a child was perhaps to flag that this is not the style here. The genealogy of Cain in chapter 4 isn't recorded in this way; no time periods are mentioned.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the days of Mahalalel were eight hundred and ninety-five years, then he died</em>- There appears to be an intended contrast with the line of Cain, the seed of the serpent, recorded in Genesis 4. Cain's children have a note made of their secular achievements; nothing like that is mentioned in the line of Seth, the seed of the woman. Worldly advantage and achievement mean nothing for those whose focus is upon being the seed of the woman. Worldly achievement and contribution to society is of absolutely no moment in the eternal record. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jared lived one hundred and sixty-two years, and became the father of Enoch</em>- Jared had this child somewhat later in life. Perhaps this reflects a lengthy search for a Godly wife; or perhaps his earlier children were spiritual failures and weren't therefore the ones through whom the seed was to be preserved.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jared lived after he became the father of Enoch eight hundred years, and became the father of sons and daughters</em>- The genealogy will conclude with Noah being the only faithful believer even in the line of Seth. This means that his contemporaries had rejected the faith; the reality is that the vast majority of the children of these faithful men didn’t remain in the faith. It would have been a most depressing and disappointing environment for those who were spiritually minded.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years, then he died</em>- The genealogy through Cain in chapter 4 doesn't mention this repeated note that "he died" which we have here in the genealogy of the faithful. Perhaps we are to conclude that for the seed of the serpent and those "in the way of Cain", death is something they can't cope with and act as if it doesn't happen to them- although it does. The seed of the woman fully accept death, it is part of their necessary path towards eternal salvation. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Enoch lived sixty-five years, and became the father of Methuselah</em>- Adam Clarke and others see "Methuselah" as meaning something to the effect of "When he dies, it (or judgment) shall come". And he died in the year the flood came. <em><a href='B:720 1:14'>Jud 1:14</a></em> mentions that Enoch prophesied of judgment to come upon the world of his day. This would suggest that there had been a revelation about the flood before Noah received the command to build the ark. He would've obeyed, encouraged by Methuselah. The threat of judgment was therefore hanging over the earth for many centuries before the flood came; they were a society without excuse, and the gradual falling away of the faithful until only Noah was left would've been an awful period to live through. And the days of Noah are as our last days. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Enoch walked with God after he became the father of Methuselah for three hundred years, and became the father of sons and daughters</em>- Walking with God in a Genesis context reminds us of how God walked in the Garden of Eden, and fellowshipped with Adam and Eve before their sin. This may be another hint in early Genesis that the effects of the "fall" could in essence and principle be overcome in the lives of the Godly; just as John's gospel records the Lord offering "eternal life" right now, presenting Himself as the tree of life. The Kingdom is both now and not yet.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years</em>- This presents Enoch as ending his mortal life much earlier than the others mentioned in this genealogy.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God snatched him away</em>- This may well imply a snatching away from&nbsp; persecution. The Hebrew is used for taking away from something to something else, but not necessarily death, in Gen. 2:15; Dt. 30:4; 2 Kings 2:1-18;  Ez. 3:14; Ps. 49:16; 73:24. Although he was snatched away from some form of persecution, he still died. Both Enoch and Noah are described as "walking with God" and both were saved from destruction / judgment upon the wicked; but they both still died eventually. The seed of the serpent and that of the woman have always been in conflict, and so it would be no surprise if Enoch was persecuted by the line of Cain recorded in Genesis 4. But the standard rubric here in chapter 5 concludes each account with "and he died". That is notably absent here. But immortality was first granted to the Lord Jesus, who thus became the firstfruits of the redeemed. Enoch all the same had sinned and surely had to taste of death. The Bible knows nothing of immortal souls living in heaven after death; and even that approach fails to make sense of the pointed omission of the standard note that "he died". For immortal soulism claims that <em>on death</em> the supposed immortal soul goes to heaven. So the problem of his death being unrecorded remains. <em><a href='B:650 11:5'>Heb 11:5</a></em> says that Enoch "was not found", he was not grabbed as others intended, because God "removed" him (Gk.) so that he should not see death- i.e. the death that others intended, at that point. And yet he surely died, for Hebrews 11 says that all those mentioned in that chapter, including Enoch, "died", in sure hope of reward at the last day (<em><a href='B:650 11:39-40'>Heb 11:39-40</a></em>). He died, because God removed him from the death others intended; rather like Moses was effectively taken away to death by an Angel. Paul likewise seems to suggest that he was given the opportunity to die, but he chose to remain (<em>Php_1:23-24</em>). I suggest the "and he died..." was omitted in order to continue the idea that for the seed of the woman, even if they remain within the physical parameters of the curse, they are in another sense free from it. God in grace gradually reduced some aspects of the curse in the lives of His children, the seed of the woman. We see this likewise in how the Law of Moses, which was likewise "added because of transgression" (<em><a href='B:550 3:19'>Gal 3:19</a></em>), was amended and ameliorated as time went on. I have demonstrated elsewhere that Gentiles were initially forbidden to eat of the Passover, but this was amended later. Sinners were to have their children punished for some generations (<em><a href='B:20 34:7'>Exo 34:7</a></em>), but by the time of Ezekiel 18 this had been ameliorated.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Methuselah lived one hundred and eighty-seven years, and became the father of Lamech</em>- The righteous seed was not born to Methuselah early in his life. Perhaps he had to search long to find a Godly wife; or maybe his other children slid away into the mass apostacy of that period. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Methuselah lived after he became the father of Lamech seven hundred and eighty-two years, and became the father of sons and daughters</em>-&nbsp; We wonder why Lamech was not saved in the ark, and why he died relatively young. We can assume that he fell away from the faith, whilst his father and son (Noah) remained faithful. To hold to the faith amidst such mass apostacy, including amongst your immediate family, is notable indeed. Or it could simply be that he died younger than the others because of persecution or natural causes.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty-nine years, then he died</em>- Methuselah lived longer than any other recorded man, dying in the year the flood came; see on <em><a href='B:10 5:21'>Gen 5:21</a></em>. Perhaps his longevity was a reflection of God’s blessing upon him. A more negative reading would be that Methuselah fell away from the faith and perished in the flood.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years, and became the father of a son</em>- As noted on :26, we are left to assume that Lamech fell away from the faith, or died relatively young. His faithful father Methuselah outlived him. Lamech was the sixth from Adam in this list, just as there was a Lamech the sixth from Adam in the line of Cain (<em><a href='B:10 4:16-24'>Gen 4:16-24</a></em>). This highlights how the two lines were parallel, with the seed of the serpent being but a mimic of that of the woman; just as the antiChrist is a fake, imitation Christ, and this world, the kingdom of men with its offers and claims, is but a fake Kingdom of God.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'> 5:29 <em>And he named him Noah, saying, This same will comfort us in our work and in the toil of our hands, because of the ground which Yahweh has cursed</em>- </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Perhaps they hoped that this would be the seed of the woman who would bring the curse on the ground to an end. Clearly this hope for a Messiah figure would have been significant in the thinking of the faithful. Or did Noah's parents expect Noah to be the child who would do all the hard menial work for them, so that they would suffer less from the curse placed upon the ground in Eden? This might explain why Noah had children when he was 500, far older than others of his time (<em><a href='B:10 5:32'>Gen 5:32</a></em> - Noah's father had had his first children at 182, <em><a href='B:10 5:28'>Gen 5:28</a></em>; Seth had his first child at 105, <em><a href='B:10 5:6'>Gen 5:6</a></em>; Enos at 95, <em><a href='B:10 5:9'>Gen 5:9</a></em>; Cainan at 70, <em><a href='B:10 5:12'>Gen 5:12</a></em>; Mahalalel at 65, <em><a href='B:10 5:15'>Gen 5:15</a></em>; Jared at 162, <em><a href='B:10 5:18'>Gen 5:18</a></em>; Enoch at 65, <em><a href='B:10 5:21'>Gen 5:21</a></em>; Methuselah at 187, <em><a href='B:10 5:25'>Gen 5:25</a></em>); <em><a href='B:10 6:18'>Gen 6:18</a></em> implies that Noah only had three sons, whereas for people with such long life spans we'd have expected him to have had far more than that. He only had three children- for he prepared the ark to save "his house" (<em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em>) and <em><a href='B:10 7:1'>Gen 7:1</a></em> is quite clear: ""Go into the ark, you and <em>all </em>your household"- his whole household was his wife, three sons and their wives. Period . Perhaps we get the picture of a man who was the underdog, the farm worker, the sidekick of the family, whose own family life was delayed and limited by this background. Perhaps he turned to alcohol for comfort (hence <em><a href='B:10 9:21'>Gen 9:21</a></em>). But it was he whom God chose to save, he alone who was righteous in that generation which perished. It was the quiet, broken man who was saved. The Hebrew word for "Comfort" (a play on 'Noah') occurs later, when we read how God "repented" that He had made man (<em><a href='B:10 6:6-7'>Gen 6:6-7</a></em>). Lamech's desire for 'comfort' was fulfilled but not as he imagined; not through his son being his personal slave, but rather in God changing His mind about humanity and making a new start. We get what we desire, in essence; and so we need to desire the right things. Another alternative is that we are to understand 'comfort' in 5:29 as only one possible translation; the idea could be that Lamech hoped that his son Noah would be the one who would bring about repentance / changing in God regarding the curse upon the earth. In this case, we see Lamech hoping that this son of his would be the promised "seed of the woman" of <em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em>, a Messiah figure. However, the Lamech of 5:28 may well be the Lamech of <em><a href='B:10 4:18-22'>Gen 4:18-22</a></em>; both Lamechs are described as having Methuselah as their father. As often in early Genesis, this would be a case of one history being recorded in one chapter and then another one in the next- as with the two creation accounts in Genesis 1, 2. In this case, if Lamech is the same Lamech, then Noah had very gifted and high flying siblings. His brother Jabal was the leader of the cattle owners (4:20); his brother Jubal was the leading musician of the age (4:21); Tubalcain his other brother was the leader of all the metalworkers. Lamech was the first polygamist, who killed a young man for a slight insult and boasted about it; and whose wife Adah means 'decorated / adorned'. These were people of the world. And Noah was the sidekick brother who was to do all the menial farm work so the rest of them could pursue their careers and social lives. Against this of course it can be argued that there are differences in the genealogies of chapters 4 and 5. However, in the context, <em><a href='B:10 6:1-4'>Gen 6:1-4</a></em> describes how the lines of Seth and Cain intermarried (the sons of God married the daughters of men) and it could be argued that the genealogies we have aren't complete, generations are skipped, and 'having a son' could be understood in a wider sense than referring to a son directly fathered by the person concerned. 'Lamech' in Hebrew is comprised of the three central letters of the Hebrew alphabet and it could be argued that this reflects his 'joining' function (as it does in other Semitic literature), in joining the Sethite and Cainite lines together. The resemblances between the six names in <em><a href='B:10 4:17-18'>Gen 4:17-18</a></em> with six in chapter 5 is striking, and they both culminate in Lamech, as if he was the one in whom the lines mixed. Interestingly, Lamech in <em><a href='B:10 4:24'>Gen 4:24</a></em> speaks of 77 fold vengeance coming upon him; and the Lamech of <em><a href='B:10 5:30'>Gen 5:30</a></em> (the same Lamech?) dies at 777 years old. It also needs to be carried in mind that Semitic 'genealogies' aren't always chronological; they are constructed in order to make various points or develop themes, as in the genealogies of the Lord in Matthew and Luke.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The same root word for "Noah" is found in <em><a href='B:140 6:41'>2Ch 6:41</a></em>, where the ark of God 'rested' or 'Noah-ed' in the tabernacle. When the ark 'rested' on Ararat ('holy hill') the same word is used (<em><a href='B:10 8:4'>Gen 8:4</a></em>). A case can be made that Ararat was in fact Mount Zion, where the ark was later to 'rest' in the temple. The 'resting' of the ark was therefore the fulfilment of God’s intention in Noah- God’s salvation is described as a "promised rest" (<em><a href='B:650 4:10-11'>Heb 4:10-11</a></em>), and it was prefigured in the final resting of the ark. Thus the final salvation of God is to be understood in terms of God 'resting' with us, in us, within His ark. He labours and struggles too... for us. And those struggles will only be at rest when we are saved in the last day; a Father's eternal struggle for His children. The 'rest' spoken of in Noah's name was thus a rest for God. Noah's going out of the ark into a cleansed, pristine world was therefore symbolic of our going forth into the Kingdom at Christ's return. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It's significant that the various Mesopotamian legends about a flood all speak of there being conflict between the divinities before the decision to flood the earth was taken; and then quarrels and recriminations between them after it. The Biblical record has none of this- the one true God brought the flood upon the earth by His sovereign will, and He lifted the flood. In the legends, the hero of the flood (cp. Noah) is exalted to Divine status, whereas in the Biblical record Noah not only remains human, but is described as going off and getting drunk. Throughout pagan legends, the Divine-human boundary is often blurred- gods get cast down to earth and become men, whilst men get exalted to 'Heaven' and godhood. This gave rise to the idea of 'angels that sinned' and were cast down to earth. But in the Biblical record, the Divine-human boundary is set very clearly- the one God of Israel is <em>so</em> far exalted above humanity, His ways are not ours etc. (<em><a href='B:290 55:8'>Isa 55:8</a></em>), that there can be no possibility of this happening. The exception of course was in the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ- but even He was born as a genuine human upon earth, and (contrary to Trinitarian theology) He was no Divine comet who landed upon earth for 33 years. The whole idea of the Divinity and personal pre-existence of Jesus Christ is simply not Biblical. The Mesopotamian legends speak of the flood being sent to stop man destroying Enlil's "rest" by his noise. The Mesopotamian gods sought for a "ceasing from toil", "rest from labour"- identical ideas to the Hebrew concept of <em>shabbat</em>. This was why, it was claimed, the gods first created man and put him to work in their garden- so that they could "rest". This background is alluded to in the way that Genesis speaks of man being <em>cast out</em> of tending the garden of Eden as a punishment- scarcely something the gods would wish if man was there to save them working there. God speaks of Him giving <em>man </em>a <em>shabbat</em> as a rest for man from his labour. And the flood, although it was Divine judgment, ultimately worked out as a blessing of 'rest' for man in that the 'world' was cleansed from sin. Thus 'Noah' was given that name, meaning 'rest', "because this child will bring us relief from all our hard work" (<em><a href='B:10 5:29'>Gen 5:29</a></em> G.N.B.). Adam's work in Eden wasn't onerous; his work when cast out of the garden was hard. The wrong ideas are clearly alluded to and often reversed- in order to show that a loving God created the world for humanity, for our benefit and blessing- and not to toil for the gods in order to save them the effort. The 'rest' so sought by the Mesopotamian gods was actually intended by the one true God as His gift to humanity. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Lamech lived after he became the father of Noah five hundred and ninety-five years, and became the father of sons and daughters</em>- He died relatively young compared to his contemporaries, five years before the flood. We can assume he was supportive of Noah's life work until he died. But I suggested on :29 above another possible take on Lamech.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>5:31<em> All the days of Lamech were seven hundred and seventy-seven years, then he died</em>- I suggested on :29 that his death at 777 would connect him with the Lamech in the line of Cain, who pronounced a multiple seven curse upon others.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth</em>- see on <em><a href='B:10 5:29'>Gen 5:29</a></em>. The flood came when Noah was 600 (<em><a href='B:10 7:11'>Gen 7:11</a></em>), yet he spent 120 years preparing it (<em><a href='B:10 6:3'>Gen 6:3</a></em>). So it's possible that he wasn't married when the call came to build the ark; he'd have explained his life mission to his wife, and she'd have been his first convert. Alternatively, if he were already married at 480, they had many years of barrenness in their marriage. Given the long lifespans in those days, this would've been very hard to take. Yet he didn’t take another wife. He was "moved with fear", 'reverently apprehensive' at what God told him, and prepared the ark in order to save his family (<em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em>). Yet he began doing this before he had any children, and perhaps before he was married. He had faith that he would one day have a family, in accordance with God’s invitation to make an ark in which to save his family. The mention of three sons being born in one year might mean they were triplets. Perhaps there was a far higher incidence of multiple births in those days, just as lifespans were far longer. This would mean that there would have been a veritable population explosion going on in the lead up to the flood- another connection with our last days, which are "as the days of Noah".</p><p>The flood came when Noah was 600. He was building the ark 120 years, from when he was 480. He was told then that the ark was to house his children and their wives (Gen. 6:18), when as yet he had no children. He went ahead and started building in faith, and 20 years after starting his barren wife had triplets. For it seems they were his only children. He raised them in the knowledge of what was to happen, and they persuaded their girlfriends / wives of this too. A truly wonderful example of the Spirit of Christian living. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:330 14:20'>Eze 14:20</a></em> could imply that Noah's sons and daughters in law were saved by his faith and intercession, rather than their own righteousness: "Though Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, as I live, says the Lord Yahweh, they would save neither son nor daughter; they would save only their own lives by their righteousness". He presumably had other children, and his three sons and their wives presumably had children and grandchildren. But none of these were saved. They would've been destroyed amongst the wicked. We can imagine the deep division within the family as a result of Noah's commitment to the ark project, his belief in judgment to come and God’s word. Or maybe the rest of the family were killed due to the conflict with the line of Cain. Or it could be that for some reason, the family was afflicted with barrenness, as were many other faithful in the Biblical record. I suggest this because Noah is described as preparing the ark for the saving of his household, and his three sons and their wives and Noah's wife are described as "all of your household" (<em><a href='B:10 7:1'>Gen 7:1</a></em>). But it could be that he was commanded to prepare an ark for the saving of his household (<em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em>), but many of his family refused the salvation made potentially available to them. </p><p>We note that there are recorded here 10 generations from Adam to Noah, and there are also 10 generations recorded from Noah to Abraham (Gen. 11). Each of the final generations in each list is recorded as producing three siblings. The lifespans are nearly always divisible by five... the seventh in the list is highly significant, etc. These and many other such features lead us to question whether we are to read these genealogies as strictly literal. The genealogies in Mt. 1 and Lk. 3 are clearly structured to make a point, and this indeed was how genealogies were used in ancient literature. On the other hand, it could be argued that just as there is pattern in nature, reflective of the Divine higher hand, so there is in the lives and development of God's people over history.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened that when men began to multiply on the surface of the land, and daughters were born to them</em>- Longer lifespans, stronger human stock and perhaps multiple births (Noah had triplets- see on <em><a href='B:10 5:32'>Gen 5:32</a></em>) would have contributed to a huge population explosion, akin to what we have in these "last days" which are "the days of Noah". The implication is that the population explosion was related to the intermarriage of the faithful with the unfaithful of which we will now read, leading to the total declension from the faith apart from Noah. The connection would simply be in the fact that the faithful were so outnumbered; they preferred to marry into the line of Cain, rather than remain faithful. We sin "like sheep", Isaiah 53 says. For all our so strongly imagined independence and sense that we are original and strong, we are all hopelessly influenced by the herd instinct. The sheer size of the unbelieving population weighed heavily upon the faithful, until they gave in and joined the apostate majority. This highlights the faithful strength of mind and individual conscience which there was in Noah; and he is set up as our pattern in these last days, which the Lord saw as prefigured in "the days of Noah". </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The flood myths give basically two reasons for the cause of the flood- the world was overpopulating (especially according to the <em>Enuma Elis</em>), and there was a battle between the gods which resulted in earth being flooded. Moses' explanation alludes to this but was radically different- the population growth was a result of God’s blessing, and the flood came because of human sin. And, no cosmic battle which resulted in earth's inhabitants suffering because of it. Time and again, the surrounding myths sought to minimize sin, whereas Moses' record highlights it. Sadly, Jewish interpretations went the same way as the flood myths, with the Book of Enoch likewise attributing the flood and all human suffering to an Angelic revolt. Time and again, the difference between Moses' account of history and the surrounding myths is seen in the fact that Moses emphasizes human sin. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>That the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they took for themselves wives of all that they chose- </em>The first recorded marriage out of the Faith was when the sons of God (the believers) saw the daughters of men (the women of the world), that they were "beautiful" (translated "better" 72 times; i.e. they <em>preferred</em> them to the faithful) (<em><a href='B:10 6:2'>Gen 6:2</a></em>). Partners were chosen on the basis of appearance, rather than spirituality. And so it has ever been. They "chose" who they wanted, rather than marrying within the line of the seed of the woman or to spiritual women. The forbidden fruit always appears more beautiful; and the language of 'seeing' something as beautiful and attractive, and then taking it in sin, is all the language of Eve's failure with the forbidden fruit. The next verse describes how because of this, God decided to destroy mankind after 120 years. The corruption of God’s way at that time was epitomized by marriage out of the Faith. The situation just before the flood is a type of that in the last days (<em><a href='B:470 24:38'>Mat 24:38</a></em>); marriage out of the Faith will be a major problem for our last generation, according to this type. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Signs within the ecclesia seem to herald the Lord's coming even clearer than those without. As a prelude to the flood, the Sons of God married the daughters of men (<em><a href='B:10 6:2'>Gen 6:2</a></em>)- the true believers married unbelievers. However, the "sons of God" often refers to Israel (<em><a href='B:290 43:6-7'>Isa 43:6-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 63:8'>Isa 63:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 31:20'>Jer 31:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 16:20'>Eze 16:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 1:6'>Mal 1:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 3:7'>Mal 3:7</a></em>), hinting that there will be a big Jewish inter-marriage problem in the last days too. There is ample evidence of this.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said, My Spirit will not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh- "Strive with" </em>has been interpretted as "remain with" by some (E.A. Speiser) and the LXX. In this case the connection would be with the later statements that the flood took life away from all in whom was the breath of life. But "strive" is the more natural reading. I suggest rather than the Spirit of God sought to work with men to make them spiritual; but He never unduly forces. Yet He does struggle with men, as He did with Jacob and as was epitomized in his struggle with the Angel; and yet He never forces. Peter says that the Spirit of Christ was in Noah and it was this which witnessed to Noah's audience. Paul seems to allude here, when he criticizes the Galatians for having such a struggle between flesh and Spirit- when instead they should completely surrender to the Spirit: "But I say, walk by the Spirit and you shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. For these are contrary to each other. You may not do the things you would like to!" (<em><a href='B:550 5:16-17'>Gal 5:16-17</a></em>). God will not battle with man endlessly; there comes a point when He will no longer try, and judgment must come, with the resultant destruction of the flesh. This is what happened at the flood.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In <em><a href='B:680 2:5'>2Pe 2:5</a></em> Peter says that Noah was a preacher of, or (Gk.) ‘by’ righteousness to the people around him. Yet in <em><a href='B:670 3:19'>1Pe 3:19</a></em> Peter says that Christ preached to those same people through His Spirit. The resolution surely is that although Noah had never met the Lord Jesus, he lived according to the same Godly spirit as did Jesus; and this was his witness to his world. In this sense the spirit or disposition of Christ was found in all the Old Testament prophets (<em><a href='B:670 1:11'>1Pe 1:11</a></em>). There is ultimately only one Spirit (<em><a href='B:560 4:4'>Eph 4:4</a></em>). The same spirit of holiness which was in Jesus was likewise thus in Noah. “The Spirit”, the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ are all equated in <em><a href='B:520 8:9'>Rom 8:9</a></em>. The ark 'was' Noah for those 120 years. When the ark 'rested' on Ararat ('holy hill') the same word, 'Noah', is used (<em><a href='B:10 8:4'>Gen 8:4</a></em>). Likewise the things of the Lord Jesus and the salvation which is in Him, both for ourselves and others, should be likewise identified with us. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The withdrawal of a man’s Spirit by God, as with the withdrawal of the Spirit gifts, is to be seen in some sense as God’s judgment of man. <em><a href='B:10 6:3'>Gen 6:3</a></em> LXX and RVmg. implies this.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Gilgamesh flood stories are significantly lacking in attaching much value or significance to human moral behaviour. The flood happened as a result of arguments amongst the gods, or because they just didn’t want so many human beings on the earth- and not because of human sin. According to <em><a href='B:10 6:3'>Gen 6:3</a></em> (cp. <em><a href='B:670 3:20'>1Pe 3:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 2:5'>2Pe 2:5</a></em>) there was a period of grace for 120 years before the flood, during which time Noah preached and urged people to repent. Such grace and pleading with man isn’t found in the pagan myths because they fail to locate the root cause of the flood in human sin. And the gods of the various pantheons knew nothing of grace. God’s appeal to humanity via Noah is in sharp contrast to the way the Gilgamesh Epic speaks of the flood being a secret which the gods carefully hid from man. The Epic records how Utnapishtim loaded the ark with his silver and gold lest it be destroyed (Gilgamesh Tablet 11:80-85 and 94,95); the Biblical record says nothing of this, speaking only of how living creatures and people were saved by the ark. Clearly life and people are of more importance to God than wealth, which cannot ultimately be saved. The ark of Gilgamesh had sailors to sail it, and “the pilot” is recorded as leaving the ship at the end of the flood. The Biblical ark had no sailor nor pilot apart from God. The Gilgamesh hero of the flood escaped it despite the will and intentions of the gods, who had decreed man’s destruction. Noah was a Biblical hero because he believed in God’s gracious desire to save him.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yet will his days be one hundred twenty years</em>- This could mean that lifespans were reduced, but people kept living to great ages right up to the flood. So I take this as meaning that after 120 years, the judgment would come. The name "Methuselah" had been predicting this for over 800 years already. Knowing the destruction that would come on all except Noah, God waited in the hope that more would be saved. He as it were hoped against His own foreknowledge that more would saved (<em><a href='B:670 3:20'>1Pe 3:20</a></em>). Likewise God told Ezekiel that Israel would not hear his preaching (<em><a href='B:330 3:7'>Eze 3:7</a></em>); and yet Ezekiel repeatedly prefaced his preaching addresses with an appeal to <em>please hear</em> God’s word (<em><a href='B:330 6:3'>Eze 6:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 13:2'>Eze 13:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 18:25'>Eze 18:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:47'>Eze 20:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 34:7'>Eze 34:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 36:1'>Eze 36:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 36:4'>Eze 36:4</a></em>). He was hoping against hope; his preaching work was asking him to attempt the impossible. To make a nation hear who would not hear. Jeremiah likewise was told that Israel wouldn’t hear him (<em><a href='B:300 7:27'>Jer 7:27</a></em>), but still he pleaded with them to hear (<em><a href='B:300 9:20'>Jer 9:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 10:1'>Jer 10:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 11:6'>Jer 11:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 16:12'>Jer 16:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 17:24'>Jer 17:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 38:15'>Jer 38:15</a></em>); God’s hope was that perhaps they would hearken (<em><a href='B:300 26:3'>Jer 26:3</a></em>) although He had foretold they wouldn’t. Jeremiah was told not to pray for Israel (<em><a href='B:300 7:16'>Jer 7:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 11:14'>Jer 11:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 14:11'>Jer 14:11</a></em>) and yet he did (<em><a href='B:300 14:20'>Jer 14:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 42:2'>Jer 42:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 42:4'>Jer 42:4</a></em>). It was the spiritually minded lifestyle of Noah in those 120 years which was his witness to the world of his day. Peter says in <em><a href='B:670 3:19'>1Pe 3:19</a></em> that Christ through His Spirit preached to the people of Noah’s day. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord Jesus / bridegroom “tarries”, the same Greek word translated ‘delay’ in “my Lord delayeth his coming”. The Lord does delay His coming- the man’s mistake was in acting inappropriately because of this. God’s judgments likewise “waited”, or delayed, in Noah’s time (<em><a href='B:670 3:20'>1Pe 3:20</a></em>)- presumably for the 120 year period of <em><a href='B:10 6:3'>Gen 6:3</a></em>. In a similar way, the judgment on Nineveh preached by Jonah also delayed- it came in the end, but their repentance meant that it delayed at that time.&nbsp; </p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'>THE FLOOD AS A TYPE OF THE LAST DAYS</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is a commonly stressed theme throughout Scripture that the days of Noah are a type of the last days of AD70. The clearest is in <em><a href='B:470 24:37'>Mat 24:37</a></em>: "As the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the son of man be". It is generally understood among us that the events of AD70 and the " coming" of the Lord then, point forward to that in the last days. Thus it is not surprising that a number of passages describe the AD70 judgments of Israel in terms of the flood; which suggests that they also have reference to the last days:</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- 2 Peter 3 is a clear example, describing the destruction of the Jewish system in AD70 as being by fire as opposed to water used in Noah's time. Yet the chapter also has reference, e.g. through it's links with the new Heavens and earth of Isaiah 65, with the destruction of the present age at the Lord's return.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- Nahum 1 describes the coming judgements on Israel in terms of mountains and hills splitting, and there being a great flood; all Genesis flood language.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- <em><a href='B:340 9:26'>Dan 9:26</a></em> describes the Romans in AD70 destroying "the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood", the LXX implying with a <em>sudden</em> flood, as in Noah's time.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- <em><a href='B:290 54:9'>Isa 54:9</a></em> describes the judgments on Israel being "as the waters of Noah". The end of the flood, the end of Israel's judgments, therefore typifies the second coming.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- In the light of this the Lord's parable about the man building on sand whose house was destroyed when the heavy rain came (<em><a href='B:470 7:25'>Mat 7:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:27'>Mat 7:27</a></em>) must have primary reference (as so many of the parables do) to the judgement on the Jewish house in AD70. Those who built on sand as a result of not hearing Christ's words were the Jews- also described as shoddy builders in <em><a href='B:470 21:42'>Mat 21:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:11'>Act 4:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:7'>1Pe 2:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 3:10'>Mic 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 22:13'>Jer 22:13</a></em>.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We can therefore look at the Genesis record of the lead up to the flood and be confident that every detail has some relevance to our time; and therefore grasp the reality of the fact that we should feel the same tenseness and intensity as Noah did as he waited for the rain. Note how Jesus' return is described as the rain in <em><a href='B:100 23:4'>2Sa 23:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 6:3'>Hos 6:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:360 2:23'>Joe 2:23</a></em>.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- Our present population explosion has only been paralleled in Noah's time. The longer life-spans could have resulted in each woman bearing up to 200 children; bearing in mind the lack of present constraining factors such as adverse climate, space, physical degeneration of the human stock over 6,000 years etc. which we now face, it is likely that in the 10 generations from Adam to Noah up to 2,000 million people were produced.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- These longer life-spans would have resulted in a great accumulation of knowledge and skills in the arts and sciences. <em><a href='B:10 4:22'>Gen 4:22</a></em> describes Tubal-Cain (contemporary with Noah) as "an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron", hinting at technical education and industrialization. Similarly Jubal was "father of all such as handle the harp and organ" (<em><a href='B:10 4:21'>Gen 4:21</a></em>); a growth in so-called culture (i.e. sophisticated pleasure- educated Christians please note). Note the emphasis on education- "an instructor... father... father" .</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- Cain's first big city (<em><a href='B:10 4:17'>Gen 4:17</a></em>) no doubt spawned others. Complex, selfish city life would have been apparent at Noah's time- as it is supremely throughout our modern world.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- "Lamech shall be avenged seventy and seven fold" (<em><a href='B:10 4:24'>Gen 4:24</a></em>) he boasted. Does this hint at the war preparations and a spirit of personal vengeance and pressing for one's 'rights' which fills the earth today?</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- There is an emphasis on there being a "father" of all the cattle keepers, all the musicians, and an instructor of every metal worker (<em><a href='B:10 4:20-22'>Gen 4:20-22</a></em>); implying the kind of commercial cartels and unionism which we have today?</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- <em><a href='B:220 22:15-18'>Job 22:15-18</a></em> comments on the people living just before the flood that they cast off all commitment to God and yet God " filled their houses with good things" ; i.e. material wealth despite a viciously God-forsaking attitude. Exactly the scene today.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- One of the few women mentioned as being contemporary with Noah was Adah- meaning 'to decorate, ornament'. And of such women the sons of God took wives of all that they chose (<em><a href='B:10 6:2'>Gen 6:2</a></em>). Dolled up women picked up at will by sex-mad men could not be a more telling parallel with our age. Note too how the three periods picked out in Scripture as having major similarities with the last days- Sodom, Noah's time, Israel in AD70- all have the common feature of sexual misbehaviour. There can be no doubt that this is a major indication that we are in the last days.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- Given this apostacy of the sons of God and the unwillingness of the world to listen to Noah's preaching (<em><a href='B:680 2:5'>2Pe 2:5</a></em>) the size of the ecclesia must have declined, until it was only 9 strong. 'Methuselah' means 'When he dies, it shall come'- suggesting that he died a few days or weeks before the flood came. We can imagine the ecclesia falling away one by one until it was just that old brother, the middle aged Noah, and his three faithful sons (no doubt he had other sons and daughters who he failed to influence). The small, declining size of our ecclesias and the total apathy to our preaching should not discourage us- as with all negative things, a positive message can be read into them in the light of Scripture. And the message here is that such things clearly indicate that we are in the last days. The only people to survive the temptations of these 'last days' before the flood were one family unit. As these events are so pregnant with latter day relevance, it may be that we are to perceive here a faint hint that strongly led family units are the way to survive the last days. Noah is described as " the eighth" (<em><a href='B:680 2:5'>2Pe 2:5</a></em>), perhaps alluding to the fact that of the eight people saved in the ark, he was " the eighth" ; he put the others first. The three who escaped the judgments on Sodom, another type of the last days, were all members of the same family; possibly implying the same thing. It must surely be significant that our strongest members are often from families with other strong members. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>However, the general spiritual apathy grieved God at His heart, we are told. This reminds us of the often overlooked fact that God is an emotional being- the world today grieves Him, and it is to be expected therefore that He is all the more intently watching us, to see whether we are going to keep ourselves separate from the spirit of this desperate age.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There were aggressive men (Nephilim) in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is no mention at all of “the sons of God” coming down from heaven. Why assume these “sons of God” are angels? The phrase is used concerning men, especially those who know the true God (<em><a href='B:50 14:1'>Deu 14:1</a></em> (R.S.V.); <em><a href='B:350 1:10'>Hos 1:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:38'>Luk 3:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:12'>Joh 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:1'>1Jn 3:1</a></em>). If believers are to be made equal to angels (<em><a href='B:490 20:35-36'>Luk 20:35-36</a></em>), will they still experience the same carnal desires which then motivated the sons of God, or have the possibility of giving way to them? Of course not! <em><a href='B:490 20:35-36'>Luk 20:35-36</a></em>, clearly says that the angels do not marry: “They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage... for they are equal unto the angels”. It is commonly believed that the angels who are thought to have sinned came down to earth at the time of the garden of Eden incidents, but Genesis 6 concerns the time of the flood, which was many years later. The Hebrew word for “giants” in <em><a href='B:10 6:4'>Gen 6:4</a></em>, is also used to describe the sons of a man called Anak in <em><a href='B:40 13:33'>Num 13:33</a></em>. Freak human beings of unusual size or strength are sometimes born today, but it does not mean that their parents were angels. We are not specifically told that the giants were the children of the “sons of God”. “There were giants… and also <em>after that</em>… the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men” (:4).If Angels married women, then who were the children, and what were they like? The apocryphal book of 1 Enoch claims that the offspring were “evil spirits” and witches (1 Enoch 15:8–16:1) – but the Bible is utterly silent about this.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The word "nephilim" comes from a Hebrew root meaning 'hackers or assailants'- implying arrogant gangs strutting round assailing people at will. <em><a href='B:220 22:15-17'>Job 22:15-17</a></em> R.V. gives the same impression. Compare this with the gang warfare and intimidation of the Americas and many countries, which is going to take over the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham. We already see it, in the images of Islamist fighters wandering around the <em>eretz</em> today.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew syntax here would suggest that this is a notice that at this time, there were giants in the earth. The giants aren’t described as being the offspring of the relationship between the sons of God and daughters of men. The word “giants” has two possible meanings: “fallen ones” (which would be relevant to their being the “sons of God” who had spiritually fallen away) and “assailants, hackers, tyrants” – the definition provided by Martin Luther and H.C. Leupold (H.C. Leupold, <em>Exposition of Genesis, Vol. 1 </em>(Ann Arbor, MI: Wartburg Press, 1942), p. 250). This is the root of the Hebrew word for “giant”, and is used in <em><a href='B:120 3:19'>2Ki 3:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 3:25'>2Ki 3:25</a></em>, to describe a vicious attack on the Moabites by Israel. Thus we get the impression that there were men, perhaps of great physical size and strength, who went around viciously attacking people. They became famous (or infamous) – “men of renown”. Job (22:15–17) comments upon them: “Hast thou marked the old way which wicked men have trodden? Which were cut down out of time, whose foundation was overflown with a flood: which said unto God, Depart from us”. Notice that this refers to men, not angels. The intention of Moses in Genesis was to explain Israel’s surrounding world to them, and deconstruct the false ideas they encountered in surrounding myth. The people were frightened by the “giants” they met in the land of Canaan (<em><a href='B:40 13:33'>Num 13:33</a></em>). These <em>nephilim</em> (LXX <em>gigantes</em>) had their origin explained by Moses in Genesis 6 – the righteous seed intermarried with the wicked, and their offspring were these <em>nephilim</em>, mighty men of the world. Note in passing how <em><a href='B:330 32:27'>Eze 32:27</a></em> LXX uses this same word <em>gigantes</em> to describe pagan warriors who died– no hint that they were superhuman or Angels.</p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'>The Israelites were aware of the existence of unusually large people – the Zamzumin, Zumin, Rephaim, Nephilim, Emim, and Anakim (<em><a href='B:50 1:28'>Deu 1:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 2:10-11'>Deu 2:10-11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 2:20-21'>Deu 2:20-21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:11'>Deu 3:11</a></em>). The bed of Og, King of Bashan, a Rephaim, was nine cubits long, over four meters (14 feet) – <em><a href='B:50 3:11'>Deu 3:11</a></em>. In Canaanite mythology these giants came from intermarriage between human beings and the gods; but Moses in Genesis 6 is surely addressing this myth and correcting it. He’s saying (by implication) that this didn’t happen, but rather the Godly seed and the wicked intermarried; and yes, at that time, there were giants in the earth, but they were judged and destroyed by the flood, and the implication surely was that the Israel who first heard Moses’ inspired history could take comfort that the giants they faced in Canaan would likewise be overcome by God.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"And also after that" could be placed in brackets, as by the NET Bible. The idea would be that the <em>nephilim</em> in the <em>eretz</em> were encountered later in the history of the <em>eretz</em>, and indeed the term is used about the giant inhabitants of Canaan in <em><a href='B:40 13:33'>Num 13:33</a></em> (see note there). The Anakim or giants were descendants of Noah, but the point is that they were the equivalent of the strong warriors who strutted the <em>eretz</em> earlier, and who were judged and destroyed by the flood. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Umberto Cassuto pays special attention to the reference to the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6, demonstrating that the "giants" are <em>mortal</em>, they were to die at best after 120 years; and they were on <em>earth</em> not in Heaven. Thus the Canaanite myths, which ironically later Judaism re-adopted, were deconstructed by Moses. He summarizes Moses' intention in the Genesis 6 passage as being to teach Israel: "Do not believe the gentile myths concerning men of divine origin who became immortal. This is untrue, for in the end all men must die, because they, too, are flesh... you must realize that they were only "on earth", and "on earth" they remained, and did not become gods, and they did not ascend to Heaven, but remained among those who dwell below, upon earth... the intention of the section is to contradict the pagan legends regarding the giants" (Umberto Cassuto, <em>Biblical And Oriental Studies</em> (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973) Vol. 1 pp. 21-28). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The claim that this verse refers to Angels marrying men has many problems. There is no mention here of “the sons of God” coming down from heaven- and such a fall supposedly happened at the time of Adam's fall, not now, many generations later. Why assume these “sons of God” are angels? The phrase is used concerning men, especially those who know the true God (<em><a href='B:50 14:1'>Deu 14:1</a></em> (R.S.V.); <em><a href='B:350 1:10'>Hos 1:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:38'>Luk 3:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:12'>Joh 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:1'>1Jn 3:1</a></em>). If believers are to be made equal to angels (<em><a href='B:490 20:35-36'>Luk 20:35-36</a></em>), will they still experience the same carnal desires which then motivated the sons of God, or have the possibility of giving way to them? Of course not! <em><a href='B:490 20:35-36'>Luk 20:35-36</a></em>, clearly says that the angels do not marry: “They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage... for they are equal unto the angels”. The Hebrew word for “giants” in <em><a href='B:10 6:4'>Gen 6:4</a></em>, is also used to describe the sons of a man called Anak in <em><a href='B:40 13:33'>Num 13:33</a></em>. Freak human beings of unusual size or strength are sometimes born today, but it does not mean that their parents were angels. We are not specifically told that the giants were the children of the “sons of God”. “There were giants… and also <em>after that</em>… the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men” (:4). If Angels married women, then who were the children, and what were they like? The apocryphal book of 1 Enoch claims that the offspring were “evil spirits” and witches (1 Enoch 15:8–16:1) – but the Bible is utterly silent about this. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea of cosmic beings coming to earth and having sexual relations with human women is a classic piece of pagan myth; and the Jews came to adopt these into their interpretations of the Genesis 6 passage, e.g. In the Book of Enoch. Josephus brings out the similarities: “The angels of God united with women... The actions attributed to them by our tradition (note that – “our tradition”, not Scripture itself!) resemble the bold exploits which the Greeks recount about the Giants” (<em>Antiquities of the Jews</em> 1:3:1). Clearly, Jewish thinking sought to accommodate the pagan myths.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We have shown that the “sons of God” may refer to those with the true understanding of God. The “sons of God’ of every generation have kept themselves separate from the people of the world, and are warned by God not to marry such people because they will influence them away from following the true God (<em><a href='B:20 34:12'>Exo 34:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:15-16'>Exo 34:15-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 23:12-13'>Jos 23:12-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:150 9:12'>Ezr 9:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:39'>1Co 7:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 6:14-16'>2Co 6:14-16</a></em>). <em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em> describes how the seed (descendants) of the serpent would be in constant conflict with the seed of the woman (cp. <em><a href='B:550 4:29'>Gal 4:29</a></em>). The early chapters of Genesis highlight the fact that there were these two sorts of people; the descendants of Seth called themselves “by the name of the Lord” (<em><a href='B:10 4:26'>Gen 4:26</a></em> A.V margin) and comprised the righteous “sons of God”, the seed of the woman. By contrast, the descendants of Cain, are described as being associated with murder and instituting polygamy (<em><a href='B:10 4:23'>Gen 4:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 4:19'>Gen 4:19</a></em>), the art of weapon production (<em><a href='B:10 4:22'>Gen 4:22</a></em>) and entertainment (<em><a href='B:10 4:21'>Gen 4:21</a></em>). The names of these people imply that at this time they started an alternative, apostate, system of worship to replace the true worship of God, which angered God; e.g. Cain named a city after Enoch, whose name means “dedicated”; Irad means “eternal city”; Mehujael means “God combats”; Lamech means “Overthrower” (of the truth ?). The sons of God marrying the daughters of men would therefore describe the inter–marriage of these two lines, so that only Noah and his family were the “seed of the woman” at the time of the flood.</p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'>Careful reflection on Genesis 6 indicates that the “sons of God” must have been men:&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>– They “took them wives of all that they chose”. This process of choosing an appealing woman for marriage is so obviously something experienced by men. Notice how the “sons of God” probably took more than one wife each – “wives of all that they chose”. This was a characteristic of the seed of the serpent (<em><a href='B:10 4:19'>Gen 4:19</a></em>), showing us that the two lines had merged; because of the sons of God marrying the daughters of men, God said that in 120 years’ time, He would destroy man (<em><a href='B:10 6:3'>Gen 6:3</a></em>) in the flood. Why should God punish and destroy man if the angels had sinned? Seeing that angels cannot die (<em><a href='B:490 20:35-36'>Luk 20:35-36</a></em>), there would have been no point in destroying the earth with a flood to try and destroy them. Things fall into place far better if the “sons of God” were men: therefore God said, “The end of all flesh(mankind) is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with (from) the earth” (<em><a href='B:10 6:13'>Gen 6:13</a></em>). The violence on the earth which vv. 3–5 associate with the apostasy of the “sons of God” arose through man – man, not angels or the Devil, had filled the earth with violence: another reason God brought the flood was because the earth had become corrupt. Why did this happen? It was corrupt, “for (because) all flesh had corrupted His way upon the earth” (<em><a href='B:10 6:11-12'>Gen 6:11-12</a></em>). Man had corrupted the true way of God – due to the sons of God, who understood “the way”, mixing with the people of the flesh. “The way” is a phrase used to describe the true understanding of God (e.g. <em><a href='B:10 3:24'>Gen 3:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 18:19'>Gen 18:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 27:11'>Psa 27:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 119:32-33'>Psa 119:32-33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 16:17'>Act 16:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 9:2'>Act 9:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:25'>Act 18:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:9'>Act 19:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:23'>Act 19:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 2:2'>2Pe 2:2</a></em>). This corruption of “the way” by the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 is commented on in <em><a href='B:720 1:11'>Jud 1:11</a></em>, where the apostate Christians of the first century are likened to those men who went “in the way of Cain” – not of the truth. Cain was the father of the seed of the serpent line</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>– The actions of the “sons of God” in <em><a href='B:10 6:2'>Gen 6:2</a></em>, are described in v. 5 as “the wickedness of man”, which “was great in the earth... every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually”</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>– Jesus said that the world in the last days would be similar to what it was at the time of Noah. He implied that in the same way as men had the wrong attitude to marriage in Noah’s time, so men also would in the last days before His return (<em><a href='B:490 17:26-27'>Luk 17:26-27</a></em>). The only reference to attitudes to marriage at Noah’s time is in <em><a href='B:10 6:2'>Gen 6:2</a></em>, thus again implying that the “sons of God” who married wrongfully were men.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Apostate Jewish theology sought to minimize human sin and blame it on a Satan figure. It’s significant that when the inspired New Testament writers refer to the flood, there is no suggestion by them that they accepted the idea that sinful Angels somehow led humanity into sin. Instead, they repeatedly underscore the fact that it was human sin which led God to punish humanity. The uninspired Book of Jubilees, written about 150 BC, claims that Noah complained to God about “the unclean demons” leading his grandchildren into sin and asked God to judge these demons, thus resulting in the flood (Jubilees 10:1–7). That is mere fantasy – and quite the opposite of what the Genesis record states – where clearly it is human wickedness which leads God to judge humans. What I find so highly significant is that the Lord Jesus and His apostles stress that it was indeed human sin which led to Divine judgment through the flood. Effectively, they’re thus deconstructing these false ideas which were circulating and upholding the Biblical emphasis against the sophistry of the false theology about Satan / demons which was circulating. It’s a tragedy that the same false understandings still circulate, and so many still refuse to face up to the clear teaching of Scripture – that human beings sin and must take responsibility and bear judgment for that sin.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This passage is actively deconstructing false Canaanite myths about sinful gods, giants, demons etc. it could be argued that this passage, along with much of early Genesis, is actually deconstructing the wrong ideas about Angels, demons, Satan etc. which Israel had encountered in Egypt and amongst the Canaanite tribes. It is teaching that the giants which Israel had noticed were in fact only human, and no more. They were “mighty <em>men</em>”, “<em>men</em> of renown”. Later Scripture does likewise – the <em>Rephaim</em> had children like other human beings (<em><a href='B:100 21:16'>2Sa 21:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 21:18'>2Sa 21:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:11'>Deu 3:11</a></em>), inhabiting an area known as the valley of Rephaim (<em><a href='B:60 15:8'>Jos 15:8</a></em>). Cassuto comments: “The intention of the section is actually to </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>contradict certain folk–tales, and to erase, as far as possible, their mythological features” (Umberto Cassuto, <em>Biblical and Oriental Studies</em> (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975) Vol. 2 p. 108). Elsewhere, Cassuto draws attention to the significance of God’s comment upon the sin of the ‘sons of God’ in <em><a href='B:10 6:3'>Gen 6:3</a></em>: “My spirit shall not abide in (or, strive with) <em>man</em> forever”. God comments upon the <em>human</em> condition, not upon anything out in the cosmos. He comments: “(this) implies: Do not believe the heathen tales about human beings of divine origin, who were rendered immortal; this is untrue, for in the end every man must die, “in as much as he, too, is flesh”... The Torah’s intention is to counteract the pagan legends and to reduce to a minimum the content of the ancient traditions concerning the giants” (Umberto Cassuto, <em>Commentary on the Book of Genesis</em> (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1998 ed.) Vol. 1 p. 300). The record of the flood which follows that of the mention of the ‘giants’ can be read as a further deconstruction of the myths about them. The Biblical record states that God opened the “windows of Heaven” (<em><a href='B:10 7:11'>Gen 7:11</a></em>). The identical term in Ugaritic occurs in Tablet 2 AB, col. 7 line 17 of the Ras Shamra tablets. Cassuto explains that “The Canaanites used to tell of the god Baal that at one stage he built for himself a palace in the sky and opened therein windows... The Canaanites attributed to Baal the sending down of rain from heaven”, but that the giants / offspring of the wicked gods “set down their feet and closed up the deep, and they placed their hands on the windows” (References in Umberto Cassuto, <em>Commentary on the Book of Genesis</em> (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992 ed.) Vol. 2 pp. 86,87). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually</em>- The enormous judgment of the flood was because of human thoughts. This is in radical contrast to the various flood myths of the ancient world. There is almost a juxtaposition between human thoughts- and the enormity of the punishment. But that was the point. How man thinks is so hugely significant to God. Noah's response was to prepare "an ark to the saving of his house... and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith" (<em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em>). We know from Peter that the ark represents Christ. Noah's response was not to smugly reflect how that soon he would be vindicated for his separation from the world, i.e. for his own personal righteousness. Instead he took seriously God’s warning that sinners were to soon be destroyed. Noah was, of course, a sinner as we all are. He therefore must have cried out to God in faith, asking for God to count him as if he were righteous, so that he would be saved from the coming judgments against sin. This is how he had righteousness imputed to him. He showed his faith that God really had justified him by doing something physical- his faith led to the 'works' of building the ark; as our faith likewise leads us to baptism into Christ. Through Christ, God "scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts" (<em><a href='B:490 1:51'>Luk 1:51</a></em>). This is quoting from <em><a href='B:10 6:5'>Gen 6:5</a></em> LXX concerning the wicked imagination of man's heart at the flood; note it was their thoughts and imaginations which were so obnoxious to God. This is even more evidence that we can read the events of the flood as typical of two things; our salvation from the judgment upon sin, and also of the events of the last days, when that salvation will be physically manifested. We are in Noah's position; we can see clearly the judgments which must come upon sin. By our nature, we are part and parcel of that sin which has to be judged. Our response <em>cannot</em> be to trust in our own righteousness, which we may feel we have as a result of our physical separation from the world. We must instead be motivated by imagining the reality of Christ's coming, to make sure that we are covered in the righteousness of Christ, so that the impending destruction of sin will not take us away with it. Perhaps at no time before has the body of Christ so needed to learn the lesson of Noah; to cease from our own works, "and become heir of the righteousness which is by <em>faith</em>". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh was sorry that He had made man on the earth- </em>"Sorry" is AV <em>It repented- </em>&nbsp;"It repented The LORD that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart". To repent means to change around. God Himself can change; the one thing that doesn't is His unfailing love and grace for His people. Yet the language here could be applied to Angels, or to God’s manifestation of His thoughts through them. It was the Angels who actually made man on earth, in the image of themselves, and we have shown that it was the Angels who actually brought the flood on the earth. So it could be argued that it was they who repented and therefore decided to bring the flood. Thus only Noah "found grace in the eyes of the LORD" (:8). The eyes of the LORD are the Angels- it was they who surveyed the earth and saw that it was wicked, except for Noah. The phrase in :13 "the end of all flesh is come before Me" implies that it was brought to God’s attention- another example of language of limitation, which must refer to the Angels. Thus it was the Angels who repented, or changed their mind, about creation.</p><p> But sometimes words have two meanings, and that is intentional. The Hebrew for "sorry" is also translated 'comfort' and is in fact a form of the word 'Noah' (Gen. 5:29). The hint may be that in all the Divine grief, He was comforted by the existence of even one man, Noah, who loved Him. For Noah really means 'source of comfort'. God's sensitivity is such that the response of one person, above all His Son, can totally affect His worldview and comfort Him in the grief of being the Father of a bad family. The account of Noah is repeated in essence in that of Lot and the destruction of Sodom. One man and his family was saved, having lived in a society of gross immorality, both were "shut in" miraculously (Gen. 7:16; 19:10 s.w.); yet even his salvation was followed by incest and drunkenness, and repopulation followed from that. And the same question is addressed: Will the righteous suffer along with the wicked? The answer is that God takes note of righteous individuals and will give them paths to escape to salvation. We have something similar in Ex. 32-34, where God was prepared to save Moses, and destroy the rest. But in all these records, there is the theme of God's openness to dialogue. </p> <p style='margin-left:1em'>The theme of Divine regret is found in both Genesis and Gilgamesh; according to the Bible, Yahweh regretted the <em>creation</em> of man, whereas according to Gilgamesh, the gods regretted the <em>destruction</em> of man. This purposeful contrast is surely to indicate that whilst Yahweh has emotions, His judgment of man was just and was done without regret. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There has to be a connection between the fact that "Noah" was intended to bring "comfort" or "repentance" (<em><a href='B:10 5:29'>Gen 5:29</a></em>), and the way the same word is now used of how God "repented" that He had made man. The hope of the faithful had been that Noah would bring about the re-thinking of the curse upon earth for Adam's sin; but God’s re-thinking was to actually destroy all men upon the earth, apart from Noah. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Gilgamesh speaks of how there was a discussion amongst the gods as to what to do with humanity. Human sin is not given as the reason for their decision, but rather mere capriciousness of the gods. The Atrahasis epic gives the reason as the gods becoming angry that the humans are not serving them enough. In Gilgamesh, the majority of gods wanted to destroy humanity, but some, led by the god Ea-Enki, wanted to save. What is totally unique about the Biblical record is that there is only <em>one</em> God involved. Within Him there is this tension between judging sin, and lovingly saving His wayward creation. And thus we read the incredible statement that God “repented” that He had created man (<em><a href='B:10 6:5'>Gen 6:5</a></em>). In Gilgamesh, there is a tension amongst the gods; Ea-Enki becomes so passionate to save humanity that he rebels against the other gods. In the true, Biblical record, that tension between gods is expressed as a tension within the heart of the one true God. He created mankind; and then He wanted to destroy them for their sin; and yet He struggled with this. The record leads us to enter into the Divine pain, the struggle of God. This is totally and utterly unique; this is the truth, which all other religions and myths could never get hold of. Moses’ record was paving the way for his own experience of this aspect of Israel’s wonderful God. For he too had experienced God stating His judgment of His people, ‘repenting’ that He had created them as a nation, seeking to destroy them, and yet being sensitive to Moses’ pleas. One sees the same Divine pain in later Scripture, especially in Hosea. There, God alternates between having no mercy on His people, and showing mercy; not being their God any longer; yet being their God. And like a wounded lover, God declares: “I will love them no more”; and yet in the final, tear-jerking outpouring of God in Hosea 14, we read the wonderful conclusion: “I will love them freely”. This is such a hard thing to really come to terms with. For how can a God who is all powerful and who knows the end from the beginning, have such feelings? Yet those Divine feelings are legitimate, they really were felt, and they are felt by God Almighty about us at this very moment. It is so much easier to do as Gilgamesh did, and have a judgmental god and a saviour god; or to have a ‘good God’ and a bad, evil satan, as in the theology of today’s apostate Christianity. But the wonder of Yahweh is that this one and only true God has these two aspects within Him. To know something of this Divine struggle, this surpassing love of God, is something that flows out from a belief in there being only one God. The issues of grace and truth, love and judgment, mercy and justice, are all brought together in the awesome personality of this God with whom we have to do. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And it grieved Him- </em>For "grieved", see on <em><a href='B:10 8:10'>Gen 8:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 63:10'>Isa 63:10</a></em>, where again the Spirit of God is grieved by the people in the <em>eretz</em>. <em><a href='B:240 3:20'>Pro 3:20</a></em> RV says that "By his knowledge the depths were broken up, and the skies dropped down the rain". The flood was brought about by God’s wisdom, not because a deity lost his patience and temper with mankind. God destroyed mankind because of His <em>grief</em> (<em><a href='B:10 6:6'>Gen 6:6</a></em>)- and He did so because He planned on saving the world through water (<em><a href='B:670 3:20'>1Pe 3:20</a></em>). Noah and the faithful were saved from corruption and the faith being lost by the world that threatened to destroy them (spiritually) being itself destroyed. There are many allusions to the flood in Job, notably in the descriptions of the waters being stored up by God, released by Him as He wishes, and having had bounds now placed upon them after the flood (<em><a href='B:220 38:9-11'>Job 38:9-11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 38:22'>Job 38:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 38:33'>Job 38:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 26:8'>Job 26:8</a></em>; there’s specific mention of the flood in <em><a href='B:220 22:16'>Job 22:16</a></em>). The flood would’ve been relatively recent history in Job’s time. It’s therefore instructive to read in <em><a href='B:220 37:11-13'>Job 37:11-13</a></em> that God sends His waters upon the earth partly for correction, partly in judgment, and also partly “for mercy”. The flood was in a sense a Divine mercy, in ending the existence of impenitent sinners.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In His heart</em>- The evil heart of mankind troubled the heart of God (<em><a href='B:10 6:5-6'>Gen 6:5-6</a></em>). This "heart to heart" between God and man is amazing.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the surface of the ground; man, along with animals, creeping things, and birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them- </em>Man, beast, creeping things, birds- a reversal of the creation order in Gen. 1:20-27. 6:7,8 <em>I will destroy man... but Noah </em>could imply that God’s initial intention was to totally destroy humanity, but because Noah found grace (the idiom could imply God heard his prayer), God made a way of escape for Noah and intended to found a new humanity from him. I’ve elsewhere commented that much in the early Pentateuch is connectable with Israel’s later history; Moses’ account in Genesis was in order to explain to Israel in the wilderness the background to their situation. The situation here in 6:7,8 recalls how God wanted to destroy all Israel and make of Moses a new nation (<em><a href='B:20 32:10'>Exo 32:10</a></em>); but Moses, like Noah, found grace in God’s eyes (<em><a href='B:20 33:13'>Exo 33:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:9'>Exo 34:9</a></em>). Moses describes himself as one who had found grace in God’s eyes at the very time that God speaks of making a new nation from him- he saw the connection. God’s expressed regret that He had made the animal creation can read strangely; it reads as if it is an emotional statement. And perhaps that is indeed how we are to read it; here in early Genesis we are being introduced to a God who has passion, whose anger flares up in His face (<em><a href='B:330 38:18'>Eze 38:18</a></em>), and only subsides because of His grace. </p> <p>It was when "Yahweh saw that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil all the day" that He decided: “I will blot out from the earth the Adam I have created” (Gen. 6:5-7). But comparing this with Gen. 8:21, we get the impression that God comes to accept the weakness of man, and to tolerate it without destroying it: "Yahweh said in His heart, “I will never again curse the soil because of the Adam, for the inclination of the Adam’s heart is evil from youth”. This same pattern is seen later; God is so angry with human sin in His people that He decides to change His plans and destroy the sinners. But He later again changes, and decides to tolerate them. Thus in Ex. 33:3,5 God says that “I will not go up among you for you are a stiff-necked people, lest I would consume you on the way... You are a stiff-necked people; if for a single moment I should go up among you, I would consume you”. But after Moses' intercession, God does go up among them even thought they are a stiff-necked people. He hears Moses' prayer of Ex. 34:9: “I pray, let Yahweh go among us for this is a stiff-necked people, pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for your inheritance". This is not to say that God will not judge sin and sinners. He definitely will. But we see here a growth in tolerance, akin to what many men experience as they pass through the fatherhood experience. We think of how God tells Abraham "Now I know that you fear God, in that you have not withheld your son... from Me" (Gen. 22:12). Being a father is not simply an act of procreation; fatherhood is a relationship, and it could be argued that it goes with the territory of fatherhood to change and be changed in response to your children. This may be one window onto how God in this sense can change or learn. It was a choice He made to go through that experience. God is not fickle, and yet He has emotions. Later He will say that He repents of certain relationships with His people, and rejects them; and then He changes His mind again, repenting of His repentance as it were. His repentings are "kindled together" at the time of Hosea. This is how deeply involved God is in the response of His children to Him. It inspires us to love and serve Him with all we have and are; in a way that a stone faced, unfeeling god would never inspire. God's omnipotence is such that the Master of the plot as it were gets emotionally caught up within the plot.  As we go through life we are faced with the awesome reality that God responds passionately and emotionally to our every move. For or against Him. This is the huge meaning of the crucifixion- so much response is elicited, and in turn responded to by God. Realizing this dimension of God is the ultimate answer to the scepticism and stone facedness of the postmodern world.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But Noah found favour in Yahweh’s eyes- </em>Or, "found grace"; see on <em><a href='B:10 9:21'>Gen 9:21</a></em>. Noah was saved by grace and was likely not without his weaknesses. Finding grace may suggest that He sought it- that he recognized his weakness (alcoholism?) and asked for God’s grace; and found it. <em><a href='B:680 2:5'>2Pe 2:5</a></em> speaks of how "the old world" was not "spared", but Noah was, in that he was saved. His salvation was by grace, it was a 'being spared' rather than a reward for his righteousness. In Gen. 7:1, God says that He considered Noah as 'seen righteous'. Here we have an Old Testament working model of justification by grace through faith. The statement of Gen. 7:1 is AFTER Noah has built the ark; so his works have demonstrated his faith. But his justification is by grace not works; and in Gen. 8:21 God speaks of humanity including Noah as having the imagination of evil in his heart. But despite that, God counted or 'saw' him righteous. Perhaps the account of Noah's drunkenness [with no apparent repentance] is there to show us what being 'seen righteous by grace' means in practice. <em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em> cites Noah as an example of those to whom righteousness is imputed by faith; and in Romans, Paul explains that this is a parade example of <em>grace</em>. Clearly Paul has Noah in view as a worked example of a sinner being saved by grace through faith, by having righteousness imputed to him. Noah is not therefore presented as righteous, but as faithful; and thereby having righteousness imputed to him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is the history of the generations of Noah</em>- a Hebraism for 'an account of the life' of Noah. Yet the Hebrew for "generations" means just that. We expect to now encounter a list of children, grandchildren etc. Instead we read a summary of Noah's character. His children, his offspring, his memorial in this earth, was not his children, but rather his character. This is comfort for the childless. Our characters are our generation. This is what shall remain beyond the grave; for our spirit, the personality we develop, abides with God after our death and shall live eternally as 'us' at the Lord's return to earth. So often, individual character development becomes subsumed beneath the pressures of childrearing. But our ultimate "generation" is us, our personality and character.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Noah was a righteous man</em>- The idea is, complete. All parts of his life were devoted to God, the lesson of the whole burnt offerings.&nbsp; But as noted on :8, his righteousness was imputed to him by faith, through grace.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Blameless among the people of his time</em>- We must note the connection between God showing grace, undeserved favour, to Noah- and him being described here as a just or righteous man. <em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em> states that Noah’s righteousness was that which comes from justification by faith.&nbsp;And he was the only one amongst the "people of his time" who had such faith. the idea is not that he was so much better than them. He was the forerunner of Abraham. Noah was counted righteous, because he believed- he believed God’s words about the flood coming, he gave 120 years of his life to building an ark, and by his example witnessed to the world and pleaded with them to also believe. It wasn’t that God as it were rewarded Noah for his good deeds by counting righteousness to him. Otherwise there’d be no meaning to the statement that Noah found grace from God (6:8). So we can see how it worked out- Noah’s reasoning must’ve been something like: ‘We’re all sinners and quite rightly done for by this flood that will come, me as well as the rest of my world. But... wait up... God has given <em>me</em> a way out of this, by building an ark and being saved from it. But...&nbsp; I’m a sinner and deserve to die in this judgment that’s coming. So how can it be, that <em>I</em>, with all my weakness and dysfunction, can survive this judgment? It must be that although I am worthy of destruction in the flood, God’s willing to count me as if I’m righteous and therefore not destroy me with the world of the ungodly. Wow. He counts <em>me</em> as&nbsp; if I am righteous... and I believe that. So I will go on building the ark and seek to persuade as many others to believe God is willing to count them as righteous and if they believe that, they’ll jump on board the ark with me’. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Noah walked with God</em>- Noah as one of the seed of the woman had the characteristic of Enoch, who was in the same line. Moment by moment in the day, we are to be "with" God, on a journey with Him. All life is movement, a journey. It's not a case of being on a journey whilst others are static, but moving with God. </p>


text:
&nbsp;<em>Noah became the father of three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth</em>-&nbsp;<br/><em><a href='B:10 6:18'>Gen 6:18</a></em> implies that Noah only had three sons, whereas for people with such long life spans we'd have expected him to have had far more than that. He only had three children- for he prepared the ark to save "his house" (<em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em>) and <em><a href='B:10 7:1'>Gen 7:1</a></em> is quite clear: "Go into the ark, you and&nbsp;<em>all&nbsp;</em>your household"- his whole household was his wife, three sons and their wives. Period . I suggested on <em><a href='B:10 5:29'>Gen 5:29</a></em> that we get the picture of a man who was the underdog, the farm worker, the sidekick of the family, whose own family life was delayed and limited by this background. Perhaps he turned to alcohol for comfort (hence <em><a href='B:10 9:21'>Gen 9:21</a></em>). But it was he whom God chose to save, he alone who was righteous in that generation which perished. It was the quiet, broken man who was saved.&nbsp;The mention of three sons being born in one year (<em><a href='B:10 5:32'>Gen 5:32</a></em>) might mean they were triplets. Perhaps there was a far higher incidence of multiple births in those days, just as lifespans were far longer. This would mean that there would have been a veritable population explosion going on in the lead up to the flood- another connection with our last days, which are "as the days of Noah".


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The earth was corrupt before God- </em>Note how this verse is quoted in <em><a href='B:330 8:17'>Eze 8:17</a></em> about the land (same word as "earth") of Israel being filled with violence. Similarly <em><a href='B:10 6:13'>Gen 6:13</a></em> is alluded to in <em><a href='B:330 7:2-3'>Eze 7:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 7:6'>Eze 7:6</a></em>. This opens up an understanding of Ezekiel along the lines that it is describing the events of AD70 as well as other periods. The flood being such a clear type of AD70, passages which allude to it must also have an AD70 context. "Before God" means 'in His presence'; the idea may be that His presence was still found at the cherubim which guarded the entrance to the garden of Eden. But 'before Him' there, the earth was found corrupt. And so the flood swept away Eden and the sanctuary. This would imply that up until the flood, God was willing to allow Eden to be restored and to grant entry to it- but no saviour figure arose in the line of the seed of the woman, despite some, such as Noah, Cain and Seth, who may have had the potential. And so the salvation program was set back, as has happened so often in salvation history. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The same Hebrew word is translated "corrupt" and "destroyed" (s.w. :13). The people destroyed themselves; their corruption was their own destruction. And this is how God works; it's not simply that judgment for sin is appropriate to the sin, but that sin is its own judgment and condemnation. Therefore to "bear sin" is to bear the (judgment for) sin. And God's judgment and destruction is simply a confirmation of man's choice to destroy himself and his world. In this we see how God respects human freewill decisions, to the point that we are confirmed in those choices by Him. And that adds meaning to human decision and imparts a gravity and seriousness to human choice.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Jewish apocryphal Book of Enoch was instrumental in forging the Jewish misunderstanding of Satan as a personal being. This book shifts the blame for sin from humanity to a Satan-figure called Azazel: "The whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin" (1 Enoch 9:6; 10:8). There is a subtle but significant difference between this and the Biblical record in <em><a href='B:10 6:11'>Gen 6:11</a></em> - which states that the earth became corrupt before God because of <em>human sin. </em>The Biblical record makes no attempt to pass the blame for this onto any other being- humanity was punished because <em>they</em> sinned. It would in any case be surely unethical for God to punish humanity because of what Azazel did. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And the earth was filled with violence</em>- The world was characterized by <em>hamas</em>- "unrighteousness". 'Hamas' can mean "lawlessness perpetrated by force" (Umberto Cassuto, <em>A Commentary On The Book Of Genesis</em> (Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1998) Vol. 2 p. 52). Perhaps we have here a suggestion that the 'land' promised to Abraham- the arena of the Biblical flood- is to be dominated by 'Hamas' or a like terrorist organization. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God saw the earth, and saw that it was corrupt</em>- He sees or 'looks' all the time (<em><a href='B:230 14:2'>Psa 14:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 53:2-3'>Psa 53:2-3</a></em>). ‘Looking upon’ is an idiom for answered prayer or God’s response to human request (<em><a href='B:10 6:12'>Gen 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 29:32'>Gen 29:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 2:25'>Exo 2:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 26:7'>Deu 26:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 6:14'>Jdg 6:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:48'>Luk 1:48</a></em>). Perhaps (as often in early Genesis) we have the same events recorded in different words; in 6:8 we learn that Noah found grace in God’s eyes; and perhaps in response to Noah's prayers for salvation from his evil world, God looked upon the earth and decided to destroy it in response to Noah's prayers. Not that necessarily Noah prayed for earth's destruction; but this was the method God used to answer whatever Noah was asking for. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For all flesh had corrupted His way on the earth</em>– The same word is translated ‘destroy’ when we read of God’s resolve to&nbsp; ‘destroy’ humanity with the flood (<em><a href='B:10 6:13'>Gen 6:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 6:17'>Gen 6:17</a></em>). Humanity had destroyed themselves; Divine condemnation and judgment is only really a working out of what people have done to themselves. The same word occurs in <em><a href='B:20 32:7'>Exo 32:7</a></em>, where we read that Israel had corrupted / destroyed themselves. This is an example of how within the Pentateuch, events in early Genesis set the scene for the later story of Israel. God’s "way" in the <em>eretz</em> was surely the way to the tree of life, guarded by the cherubim. The flood swept all that away, including the garden of Eden and the possibility to come to eternity through the sanctuary and a saviour-seed of the woman. "All flesh" had corrupted or destroyed that way by their immorality. And God confirmed that by literally destroying it.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that the <em>eretz</em> was corrupt because the people upon it were corrupt. So often, the <em>eretz</em> and its people are seen as one. Hence the <em>eretz</em> was left desolate whilst the people of the <em>eretz</em> were desolated. In :13 we will likewise read that the people of the land had filled the land with violence; and this was why the land ("earth") had to be destroyed.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said to Noah, The end of all flesh has come before me, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth- </em>"Come before Me" rather suggests that God was sharing His feelings with Noah, explaining that the idea of destroying the earth and man upon it had come into His mind, before Him for consideration. But Noah had 120 years to change that outcome. We marvel at God sharing His inner musings with mere man upon earth; and man's possibility to affect the outcome of God's thoughts.
Both Moses and Peter stress that God brought the flood upon "the world of the ungodly", i.e. the wicked <em>people</em>. The Jewish writings claimed that the purpose of the flood was to destroy sinful <em>Angels</em>, and that mankind suffered from the result of their destruction. Thus the <em>Testament of Naphtali</em> 3:5: "Likewise the Watchers departed from the order of nature; the Lord cursed them at the Flood". The Jewish writings repeatedly change the Biblical emphasis upon wicked people (especially Jews), claiming that the various Divine judgments were upon wicked Angels. Quite why people on earth should have to suffer the result of this remains a begged question. The Biblical record speaks repeatedly of the destruction of "all flesh". It was their 'corruption' which came 'before God' (:11); here, it is the end or destruction of "all flesh" which was before God. Again, people are put for their behaviour. This may sound obvious, but in reality, we so often consider that we ourselves in our core being are a spiritual person, and yet we allow ourselves to do things and say words which are (so we like to think) 'not really me'. But human words and actions are treated by God as the person. For that is who we are. The word is made flesh, whether that word is good or bad. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks (<em><a href='B:470 12:34'>Mat 12:34</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It's significant that the various Mesopotamian legends about a flood all speak of there being conflict between the divinities before the decision to flood the earth was taken; and then quarrels and recriminations between them after it. The Biblical record has none of this- the one true God brought the flood upon the earth by His sovereign will, and He lifted the flood. In the legends, the hero of the flood (cp. Noah) is exalted to Divine status, whereas in the Biblical record Noah not only remains human, but is described as going off and getting drunk. Throughout pagan legends, the Divine-human boundary is often blurred- gods get cast down to earth and become men, whilst men get exalted to 'Heaven' and godhood. This gave rise to the idea of 'angels that sinned' and were cast down to earth. But in the Biblical record, the Divine-human boundary is set very clearly- the one God of Israel is <em>so</em> far exalted above humanity, His ways are not ours etc. (<em><a href='B:290 55:8'>Isa 55:8</a></em>), that there can be no possibility of this happening. The exception of course was in the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ- but even He was born as a genuine human upon earth, and (contrary to Trinitarian theology) He was no Divine comet who landed upon earth for 33 years. The whole idea of the Divinity and personal pre-existence of Jesus Christ is simply not Biblical. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Make a ship of gopher wood- </em>A commonly available tree in the Middle East. The ark is Christ. He was from common material, of our human nature. Building a boat on dry land, before anyone had experienced rain or flooding, was the kind of paradigm breaking challenge which in essence we experience in this age. For we are asked to bend all our powers to preparing for a future which we can only see by faith, leading to the mockery of those around us.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make rooms in the ship</em>- Heb. nests. There is a unique place for each of us prepared in God’s eternal house- <em><a href='B:500 14:1-3'>Joh 14:1-3</a></em>.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And shall seal it inside and outside with pitch</em>- Cp. our being sealed in Christ with the Spirit in our hearts, as it were "inside", in a way which is visible to all, "outside" (<em><a href='B:560 1:13'>Eph 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:30'>Eph 4:30</a></em>). The same idea is to be found in the Lord shutting in Noah (<em><a href='B:10 7:16'>Gen 7:16</a></em>). The Hebrew for 'pitch' is related to the word for 'covering', as in the atonement covering for sin. Clearly, the ark and the flood narrative are intended to be interpreted as a parable of redemption in Christ.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is how you shall make it. The length of the ship will be three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits- </em>The ark was not designed for sailing, it had no means of self propulsion, nor self-steering. We likewise are led by the Spirit, and once we surrender to that, our path is not of our own device nor direction. The ark represents Christ, entering Him by baptism (<em><a href='B:670 3:19-21'>1Pe 3:19-21</a></em>). Once there, we're in God’s hands. 300 x 50 x 30 is the same proportion as the human body- significant in that the ark is understood by Peter as being a type of the body of Christ, into which the believer enters by baptism. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Biblical account of the flood gives details which are imaginable, earthly realities; there is nothing of the grossly exaggerated and other-worldly which there is in the pagan flood legends. Thus the Biblical dimensions for the ark are realistic, whereas the boat mentioned in the Babylonian legend recorded by Berossus was supposedly about one kilometer long and half a kilometer wide. Noah was 600 years old according to the Biblical record, whereas Ziusudra, the Mesopotamian equivalent of Noah, was supposedly 36,000 years old at the time of the flood. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make a roof in the ship, and you shall finish it leaving a cubit between the roof and the sides. You shall set the door of the ship in its side. You shall make it with lower, second, and third levels- </em>"Roof" is AV "<em>a window"</em>- Heb. a light (as RV, ASV), a glistering thing; the word comes from the word for pressed oil. The Rabbis suggest it was a precious stone. If so, it would look forward to the Lord Jesus as the light of our world as we live within the ark. This isn’t the same Hebrew word as in <em><a href='B:10 8:6'>Gen 8:6</a></em>, where Noah opened a window in the ark. "The door" likewise is a title of the Lord Jesus; the same Hebrew word is used multiple times of the tabernacle door (<em><a href='B:20 29:11'>Exo 29:11</a></em>) and the temple door, also of the door of the houses at Passover time in which salvation was to be found (<em><a href='B:20 12:22-23'>Exo 12:22-23</a></em>). The three levels are hard to interpret; we think of Paul's reference to a "third heaven", and the three divisions of the tabernacle, into most holy, holy and the entrance area beyond the door of the tabernacle. The ark is presented as a kind of tabernacle, a sanctuary, with Noah building it obediently, as Moses did the tabernacle (<em><a href='B:10 6:22'>Gen 6:22</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I, even I, do bring the flood of waters on this earth, to destroy all flesh having the breath of life from under the sky. Everything that is in the earth will die</em>- The condemned world of Noah’s time (the flood was a clear type of the final judgment) were to ‘pine away / languish’ (<em><a href='B:10 6:17'>Gen 6:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 7:21'>Gen 7:21</a></em> - AV “die”). The wicked will melt away from the Lord's presence (<em><a href='B:230 68:2'>Psa 68:2</a></em>). Rejected Israel are described as being "ashamed away" (<em><a href='B:360 1:12'>Joe 1:12</a></em>)- the same idea. This is the idea behind <em><a href='B:650 12:15'>Heb 12:15</a></em> RVmg: "…man that falleth back from the grace of God". What they did in this life in slinking away from the reality of pure grace will be what is worked out in their condemnation experience. <em><a href='B:690 2:28'>1Jn 2:28</a></em> speaks of them as being "ashamed from before him at his coming", the Greek suggesting the idea of slinking away in shame. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But I will establish my covenant- </em>The covenant wasn’t established until Noah left the ark, <em><a href='B:10 9:11'>Gen 9:11</a></em>. Noah lived by faith in this promise of a promise- which is what this was. Being in covenant relationship with God is presented as the opposite of dying. The covenant was of salvation, and outside of it, there was no salvation, only death. The same to this day. This encourages us to preach that covenant to others, and urge those who accept it to remain within it.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>With you</em>- "You" singular. God established His covenant with Noah personally, but Noah was able to save his family as well on account of his covenant relationship with God. <em><a href='B:330 14:14'>Eze 14:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 14:20'>Eze 14:20</a></em> state that in Ezekiel's time, Israel were so wicked that Noah would've saved only himself and not his family. Yet <em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em> says that Noah saved his family by preparing the ark. The implication could be that Noah's spirituality 'covered' his weaker family, because they were not as unspiritual as the people of Ezekiel's time, although still in need of saving by another. This suggests that to some extent, we can affect the salvation of third parties, especially family members, by our own finding of grace before God. Noah is strangely described as "the eighth person" of the eight who were saved (<em><a href='B:680 2:5'>2Pe 2:5</a></em>). Perhaps this means that he put the salvation of the others first, and entered last of all into the ark. The covenant was with him, relating to his personal salvation; but he wasn't spiritually selfish, but rather worked to incorporate others within his own salvation. And God remembered this, calling him "the eighth" (RV "Noah with seven others"). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall come into the ship, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you</em>- Noah apparently had only one wife, even though it seems she wasn't very fruitful. Polygamy was likely popular amongst the wealthy- indicating Noah's faithfulness to his wife as well as possibly his poverty. Note the stress upon "you", Noah- he was the one God was in relationship with, and the salvation of the others was through him: "I will establish my covenant with you [singular]- you shall come into the ship, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you". We perhaps need to jettison the kids' Bible pictures of Noah working on the ark with his three sons helping him, with their wives bringing them food as they laboured. Quite possibly Noah alone built the ark, and his family were saved by grace on account of him. It was "the ship which he had made" (Gen. 8:6). Heb. 11 says that Noah was the one who believed, and moved with fear, prepared an ark in order to save his family. That said, they did freely enter the ark at the end of the 120 years.
</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ship, to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female</em>- The animals were gathered from all over the land. They cannot represent the saints- Noah's family represents them. They may therefore look forward to the people from all over the world who will survive the judgements on the world due to their association with us. Thus many of those to whom we witness but they do not respond may well survive the holocaust to come upon the world to live in the new age of peace, like that which followed the flood. This concept should give the ultimate fillip to our enthusiasm for preaching- no longer obsessed with numbers of baptisms but with the number of people being witnessed to. Far more clean animals than unclean were taken into the ark. Peter in Acts 10 saw a vision in which clean animals represented Jews and unclean were Gentiles. Does this indicate that more Jews will survive the judgements to come on the world than Gentiles? Given the many Jews that we know will die in the last day judgements, it follows that if this line of interpretation is correct very few Gentiles will survive at all. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This throws interesting light on the likely population in the Millennium, if indeed that understanding is literally correct. If each saint rules over some mortals, as <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:5:10'>Rev 5:10</a></em> and the parable of ten and five cities indicates, then the population of the cities cannot be that great. For all the world to come and worship at Jerusalem to keep the feast of tabernacles (Zechariah 14) could suggest small numbers relative to the present world population. Everything apart from what was in the ark was destroyed by the flood; the carnage was beyond description. Thus in the last days, which will be an even fuller cataclysm than anything yet seen on the earth, such wholesale destruction is to be expected, in which only a handful survive.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Shall you bring<em>" </em>contrasts with "shall come unto you" (6:20). Noah's ark is a well known type of the salvation which humanity can find in Christ; and yet close analysis of the Genesis record reveals that there were some animals whom Noah had to bring into the ark and take them with him (<em><a href='B:10 6:19'>Gen 6:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 7:2'>Gen 7:2</a></em>); and others who came to Noah and entered into the ark of their own volition (<em><a href='B:10 6:20'>Gen 6:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 7:9'>Gen 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 7:15-16'>Gen 7:15-16</a></em>). The same Hebrew is found in <em><a href='B:10 8:9'>Gen 8:9</a></em>, about how the dove came to Noah of its own volition, and Noah welcomed her and took her into the ark. Putting all this together, we are to compel men to come in (<em><a href='B:490 14:23'>Luk 14:23</a></em>); and yet we are also to be there to welcome in the seekers who seek of their own volition. It's easier to do the latter; to put up a website, waiting there for some eager seeker to come and find. But we are also to compel people in, and to also bear in mind that there are some who will be attracted to the Gospel from selfish reasons, as the man who buys the field thinking that he can exploit it for his own benefit. These too we are to take on board and not turn away. Whilst people, with all their wonderful uniqueness, should never be pigeon-holed nor over-categorized... all the same, we need to consider the type of person we're dealing with as we plan out our approach. For if we seek them, we will consider who they are, and how appropriately we can engage them. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A week before the flood came, Noah was told to bring seven pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean animals into the ark. This two stage gathering process may suggest that in the last days, immediately before judgment falls, there is a desperate final appeal to the world; and good and bad, clean and unclean, come in. Just as the parable of the marriage supper teaches.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Of every sort" may not mean every single kind of animal, just as not literally "all men" shall be saved, but representatives of them. Semitic languages comfortably carry this kind of idea when they speak in absolute terms such as "every" or "all". It depends how we read the word "of". If it is only the <em>eretz </em>&nbsp;in view, then the logistical problems are far less. In the type, this speaks of all kinds of people preserved in Christ- but not literally all are saved. If Noah hadn't brought them in, much to the mockery of the surrounding world, they wouldn't have been saved. Few, i.e. 8 people, were saved in the ark (<em><a href='B:670 3:20'>1Pe 3:20</a></em>). The animals therefore don't represent the 'saved'. The point may simply be that through our salvation, there is also the salvation of the animal world; or perhaps the animals were representative of those who will be given the chance of redemption after the Lord has returned and established the Kingdom, both good and bad, clean and unclean. Note the use of clean and unclean animals to symbolize people hearing the Gospel in <em><a href='B:510 10:9-16'>Act 10:9-16</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the birds after their kind, of the livestock after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every sort shall come to you, to keep them alive- "</em>Come to you (Noah)"- cp. <em><a href='B:500 6:37'>Joh 6:37</a></em> "All that the Father gives me shall come to me". Noah was a type of Christ, saving His household. As "Come unto me" (<em><a href='B:470 10:28'>Mat 10:28</a></em>). "To keep them alive" is an idea found later in Genesis, when we read that Joseph created as it were a sanctuary in Egypt and gathered food for others to eat, "To bring to pass, as it is this day, to save many people alive" (<em><a href='B:10 50:20'>Gen 50:20</a></em>). There are many such interconnections within the Pentateuch, especially between the early chapters of Genesis and Israel's later recorded experiences. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Take with you of all food that is eaten, and gather it to yourself; and it will be for food for you, and for them-</em> This would've involved Noah observing the animals carefully in order to understand what food they required. If his gathering of the animals represents our gathering of people for the Kingdom, we can learn from this- to understand those whom we seek to bring in to Christ and care for in Him. Seeing they were in the ark for a year and 10 days (Gen. 7:11 600th year, 2nd month, 17th day of the month to 601st year, 2nd month, 27th day, <em><a href='B:10 8:13-14'>Gen 8:13-14</a></em>), this involved a huge amount and variety of food; and also observing the animals to see what they each ate. People really would've thought Noah was crazy. All this preparation for others was part of the witness through which Noah was a "preacher of righteousness" (<em><a href='B:680 2:5'>2Pe 2:5</a></em>). And so it is with us; there is no record of Noah preaching, but his example and dedication to the salvation project was of itself the preaching.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Thus Noah did. According to all that God commanded him, so he did- </em>As noted on <em><a href='B:10 6:16'>Gen 6:16</a></em>, the ark was a kind of tabernacle. The comment upon Noah's obedient building is that made so often upon Moses' obedient building of the tabernacle, and the related commandments required to save Israel (<em><a href='B:20 7:20'>Exo 7:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:50'>Exo 12:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 40:16'>Exo 40:16</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>During the preparation period, Noah was a "preacher of righteousness" (<em><a href='B:680 2:5'>2Pe 2:5</a></em>). But there's no hint in the Genesis record that he preached in any formal sense. <em><a href='B:670 1:11'>1Pe 1:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 3:19-21'>1Pe 3:19-21</a></em> suggest that he made his witness through "the spirit of Christ". His very preparation for the coming of the day of the Lord was his witness. Noah must be one of the greatest examples of witness through silent example (cp. <em><a href='B:670 3:1'>1Pe 3:1</a></em>), openly structuring his life around his faith in God’s promised future rather than living just for today. <em><a href='B:670 3:20'>1Pe 3:20</a></em> says that God’s patient grace "waited" whilst the ark was being prepared. But the Greek really means to "await", with the idea of expectation, looking for something. So as Noah preached, God’s grace eagerly looked for and awaited a result. The result may appear tiny- 'just' his wife, three sons and three young women whom they then married. But God’s grace was eagerly awaiting and anticipating the success of his witness. And it's just the same with our witness and appeal for baptism into the Christ ark in these last days, which were typified by that period of Noah's life. </p>


text:
<em>Yahweh said to Noah, Come with all of your household into the ship- "</em>Come you (singular)... for you (you singular) have I seen righteous"- the focus is always upon God’s individual relationship with Noah, as a result of which his family are saved. God saw Noah as righteous- but not his family? Noah and the seven had to leave behind their homes, land and families. They were promised just the bare necessities of life in the ark- just as we are assured of in Christ. <p style='margin-left:1em'>"Come you" is definitely alluded to in <em><a href='B:290 26:20-21'>Isa 26:20-21</a></em>: "Come, My people, enter into your rooms, and shut your doors behind you. Hide yourself for a little moment, until the indignation is past. For behold, Yahweh comes forth out of His place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity". The "rooms" clearly allude to the rooms or nests within the ark. There seems a principle that God somehow removes or safeguards His people whilst He judges the earth (<em><a href='B:10 19:22'>Gen 19:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 8:22'>Exo 8:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 9:26'>Exo 9:26</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:7:3'>Rev 7:3</a></em>). The lifting up of the ark perhaps connects with the lifting up of God's people to save them from persecution. 
</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"All of your household" suggests this was all he had. Or it could be that there were other children and grandchildren, but those who do not go God's way are effectively not our household. Only those in the ark are our true family. But perhaps his entire family consisted of his three sons. He therefore had no daughters and it would seem that his sons had no children. This tiny family size must be significant- for in those long lived ages, most women would have likely had over 50 children. Again, it was the small, broken and despised who were chosen of God. It seems that Noah's daughters in law only started bearing after the flood. Or it could be that he had other children and grandchildren, who were judged wicked. There would've been a huge division within the family over whether to support the salvation project or not; of the kind that continues to this day.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For I have seen your righteousness before Me in this generation</em>- Heb. "you have I seen righteous". God 'saw' Noah as righteous- not that he was in himself, but God imputed righteousness to him, for Noah was saved by grace not his own righteousness, <em><a href='B:10 6:8'>Gen 6:8</a></em>. Righteousness was imputed to Noah on account of his faith (<em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em>). He was "moved with fear" because he really believed God’s word of judgment. And therefore he prepared the ark, the works which are part and parcel of faith, and was counted righteous on account of his faith. The others were saved because they were "with him" (<em><a href='B:10 7:23'>Gen 7:23</a></em>) rather than because of their own righteousness; for Noah alone was seen righteous, not 'Noah and his family'. "You have I seen righteous" could mean God saw Noah alone as righteous, and his family were saved through him. It is stressed that "Noah only... and they that were with him" were saved (:23). Noah alone was saved- and those with him. Clearly their salvation is presented as dependent upon his, rather than the family being presented as believers on a similar level to Noah. There is an element to which the faith of the faithful can save third parties. In this sense, the New Testament says that Noah built an ark to the saving of his household. Just as the Lord Jesus saves us, we are to 'fill in the gap' for others in the spirit of Mk. 2:5. This enables us to reflect the Lord's work for us in what we do for others. And that is why in the life of every believer, there will be those whom we desperately wish would turn or return to the Lord's way. They are there in our lives so that we might be exercised in prayer and effort for them.</p>


text:
<em>You shall take seven pairs of every clean animal with you, the male and his female. Of the animals that are not clean, take two, the male and his female</em>- Three pairs and one for sacrifice? Or, seven pairs, because the clean were to be for sacrifices on the ark during the year they were on board? There were more clean animals perhaps because they were to be sacrificed or eaten for food. But we note all the same God's desire to save the unclean as well. Initially, Noah had been told to just take pairs of all animals. Now, he is told to take seven pairs of the clean animals. People were vegetarian before the flood (<em><a href='B:10 9:3'>Gen 9:3</a></em>), so the division of animals into clean and unclean was for the purpose of teaching the principles of acceptable sacrifice to God. This last minute push to obtain pairs of clean animals, just a week before the flood came (:4), would have involved frenetic activity on Noah's part. The parable of the marriage supper, along with other hints in Scripture, suggests a last minute desperate appeal to humanity on the eve of the Lord's return. </p> <p> Noah was to "take" the animals, and yet they "came" to him (Gen. 6:19,20; 7:9 "went / came in unto Noah"). Perhaps some he had to 'take' whilst others 'came'; just as with those we save, some come to us, others we have to proactively go out and take. Or it could be that the animals of Gen. 6:19,20 'came' to Noah (the ones who were to keep seed alive on the earth); but these last ones were 'taken' by him (perhaps they were  intended to provide food and sacrifices during the voyage). This would look forward to the last great appeal for the Gospel just before the Lord's return; the people in the streets are 'compelled to come in', whereas others were intended to 'come' of their own volition although clearly in response to God's stimulus through the Spirit.  </p>


text:
<em>Also of the birds of the sky, seven and seven, male and female, to keep seed alive on the surface of all the earth- </em>Lit. the face of all the earth / land. The earth / land is often described as having this "face", or 'presence', as if it is somehow consciously alive and is "the presence" of God to us. Hence any defacement of the planet is an act done upon the face or presence of God. The text here suggests that birds are preservers and distributors of seed; at least, that was how it was in the environment of the <em>eretz</em> of those times. We note there is apparently no conception at this point of there being clean and unclean birds (although the LXX does make the difference, stating "of fowl also of the air that are clean, seven and seven, male and female, and of fowl that are not clean, two and two, male and female”). This is perhaps stressed by Gen. 7:14 noting that birds "of every sort" entered the ark. If the Masoretic text is correct, then we are shown here how God only later classified some birds as unclean; which again proves Paul's later point, that there is nothing unclean of itself. It was a matter of designation, and was intended as a lesson to God's people about the constant need to divide the clean from the unclean in daily life and thinking.


text:
<em>In seven days, I will cause it to rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights. Every living thing that I have made, I will destroy from the surface of the ground- </em>According to :10- seven days of waiting for the rain whilst "shut in" , which we can compare with <em><a href='B:290 26:20'>Isa 26:20</a></em>. However, an alternative reading is possible. <em><a href='B:10 7:4'>Gen 7:4</a></em> "For yet seven days" could imply that Noah was asked to come into the ark seven days before the rain started coming. But <em><a href='B:10 7:13'>Gen 7:13</a></em> (along with <em><a href='B:470 24:38'>Mat 24:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 17:27'>Luk 17:27</a></em> - quite an emphasis) says he entered only on the day that the rain came. Why did he hang around outside for those seven days? Was it from disobedience, just as Lot delayed in taking the way of escape from Divine judgment? Or because he was still desperately appealing for people to enter the ark? If so, this points forward to the intensity of our appeal to the world which there should be in the very last days, going into the byways and hedges and compelling (or trying to compel) people to "come in" (<em><a href='B:490 14:23'>Luk 14:23</a></em>). If we think we're in the last days, our appeal should have this intensity. These seven days could be read as a delay by God in bringing the judgment of the flood, and may be alluded to in <em><a href='B:680 3:9'>2Pe 3:9</a></em>, where we read that God’s patience waited in the days of Noah because He so urgently awaited / hoped for repentance and response. <p style='margin-left:1em'>The number forty is typically associated with testing. The test was of the faith of Noah and his family. Being within the ark, shut in whilst the deluge came, would have been a scary experience. We would be wrong to imagine them within the ark, breathing sighs of relief. Rather were they being tested; for even within the ark, there was the possibility they would lose their faith, as there is for us too.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Rain" was unknown at the time. As the perfect Father and Teacher, God uses language in a manner which will intellectually stretch His children; stretch us to rise up to His way of perceiving things. Thus sometimes God appears to use language with no regard as to whether the people who first heard it could understand it. God spoke to Job about snow (<em><a href='B:220 37:6'>Job 37:6</a></em>), to Abraham about sand on the sea shore (<em><a href='B:10 22:17'>Gen 22:17</a></em>), and here to Noah about rain– things which they had never seen. And the New Testament concepts of grace, <em>agape</em> love, humility etc. were outside the ability of first century Greek to properly express; new words had to enter the language in order to express these ideas. Yet God is also capable of speaking in the language of the day, bringing Himself right down to our human level of language use. It is vital to appreciate that God uses language in different ways in different parts of the Bible – otherwise our interpretation of it will be inconsistent and contradictory. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God sending His rain upon the just (Noah and the other seven 'just', <em><a href='B:10 6:9'>Gen 6:9</a></em>) and unjust (the unrighteous world) may be an allusion to this verse (<em><a href='B:470 5:45'>Mat 5:45</a></em>). The universe isn't just ticking away by clockwork with God somehow distant and uninvolved. He is actively involved with us, and in that sense is not far from any one of us. <em><a href='B:470 5:45'>Mat 5:45</a></em> certainly sounds like a reference to the flood- and yet the context is of God’s love towards both sinners and righteous alike. The destruction of "the old world" was therefore an act of love- although that's very hard for our human minds to accept. To curtail the lives of the wicked who refuse to repentant after extensive appeal to them, is, in fact, Divine grace. </p>


text:
<em>Noah did everything that Yahweh commanded him</em>- “Did all that was commanded by the Lord” is a phrase which in Hebrew occurs around 100 times in the Old Testament. The first occurrence of a phrase in the Bible is often instructive. In <em><a href='B:10 6:22'>Gen 6:22</a></em> and <em><a href='B:10 7:5'>Gen 7:5</a></em> we have the first occurrence of this, concerning Noah. He is therefore set up as a paradigm of faithful obedience to God which inspired many of later generations. As noted on <em><a href='B:10 6:16'>Gen 6:16</a></em>, the ark was a kind of tabernacle. The comment upon Noah's obedient building is that made so often upon Moses' obedient building of the tabernacle, and the related commandments required to save Israel (<em><a href='B:20 7:20'>Exo 7:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:50'>Exo 12:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 40:16'>Exo 40:16</a></em>). The ark is therefore presented as the prototype tabernacle; and it is there that we are located. For life "in Christ" is life within the ark, according to Peter.


text:
<em>Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters came on the land-</em> Perhaps the flood began on his birthday. The Biblical account of the flood gives details which are imaginable, earthly realities; there is nothing of the grossly exaggerated and other-worldly which there is in the pagan flood legends. Thus the Biblical dimensions for the ark are realistic, whereas the boat mentioned in the Babylonian legend recorded by Berossus was supposedly about one kilometer long and half a kilometer wide. Noah was 600 years old according to the Biblical record, whereas Ziusudra, the Mesopotamian equivalent of Noah, was supposedly 36,000 years old at the time of the flood.


text:
<em>Noah went into the ship with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives, in the face of the floodwaters</em>- This could imply that like Lot facing the destruction of Sodom, they didn’t enter as commanded them (see on <em><a href='B:10 7:13'>Gen 7:13</a></em>), and waited until the floodwaters were right upon them before entering. When seven days before the flood came, they were told to enter the ark (:4); whereas :13 says it was "on the selfsame day" that the rain came that they entered the ark. This reflects a weakness, although an understandable weakness we may all have made- wanting to wait until the last minute rather than be obedient. Although Noah definitely had faith, demonstrated by his works in building the ark, he was weak at the last moment. That has a psychological credibility to it that matches our observed human experience; just as his getting dead drunk after the trauma of the flood also has an absolute credibility to it. Or perhaps the idea is that they saw those waters by faith, and entered the ark seeing the waters which were as yet invisible. Again we see that Noah was seen / counted righteous (:1); the record of his drunkeness is surely included to make the point that he was not of himself righteous. <p style='margin-left:1em'>A careful reading of <em><a href='B:10 7:7'>Gen 7:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 7:10'>Gen 7:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 7:13'>Gen 7:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 7:16'>Gen 7:16</a></em> reveals that Noah entered the ark twice- once before the seven days, and then finally at the end, perhaps when he had finished loading the animals. At the second entry he was shut in. Peter reasons in 1 Peter 3 that the ark represents two things- being in Christ by baptism, and being saved from the tribulations to come on the world of the last days. These are typified respectively by the first and second entries of Noah into the ark. If our baptism is like that first entering in, then Noah's tense, earnest waiting for the rain in the next 7 days should typify our feelings towards the second coming (cp. the rain). We should live our whole lives after baptism as if we know for certain that the second coming is but a week away. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For Noah and his family the reality of these things would have ebbed and flowed during that week- some days and hours more than others. But it would have remained with them in the back of their minds as an ever-present reality. Methuselah's death by the time they entered the ark would have heightened their awareness of the shortness of the time ('Methuselah' = 'when he dies, it shall come'). By being in the ark with them, that same intensity of feeling ought to be ours. Never before would they have felt so estranged from the world around them which they knew had such limited time left to satisfy its pleasures. And what scant interest they would have paid to their own possessions, homes, farms and all the other material things around them which they knew would so shortly be ended. In all this lies a powerful lesson to us. Instead their minds would have been obsessed with the ark, the symbol of their faith down through the past years. 'We need this for the ark...we must do that for it' would have been their way of thinking down through those years, as Noah in faith prepared the ark for the saving of himself (Hebrews 11). And this lays the pattern for our dedication and consumption with the things of the truth, the ark, Christ our Lord and His ecclesia.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>He entered "because of the waters". They'd not seen the waters, but faith sees those things which are not as though they are, following God’s principle of thinking likewise (<em><a href='B:520 4:17'>Rom 4:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:3'>Heb 11:3</a></em>). Noah was "moved with fear" because of what he believed would come (<em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em> - just as we should be, for the same phrase is used in Hebrews about us at <em><a href='B:650 4:1'>Heb 4:1</a></em>). The motive for Noah's entry into the ark was partly fear (<em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em>). Knowing the "terror of the Lord" (a phrase used in the OT with reference to coming judgment), Paul persuaded men to accept His grace (<em><a href='B:540 5:11'>2Co 5:11</a></em>). Noah went into the ark (cp. baptism) from fear of the coming flood, as Israel crossed the Red Sea (again, baptism) from fear of the approaching Egyptians, as men fled to the city of refuge (again, Christ, <em><a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a></em>) from fear of the avenger of blood, and as circumcision (cp. baptism) was performed with the threat of exclusion from the community (possibly by death) hanging over the child. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The sons were born to Noah when he was around 500, so by the time of the flood they were around 100 years old, as the flood came when he was 600 (<em><a href='B:10 7:6'>Gen 7:6</a></em>). Lamech, Noah's father, had children at 182; most men of that epoch seem to have begun families by that age. Seeing there are no mention of Noah's sons having any children, it could be surmised that they took wives immediately prior to entering the ark, so as to "keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth" (<em><a href='B:10 7:3'>Gen 7:3</a></em>). Those women in their turn must have been motivated by faith to go into the ark; surely they'd have faced huge opposition and rejection from their families for marrying into that strange 'Ark' family. Their motive could only have been faith in Noah's preaching, backed up as it were by the spirit of Christ which was seen in him (<em><a href='B:670 1:11'>1Pe 1:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 3:18-20'>1Pe 3:18-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 2:5'>2Pe 2:5</a></em>). Indeed, <em><a href='B:670 3:18-20'>1Pe 3:18-20</a></em> speaks of some people at Noah's time who "once were disobedient" but who were converted by his preaching in the spirit of Christ. Who were those converts, if they weren't those three girls who then married his sons? </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is Biblical emphasis upon the fact that Noah entered the ark on the very day the flood came; but this phrase seems to imply that he waited until the very last minute. This may have been because of the urgency and desperation he felt in appealing to others to come into the ark with him. He truly was a remarkable “preacher of righteousness”. Our knowledge of this world’s future means that as we walk the streets and mix with men and women, our heart should cry out for them, no matter how they behave towards us, and there should be a deep seated desire for at least some of them to come to repentance and thereby avoid the judgments to come. </p>


text:
<em>Clean animals, animals that are not clean, birds, and everything that creeps on the ground</em>- The emphasis is clearly that the ritually unclean could find salvation. The body of God’s people have always struggled with this; their tendency has been to assume that those pronounced "unclean" cannot have any part within the system of salvation, however that was articulated over human history. And this has been the cause of so much sinful division amongst them.


text:
<em>Went by pairs to Noah into the ship, male and female, as God commanded Noah</em>- "To Noah" makes us note again the emphasis upon Noah personally as the agent of salvation. Perhaps at no other point in salvation history apart from the cross, has so much depended upon one man. Noah's family, clean and unclean animals, were all saved because of one man's faith and subsequent works. The salvation of "male and female" of course points ahead to the salvation of all types of people, male and female, in Christ (<em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>). We note again that some Noah had to gather in; others came to him of their own volition, in response to God’s working directly upon them. And so it is in our latter day Gospel work. </p> <p> "To" and "into" are the same Hebrew words. The animals came to Noah, to the ark. The same words are found in Gen. 6:19,20. The animals would "come to" Noah, and he was to "bring [s.w. "come"] them to / into the ark". God brings men and women to us, but we have to bring them into His Son. We see here the huge significance of the command to baptize people into Christ, the ark. They are brought to us, through the Spirit, the hand of providence- if we pray each day for meetings with them. And we are to bring them into the ark. We are workers together with Him. He brings people to us, we bring them into the ark.</p>


text:
<em>It happened after the seven days that the waters of the flood came on the earth</em>- "The seven days" suggests this was a significant period. <em><a href='B:290 26:20'>Isa 26:20</a></em> and other passages teach that there will be a 'shut in' period in the very last days to preserve the faithful from the beginning of judgment upon the land, just as Israel in Egypt were preserved from the effect of the judgments upon Egypt.


text:
<em>In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep were burst open, and the sky’s windows were opened</em>- The different state of things before the flood perhaps meant there was a huge amount of water underground which now came to the surface through earthquakes and volcanoes. The opening of the sky's windows has been interpretted as meaning that a water canopy which then covered the land came crashing down to earth. But the opening of heaven's windows is used elsewhere in the Bible in a more figurative sense. If the second month is according to Hebrew reckoning, then this was one month after Abib, i.e. in early May. This was the time associated with flooding, as the Tigris and Euphrates flooded at the time because of the snow meltwater coming to a peak then. This may mean that the latter day judgments, of which the flood was  a type, are a result of natural processes being intensely magnified.


text:
<em>The rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights</em>- Moses was in the cloud, which is also water, for the same period expressed with the same term (<em><a href='B:20 24:18'>Exo 24:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:28'>Exo 34:28</a></em>). The idea is that a new creation emerged out of this experience. The Lord likewise in the wilderness (<em><a href='B:470 4:2'>Mat 4:2</a></em>). Forty is clearly associated with testing, and the test was of Noah's faith rather than that of the surrounding world. The test was as to whether they believed that the promised final salvation would come, or whether they too would perish in the cataclysm. It's the same for us, who are within the ark of Christ.


text:
<em>In the same day Noah, and Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, entered into the ship</em>- I suggested on <em><a href='B:10 7:7'>Gen 7:7</a></em> that perhaps they were intended to enter the ark seven days before the flood, but didn’t do so until the very last moment. This could have been because of a delay in obedience which reflected a lack of faith, as Lot leaving Sodom; or a desperate desire to get out there and appeal to folks at the very last minute. Or maybe the wrench with unbelieving family was just too much. Noah's children took no children with them. Presumably they had children. Perhaps those children were old enough to respond, and refused. The pain of parting with them would've been intense. LXX has "with him", which supports the idea that Noah was faithful and due to this he saved his household. There is an element to which salvation depends upon third parties (see on Mk. 2:5).


text:
<em>They, and every animal after its kind, all the livestock after their kind, every creeping thing that creeps on the earth after its kind, and every bird after its kind, every bird of every sort</em>- "After its kind" could refer to representatives of every genus rather than every species. But the more comfortable explanation is again that this refers to the animals known to <em>eretz</em> Israel. Apart from the size of the ark, the logistical issue of gathering literally all animals and birds and their appropriate food for a year... is considerable, if we insist upon a global flood. "Of every sort" [including all those birds later defined as clean or unclean] may support the note made on :3- that there was no distinction between clean and unclean birds. I will suggest on :16 that not literally samples of all the animals did actually enter the ark. The Hebrew kol translated "every" is very flexible in meaning, and probably another Hebrew construction would have been used if the idea was that literally every species was gathered into the ark. Kol can mean just as much "any" or "whatever", and it is frequently translated like that. So "every" does not have to mean 'every species', but the idea could be just as we have it in the descriptions of "all men" being saved; not literally every man, but any, 'whosoever will', whoever and whatever, out of the wider whole of 'all men'.   


text:
<em>They went to Noah into the ship, by pairs of all flesh with the breath of life in them</em>- He gathered them, but they came unto him, as in our witness to the world. Animals are shy; did Noah work for many years to understand animals so that they came to him (cp. our understanding of the audience we preach to)? Or was it that animals only came to fear humans after the flood (<em><a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a></em>) and therefore they came more naturally to Noah without their present shyness and nervousness of human beings? The record consistently defines the living creatures as those who had the breath of life in them, or as other verses say, within their nostrils. This may or may not be a point to remember in the abortion debate; for the unborn fetus is without the breath of life in its nostrils. That's why babies can be born underwater. The animals represent those who are called into the ark with Noah, the Comforter, the Lord Jesus. Some were moved by God to come to him, 'drawn' by the Father, as the Lord put it. The Spirit is the agency in that drawing, and that is why the otherwise obvious note is made that they were flesh, with the spirit of life in them. </p> <p> "Of all flesh" is emphasized (:15,16; 8:17). The same term is used of how God intended to destroy and make an end "of all flesh" (Gen. 6:13,17); the tragedy being that He is "the God of all flesh" (Jer. 32:17). But "of all flesh" was to be saved. The implication is, by grace. The ark speaks therefore of God's grace. We are in the same position; all flesh is as grass, to die for ever. But through God's grace in His Son, and our faith in that demonstrated by works, we like Noah can be saved; and can save others. </p>


text:
<em>Those who went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God commanded him; and Yahweh shut him in- </em>For "shut him in", see on <em><a href='B:10 6:14'>Gen 6:14</a></em>. Note again the emphasis upon Noah- the animals came to him personally, <em>he</em> was shut in, and thereby his family and the animals were shut in too. As <em><a href='B:10 7:23'>Gen 7:23</a></em>. The entry of the animals is framed here as being on account of <em>Noah's </em>obedience. The same Hebrew word for "shut in" occurs in <em><a href='B:290 26:20-21'>Isa 26:20-21</a></em>: "Come my people, enter into your chambers (cp. the rooms / nests in the ark) and shut your doors about you; hide yourself as for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast. For behold, the LORD is coming out from his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity, and the earth will disclose the blood shed on it, and will no more cover its slain". This passage in Isaiah seems to be applying the language of the flood to the preservation of God’s people in the last days. The mention of the blood shed upon earth recalls <em><a href='B:10 9:6'>Gen 9:6</a></em>. And inevitably we think of the significant New Testament teaching of how those who enter into Christ are "sealed" with the Holy Spirit (<em><a href='B:540 1:22'>2Co 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:13'>Eph 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:30'>Eph 4:30</a></em>).<p style='margin-left:1em'>"All flesh" is of course used of the universal appeal of the Gospel; indeed, "all flesh" is used of all those who hear the Gospel message and have the opportunity of salvation (<em><a href='B:290 40:5'>Isa 40:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 49:26'>Isa 49:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 66:23'>Isa 66:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 65:2'>Psa 65:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:360 2:28'>Joe 2:28</a></em>). And unto Him shall "all flesh come". </p> <p>In Mt. 25:10, the Lord clearly appears to allude to the closing of the ark's door. For in the last days too, the door shall be shut- and there will be people who desperately wish to enter and shall be unable. This was surely the situation when the ark door was shut. The Hebrew is equally translated "shut in" as "shut out", which might encourage us to see the desperate population shut out by the fact Noah was shut in. We note the same word is used of Lot being miraculously "shut in" (Gen. 19:10). As explained on Gen. 6:6, this is but one of several similarities between Noah and Lot. That Lot was 'within', behind the Divinely shut door, was by grace; and the same with Noah. It could be argued from :1,4 that the door of the ark was open for seven days before it was closed. As if there was a last minute appeal for people to enter. We think of other references to a door being opened or closed, referring to opportunities to respond to the Gospel. If, as argued on :7,16, Noah himself was disobedient to enter the ark until the very last day- that would explain why nobody else did. We note that the door represented the Lord Jesus; and it must have been large, so that potentially at least, large animals like elephants could have entered. </p> <p> "Those who went in, went in..." may hint that not all the animals entered who potentially could have done. There is no actual specific statement that all the animals entered. Noah was intended to start entering the ark with the animals seven days before the flood began, but in reality, he and the animals only entered on the day the flood came. Logistically this creates a problem- a problem we are intended to perceive. For "all the animals" to enter in one day is surely asking for a lot to happen within 12 hours. In this case, Noah's disobedience, or delayed obedience, meant that not all animals were saved who could have been saved. We wonder whether the dinosaurs were an example of the lost species. And it is the same with our delayed obedience, or disobedience, to the call to go out and save all men. This provides another alternative to the global / local flood conundrum, and the question as to whether the ark was large enough to hold all the animals- be they of the eretz / earth promised to Abraham, or the entire planet. It could be that all the animals were invited; but not all responded, or they all came but Noah failed to get them all into the ark. Human dysfunction and lack of response likewise militates against God's ideal desire to save 'all men'.  </p>


text:
<em>The flood was forty days on the earth- </em>The idea is that the flooding was for forty days; the waters were on the earth just over a year<em>. </em><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The waters increased, and lifted up the ship, and it was lifted up above the earth</em>- This is the word for the lifting up of acceptable sacrifice to God, found throughout the Pentateuch. There may possibly here be a foretaste of the faithful being lifted up from the earth in the last days to save them from the judgments coming on the earth. "Lifted up" is twice stressed here. It's tempting to connect this with God's people being snatched away into the air (1 Thess. 4:16,17), one taken and another left, taken to judgment like a vulture rises up into the air and then comes down upon a carcass.</p>


text:
<em>The waters prevailed, and increased greatly on the earth; and the ship floated on the surface of the waters</em>- "The face (s.w. surface) of the waters" is the phrase used of how the Spirit of God fluttered upon the face of the waters to bring about creation (<em><a href='B:10 1:2'>Gen 1:2</a></em>). The record is teaching that a new creation was to come about, despite human 'prevailing' against it. The idea of the waters prevailing may suggest that people tried their best to escape them by fleeing to higher ground, all to no avail. Again we see how judgment is in fact creativity, rather than a Divine being lashing out in wrath and anger.


text:
<em>The waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth. All the high mountains that were under the whole sky were covered</em>- Perhaps a reference to the "high places" where idols were worshipped. For this is how the "high hills" of the <em>eretz</em> are commonly mentioned later in the Bible.


text:
<em>The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered</em>- The Hebrew idea is that the mountains were filled in, the whole <em>eretz</em> became even, the mountains brought down and the valleys lifted up by the water until an even surface was created, upon which Noah and the ark moved. The idea is very similar to the picture of the coming of the Lord Jesus over a similarly filled in, even area in Isaiah 40. Noah is definitely to be read as a type of the Lord Jesus. "The mountains" in view are those of the <em>eretz</em>, the land promised to Abraham. The text does not require that the waters were 15 cubits above the tops of the mountain. Perhaps the reference is to how the ark was 30 cubits high (Gen. 6:15), and the ark was submerged to half its depth- the waters prevailed 15 cubits upwards on the ark. For the ark to land on Ararat, the waters would have been 15 cubits above the point where the ark landed. "The mountains were covered" means literally 'had the hollows filled up'. The risen water made the surface of the earth smooth- and this is the very idea of the preparation for the Kingdom and the Lord's return in Is. 40. The mountains are brought down and the vallegs exalted to make a plain. Noah's emergence from the ark into a cleansed world looks forward to the Kingdom. The judgments are necessary, but they are creative in their intent- to lead towards the Kingdom.


text:
<em>All flesh died that moved on the earth, including birds, livestock, animals, every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man</em>- The judgment upon man had radical implications for the animal creation; this continues the theme of how the natural creation suffered as a result of Adam's sin. His sin was repeated in essence by the society of Noah's time.


text:
<em>All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life- </em>This is the language of the creation of Adam; here we have a de-creation, in order that a new creation might come forth. As noted on :15, the record consistently defines the living creatures as those who had the breath of life in them, or as other verses say, within their nostrils. This may or may not be a point to remember in the abortion debate; for the unborn fetus is without the breath of life in its nostrils. That's why babies can be born underwater.<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of all that was on the dry land, died</em>- The Hebrew implies a parched or waste land. This could suggest that the flood was local, of a waste land / wilderness forming a basin hemmed in by mountains. Or it could suggest that the busy, prosperous world of Noah was spiritually a waste land, a desert. </p>


text:
<em>Every living thing was destroyed that was on the surface of the land, including man, livestock, creeping things, and birds of the sky. They were destroyed from the land- </em>Perhaps the fowl of the heaven were destroyed by the heavy downpour of rain. As only a remnant of the human and natural creation survived, so only a remnant of the world around us will come through the future judgments on the earth. The fact an olive tree survived indicates that there was not total destruction. This kind of mass destruction is typical of that which will come upon Israel in the last days: "I will utterly consume all things from off the face of the land... I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven... and I will cut off man from off the land... that day is a day... of clouds and thick darkness... and I will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men" (Zephaniah 1). This is clearly flood language; the description of blind men may connect with <em><a href='B:450 14:12'>Zec 14:12</a></em> prophesying the loss of eyesight for the latter day invaders of the land (cp. how the men of Sodom were smitten with blindness in another type of the last days). <em><a href='B:290 54:9-10'>Isa 54:9-10</a></em> promises that although God will judge Israel with the 'flood' of the second coming judgments, yet He will never totally reject them on account of the remnant: "As I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke (reject) thee. For the mountains <em>shall</em> depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee" . This is surely saying that the same order of physical catastrophe as came upon the earth at the flood will again come upon Israel in the last days; <em>but</em> we must not see this as God breaking His covenant of faithfulness to His true people. <em><a href='B:650 11:1'>Heb 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em> stresses how much Noah really believed God’s prophecy about the nature of the flood;&nbsp; he was " moved with fear" by these predictions. The physical world around us is going to be changed beyond recognition; this ought to make it easier for us to come to terms with the fact that <em>all</em> aspects of <em>our </em>surrounding world will likewise pass away. <p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Only Noah was left alive, and those who were with him in the ship</em>- Yet again, Noah is the focus of salvation, but in him and with him his family were saved. The others were saved because they were "with him" rather than because of their own righteousness; for Noah alone was seen righteous (<em><a href='B:10 7:1'>Gen 7:1</a></em>), not 'Noah and his family'. It all speaks of salvation in Christ, for His sake and by grace.&nbsp;"Left alive" is literally "remained", and the idea is of a remnant- another idea which is developed in later scripture. For we are the remnant, out of the destroyed Israel after the flesh. </p>


text:
<em>The waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days</em>- Five months, a pattern of the last days, <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:9:5'>Rev 9:5</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:9:10'>Rev 9:10</a></em>. The final siege of Jerusalem in AD70 lasted for the same period, coming after 3 years of the Roman campaign against Israel which started in AD67. The three and a half year suffering of Israel which culminated in AD70 may well point forward to a similar period in the last days; in which case the flood would typify the final months of that period, during which the judgments will be poured out most intensely. The five month tribulation of <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:9:10'>Rev 9:10</a></em> may also have some relevance here. Thus the state of Israel in AD70 was typified by the world of Noah's time, which therefore looks forward also to the last days, in the light of the evident connections between that period and our last days which are made in 2 Peter 3 and the Olivet prophecy.


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God remembered Noah- </em>Most references to God remembering are in the context of Him keeping covenant. The grace of all this is that God had not yet made a covenant with Noah. He will go on to do that soon; but even before that, He "remembered Noah". Read literally, this would be implying that God has the capacity to forget or be oblivious; in which case, this ‘language of limitation’ may refer to the Angels rather than God personally. It would be worth speculating whether every time God is said to 'remember' something, this language of limitation refers to Angels, who have the capacity to have their memories limited, and to need to remember things. After God remembers, He often does an action which necessitates other Angelic action, as if one Angel- the one which 'remembers'- commands other Angels.&nbsp; One&nbsp; wonders&nbsp; whether this is the case when God "remembered" Noah in the ark and sent a "wind" to drive back the waters. He "Who makes His Angels Spirits (winds)" was therefore sending an Angel in control of a wind to execute His work. The idea of the Angels being in control of the winds and all elements of the natural world&nbsp; is&nbsp; a&nbsp; common&nbsp; one, seen most clearly in the book of Job. In support of this Angelic approah, it could be noted that this is an <em>elohim</em> statement, rather than of Yahweh Himself. The Hebrew for ‘remembered’ is elsewhere used in the sense of making mention of (<em><a href='B:10 40:14'>Gen 40:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 23:13'>Exo 23:13</a></em> etc.). Did the Angels make mention of Noah before the Council of Heaven, and God responded by sending out an Angel / wind to pass over the earth and drive back the waters? God makes His Angels spirits / winds (<em><a href='B:230 104:4'>Psa 104:4</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Or it could be that from Noah's perspective- and Genesis is at times written from the standpoint of human beings on earth, e.g. the creation record- God had forgotten him, but now God remembered him. In this case we would have another indication of Noah's imperfect faith. Moses uses the same figure in <em><a href='B:10 30:22'>Gen 30:22</a></em> to describe how God ‘remembered’ Rachel in responding to her prayer. Likewise God ‘remembered’ the righteous in Sodom in response to Abraham’s prayer (<em><a href='B:10 19:29'>Gen 19:29</a></em>). Could this not imply that whilst Noah was spared from the world’s judgment, he was earnestly praying for the days to be shortened, and to be allowed to emerge from the ark into the new world? This would point forward to the urgent prayer of the faithful in the last days. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But God’s "remembering" of people doesn't have to imply He forgot before remembering. The language can mean simply that He was aware of them, and acted upon that awareness. Moses uses the same figure in <em><a href='B:10 30:22'>Gen 30:22</a></em> to describe how God ‘remembered’ Rachel in responding to her prayer. Likewise God ‘remembered’ the righteous in Sodom in response to Abraham’s prayer (<em><a href='B:10 19:29'>Gen 19:29</a></em>). Could this not imply that whilst Noah was spared from the world’s judgment, he was earnestly praying for the days to be shortened, and to be allowed to emerge from the ark into the new world? This would point forward to the urgent prayer of the faithful in the last days- a theme which we will often have cause to underline in these studies.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the animals, and all the livestock that were with him in the ship</em>- Again the emphasis is upon salvation associated with Noah personally. The animals were "with him". But we also note God's pity for animals as for all His creation.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And God made a wind to pass over the earth. The waters subsided-</em> The flood makes a good case study of Angelic control of the natural world; see on :3. <em><a href='B:720 1:14'>Jud 1:14</a></em> quotes Enoch's prophecy of the flood as saying that it would be associated with the Lord coming with "ten thousands of His saints" (Angels- cp. Daniel 7). The fact that Angels were used to cause the flood is found written between the lines of the Genesis account. The "windows of Heaven" being opened must refer to Angelic activity, as Job describes God calling for the wind and lightening to obey Him, and they come to Him and obey. This language must be about animate beings- i. e. the Angels responsible for these elements of nature. <em><a href='B:10 8:1'>Gen 8:1</a></em> says God remembered Noah- the language of limitation, as God Himself cannot forget or need to bring things to memory. We have suggested that this language of limitation be&nbsp; always applied to the Angels; thus it would seem they were in charge of the flood. "God (the Angel co-ordinating the flood?) made a wind (an Angel- "Who makes His Angels spirits"- 'spirit' is the same word as 'winds') to pass over the earth... and the waters returned from off the earth, in going and returning (A.V.mg.)". This last phrase is used elsewhere about the Angels as God’s eyes roaming around the earth on His missions, and also there is the connection with the ideas already discussed of the Angels constantly going to and fro between God and the earth and around the earth.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The deep’s fountains and the sky’s windows were also stopped, and the rain from the sky was restrained-</em> <em><a href='B:10 6:4'>Gen 6:4</a></em> stresses that the giants were mere men; and that it was God and not the giants who opened and closed the windows of Heaven and sent the rain of the flood. This would fit in with wider evidence that the flood record, like that of the sons of God and daughters of men, is also purposefully deconstructing pagan myths about the flood. Here, <em><a href='B:10 8:2'>Gen 8:2</a></em> states clearly that it was God who caused the flood rains to cease and the waters to subside – whereas the pagan myths claim that it was the sun god who appeared and caused the waters to evaporate. The Biblical record says nothing about the waters disappearing by solar evaporation, but claims they subsided as a result of the work of Israel’s God. The restraint or opening of the heavens to provide rain is language used later of the drought or blessing of rain which God can bring on the <em>eretz</em> (<em><a href='B:440 1:10'>Hag 1:10</a></em> s.w.). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The waters receded from the earth in going and returning. After the end of one hundred and fifty days the waters decreased</em>- "In going and returning" is the language of the surges of huge tidal waves, caused by the underwater eruptions of the "fountains of the deep" being broken up (<em><a href='B:10 7:11'>Gen 7:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 8:2'>Gen 8:2</a></em>). Being in the ark must've been a very rocky ride; the boat would've been tossed and thrown most of the time. And so it is with our ride in Christ. But "going and returning" is also the language of the cherubum (<em><a href='B:330 1:14'>Eze 1:14</a></em>), forging another hint that the whole flood experience was in the hands of Angels. See on :1 <em>And God made a wind to pass over the earth.</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The 150 days, or five months, are a significant period in the series of latter day judgments which are to come upon the <em>eretz</em> (see on <em><a href='B:730 9:5'>Rev 9:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 9:10'>Rev 9:10</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The ship rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month- </em>For "rested" see on <em><a href='B:10 5:29'>Gen 5:29</a></em>. This is the meaning of "Noah"; the ark and Noah are connected, just as the ark was a type of the Lord Jesus, according to Peter. Israel left Egypt on the 14th day of Abib, the seventh month which became the first month in their new calendar; they likely crossed the Red Sea on the 17th day of that month. So perhaps it was on the very same day that the ark rested. Israel's passage through the Red Sea typified baptism (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>), just as Noah's passing through the floopd waters did (<em><a href='B:670 3:19-21'>1Pe 3:19-21</a></em>). Note that this was the same day that the Lord Jesus was resurrected- He died at Passover, 14th Abib, and resurrected three days later, 17th Abib.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On Ararat’s mountains</em>- This could be an intensive plural, implying the one great mountain of Ararat. The word could mean "holy hill", and the great mountain of the <em>eretz</em> was mount Zion, not some arguable spot in present day Armenia. It would of course be so appropriate in the typology of the whole event, speaking of final salvation upon Mount Zion and the redeemed going forth into a new world.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The waters receded continually until the tenth month. In the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen</em>- This could imply that from their position on Ararat, or mount Zion, Noah and his family witnessed this receding of the waters and the emergence of mountain tops. For by whom were they "seen" if not by them? And whilst the record is Divinely inspired, we wonder if Noah kept some kind of diary which Moses is now presenting, under inspiration. For the references to dates and what was seen from the ark are very precise and specific.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ship</em>- This is not the same Hebrew word which some versions translate ‘window’ in <em><a href='B:10 6:16'>Gen 6:16</a></em> (see note there). There had been no command to make this window. Does this suggest a lack of faith within Noah, wanting to see what was going on outside, when God had designed the ark as a structure which didn’t give those within it the opportunity to see where they were going? The humanity and weakness of Noah is what makes him accessible to us as an example. It could be argued that the sending forth of the raven and dove were in themselves a lack of faith- for he had been commanded to preserve the animals, and letting one go like that was hardly responsible. But God conceded to Noah’s humanity and worked with him in this. The window was perhaps more of a spy hole- <em><a href='B:10 8:9'>Gen 8:9</a></em> speaks of Noah putting his hand out of it and pulling in the dove. It’s worth reflecting whether obsessions with prophecy are some kind of building a futile spy hole, when we are to trust our ultimate salvation to the Lord, in His good time. We have remarked elsewhere that events in early Genesis are to be connected with similar things later in the Pentateuch. The sending out of the two animals to know the state of the land perhaps connects with Moses’ sending out of the spies to know the state of the land- and this too wasn’t an act of great faith, for Moses surely should’ve believed the Divine / Angelic information about the state of the land rather than having to rely upon human investigation.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Which he had made- </em>Time and again, we read of how <em>Noah</em> made the ark, and of how the animals and his family were <em>with him</em>. The whole salvation project was clearly based around this one man, and as such it so clearly points forward to the Lord's work. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And he sent out a raven. It went back and forth, until the waters were dried up from the earth</em>- The use of an unclean and then a clean bird indicates again that God’s salvation plan has use for both. The same lesson was taught to Elijah, when ravens were used to feed him- in another situation typical of the latter day experiences of the remnant (<em><a href='B:110 17:4'>1Ki 17:4</a></em>). The Lord singled out unclean ravens as an example of animals with whom the Father has some level of caring fellowship (<em><a href='B:490 12:24'>Luk 12:24</a></em>). The waters were not dried up for some time; so we imagine the unclean bird coming back and forth to the ark; unless it lived on the floating bodies of animals.. The coursing back and forth of the raven parallels how the waters went and returned (:5 Heb.) as they receded, with the unclean raven perhaps representing the wings of God’s Spirit over the whole process. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He sent out a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from the surface of the ground</em>- The exact program of events wasn't clear to Noah, just as it will never be to us in the last days, within the ark of Christ. Therefore he tried these experiments with the birds "to see if" the time had come, and how the program was going. How long things shall continue for in our last days is open ended, or at least, we don't know any precise program. But at the end of the experience, Noah would have realized that he had been within the ark for exactly a year, and that every stage had been carefully planned and allowed by God. We too shall see the same, and only then will all Biblical prophecies, types and shadows fall perfectly into place in our understanding. We noted on Gen. 7:17 that the flood came for 40 days- a period of testing. And God "remembered Noah", an idiom for answering prayer. Noah had no prior understanding of the time periods involved after the 40 days of flooding had ended (Gen. 7:4). He gathered enough food for the animals and his family to last over a year. We think of the wise virgins taking extra oil for their lamps, not knowing how long the bridegroom will delay.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But the dove found no place to rest her foot- </em>She found no Noah. It was Israel who were to later find no rest for the sole of their feet as they tramped the Gentile world (same Hebrew words in <em><a href='B:310 1:3'>Lam 1:3</a></em>). Their returning to the Lord was prefigured by the dove’s return to Noah. There seems some kind of allusion to all this in <em><a href='B:290 57:20-21'>Isa 57:20-21</a></em>, bearing in mind that the flood waters would have been troubled and dirty: "The wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt. There is no peace, says my God, to the wicked". </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And she returned to him into the ship; for the waters were on the surface of the whole earth. He put out his hand, and took her, and brought her to him into the ship</em>- There’s a definite allusion to this in <em><a href='B:230 116:6-7'>Psa 116:6-7</a></em> (the surrounding verses there have several allusions to Noah and the flood): “The LORD preserves the simple; when I was brought low, he saved me.&nbsp; Return, O my soul, to your rest (Heb. <em>Noakh</em>- Noah); for the LORD has dealt bountifully with you”. The Psalmist felt himself as that simple dove, flying over this shattered world looking for a place to land, and finding none, only to return to the Lord- symbolized by Noah. Note how in <em><a href='B:230 55:6'>Psa 55:6</a></em> the Psalmist also wishes to be as a dove. This is surely the way to read and use Scripture- to take an image and see the relevance to ourselves. This is why the Bible writers make such allusions which may appear out of context when analyzed in literary, philological terms of exposition. But the Hebrew way of interpreting Scripture isn’t always like this; the emphasis upon “context” can be taken too far, and it’s more of a Western than an Eastern way of using literature.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Put forth his hand and pulled her</em>- These are the very same Hebrew words as in <em><a href='B:10 19:10'>Gen 19:10</a></em>, where the Angels put forth their hand and pull Lot into the house and shut the door, just as Noah had been Angelically ‘shut in’ the ark. The connection of thought may simply be to show that Noah rescued / saved the dove from endlessly flying over the wastage of the Gentile world, which connects with our thoughts above about how the dove represents God’s wayward people returning to Him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He stayed yet another seven days; and again he sent the dove out of the ship- </em>The Hebrew word translated "grieved" (see on <em><a href='B:70 10:15'>Jdg 10:15</a></em>) occurs about Noah in <em><a href='B:10 8:10'>Gen 8:10</a></em>: "And he stayed (s.w. to be grieved, hurt) yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark". This word is found translated in other places like this: "Be in anguish" (<em><a href='B:50 2:25'>Deu 2:25</a></em>); "wounded" (<em><a href='B:90 31:3'>1Sa 31:3</a></em>); "exceedingly grieved" (<em><a href='B:150 4:4'>Ezr 4:4</a></em>); "travaileth" (<em><a href='B:220 15:20'>Job 15:20</a></em>); "wounded" (<em><a href='B:130 10:3'>1Ch 10:3</a></em>); "sore pained within me" (<em><a href='B:230 55:4'>Psa 55:4</a></em>); "I am pained at my heart" (<em><a href='B:300 4:19'>Jer 4:19</a></em>); it is several times used of a woman "in pain" , "travailing" in expectancy of the birth (<em><a href='B:290 26:17-18'>Isa 26:17-18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 54:1'>Isa 54:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 66:7'>Isa 66:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 4:10'>Mic 4:10</a></em>). Why was Noah grieved and distressed, as he waited seven days before sending the dove out again? Surely for the plight of his world. He was hoping the dove would return with some sign of civilization, some hint of human survival. His grief was for the corpses floating, for the animals lost… for the world that once was. He had preached to them for 120 years, and they hadn’t listened. Yet he didn’t think Well that’s their problem, they didn’t want to hear when they could, it serves them right. And neither does it seem he was looking out of the ark window thinking My, I’m sure glad <em>we </em>were obedient. As the rain came down, it seems to me that the practical reality of the tragedy would have dawned upon Noah; as the waters rose, he would have pictured the folk he knew running to ever higher hills he would have seen the faces of local children, maybe those of the guys he bought wood from, faces of the women his wife had bartered with, memories of his own brothers and sisters, perhaps his other children. It seems to me that he spent all that time in the ark grieving, grieving, grieving for the tragedy of it all. He surely wasn’t smugly thinking Ha, serves them right, and praise God, I’m saved, and there’s a great future Kingdom for me in store!. I also muse- and no more than this- that perhaps he went on a bender on coming out of the ark because he just couldn’t handle the tragedy of it all. Walking around an empty earth knowing he was saved and the others hadn’t made it…</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This all has vital, biting relevance to us. For Peter takes Noah in the ark as a symbol of us all in Christ. Yes, he was there thanking God for His gracious salvation, looking forward to the new world to come, but distraught at the tragedy of those masses who hadn’t responded, and who had died the slow, desperate, struggling death of drowning. He sent out the dove to see if the waters were "abated" - but the Hebrew word is usually translated "curse"; he wanted to know if the curse was still evident; if the waters were cursed in the presence of the ground / earth. The same word is found in <em><a href='B:10 8:21'>Gen 8:21</a></em> "I will not again <em>curse</em> the ground". If our concern for this world is genuine, if our preaching is not just seeking to gain members, or prove ourselves right and others wrong, then we will grieve for this world; even though the exclusion of some from Gods salvation is in some way their fault. Those who reject our message we will grieve and bleed for; not just shrug our shoulders over. Lack of response should concern us, worry us, <em>drive us</em> to think of how we could be the more persuasive of men.</p><p>The dove makes a nest from twigs on the ground. But it returned just with a leaf. Nothing thus figured that the ground wasn't yet dry. Clearly he had no message from God about when exactly the ark would rest and could be opened. And likewise it is futile to construct timelines for the latter days. Just as the wise virgins take oil not knowing how long the delay will be, so Noah took enough food because he didn't know how long he would be in the ark.
The rooms in the ark were "nests". But the dove eventually makes her own nest away from the ark, after nervously testing her ability to do so. The dove, like the Lord's sheep, came in and out of the ark freely. The raven went back and forth eating from carcasses, but was not allowed back into the ark. It "returned" to the ark like the rejected banging on the door but Noah didn't open to it. It roamed around ceaslessly with no purpose. We are told it flew back and forth until the waters were dried up, but this was at least 57 days after it was sent out, when the dove had already settled independently (Gen. 8:13-17). This is unnatural. The raven could have settled. It didn't. Ravens aren't long distance continuous fliers. We could infer the raven flew back and forth until he died. The pointless goong to and from fro the ark is a picture of the condemned. The dove achieved a purpose in its missions, but the raven didn't. The going and returning of the raven matches the movement of the waters, which represented condemnation. The raven is associated with them. Israel in yheir condemnation found no rest for the sole of their foot, like the raven. The dove specifically returned "to Noah", like a personal relationship with the Lord, and was let in. Perhaps here we have the picture of the condemned and accepted leaving the ark, the body of Christ, which has served for their salvation from the world and now has no further function for them. Like the dove, we will experience the glorious liberty of God's dear children. Man says he wants freedom but is very nervous to take it. He feels safer in a nest next to others, within a structure, a denomination, a church. Just like the dove.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The dove came back to him at evening, and, behold, in her mouth was an olive leaf plucked off. So Noah knew that the waters were abated from the earth</em>- Noah was a "herald of righteousness" (<em><a href='B:680 2:5'>2Pe 2:5</a></em> Gk.). In the ancient world, heralds were associated with an olive branch or wand, e.g. Mercury the herald-god had an olive branch in his hand. Noah may therefore have understood from this that now he was indeed the herald of the new age of righteousness. But a herald worked to take messages between opposing parties and to reconcile them- the olive branch was thought to have power over warring snakes. Perhaps Noah was being reminded that his work wasn't over- it was for him to go forth from the ark and reconcile people to God. Instead he got drunk... </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel being the land of olives (<em><a href='B:50 8:8'>Deu 8:8</a></em>), this would be another indication that the flood was a local affair over the ‘land’ promised to Abraham. As olive trees don’t grow near the present Ararat in Armenia, this lends support to the Jewish tradition that the olive came from the mount of Olives, and the ‘ararat’ / ‘holy mount’ upon which the ark landed was Mount Zion. Doves fly home. They are released at special events because they circle around and then fly off home. The dove flew off and remained away from the ark because it's home was now above water. Again suggesting the ark departed from the same place it settled.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Leaf" is also translated branch. A broken off olive branch is exactly the figure Paul uses to describe Israel in <em><a href='B:520 11:17-24'>Rom 11:17-24</a></em>. The whole story is a very detailed prefigurement of Israel’s return from Gentile dispersion and Divine judgment, not simply to God, but into the Christ ark. <em><a href='B:290 54:9'>Isa 54:9</a></em> encourages us to see things this way too, for the waters of the flood are there interpreted as God’s wrath with Israel, and their cessation speaks of His eternal acceptance of them at their return to Him.</p><p>The dove makes a nest from twigs on the ground. But it returned just with a leaf. Nothing thus figured that the ground wasn't yet dry. Clearly he had no message from God about when exactly the ark would rest and could be opened. And likewise it is futile to construct timelines for the latter days. Just as the wise virgins take oil not knowing how long the delay will be, so Noah took enough food because he didn't know how long he would be in the ark.

The rooms in the ark were "nests". But the dove eventually makes her own nest away from the ark, after nervously testing her ability to do so. The dove, like the Lord's sheep, came in and out of the ark freely. The raven went back and forth eating from carcasses, but was not allowed back into the ark. It "returned" to the ark like the rejected banging on the door but Noah didn't open to it. It roamed around ceaslessly with no purpose. We are told it flew back and forth until the waters were dried up, but this was at least 57 days after it was sent out, when the dove had already settled independently (Gen. 8:13-17). This is unnatural. The raven could have settled. It didn't. Ravens aren't long distance continuous fliers. We could infer the raven flew back and forth until he died. The pointless goong to and from fro the ark is a picture of the condemned. The dove achieved a purpose in its missions, but the raven didn't. The going and returning of the raven matches the movement of the waters, which represented condemnation. The raven is associated with them. Israel in yheir condemnation found no rest for the sole of their foot, like the raven. The dove specifically returned "to Noah", like a personal relationship with the Lord, and was let in. Perhaps here we have the picture of the condemned and accepted leaving the ark, the body of Christ, which has served for their salvation from the world and now has no further function for them. Like the dove, we will experience the glorious liberty of God's dear children. Man says he wants freedom but is very nervous to take it. He feels safer in a nest next to others, within a structure, a denomination, a church. Just like the dove.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He stayed yet another seven days, and sent out the dove; and she didn’t return to him any more</em>- "Stayed" is s.w. to be patient, wait, trust. It’s a different Hebrew word from that in <em><a href='B:10 8:10'>Gen 8:10</a></em>, although there many versions also read “stayed”. There in 8:10 the Hebrew means to writhe, wriggle, twist in pain- rather indicating Noah’s impatience and dented faith. But now his patient waiting returns. This patient waiting for Christ’s Kingdom is of the essence (<em><a href='B:600 3:5'>2Th 3:5</a></em>). Saul also tarried (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 8:12'>Gen 8:12</a></em>) seven days, but he offered his sacrifice then rather than wait longer as Noah did to offer sacrifice (<em><a href='B:90 13:8'>1Sa 13:8</a></em>). Potentially encouragement had been set up for Saul, but he failed to take it. He was supposed to perceive the similarity in position between himself and Noah; but he failed to see it nor think himself into the situation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from the earth. Noah removed the covering of the ship, and looked- </em>If the "covering" refers to our covering in Christ, for the ark represents Him, then this may suggest that the whole idea of covering or atonement will be removed when we emerge from the ark into our full salvation. Then like Adam we shall walk in Eden in the presence of God, see His face and be unashamed.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He saw that the surface of the ground was dried- "</em>Dry" is s.w. waste, destroyed, desolate. It was this which maybe made Noah depressed and turn to alcohol- for he loved people and so cared for them, and had sought their salvation in vain for 120 years.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry</em>- The exact time references suggest Noah kept some kind of diary, or at least memorialized the exact sequence of events to be passed down the generations, until they came to Moses, who under inspiration turned them into inspired scripture. The period between Noah realizing the earth was "dry" and then God telling him to exit the ark (:15) may point forward to some time period required for the establishment of the Kingdom. And there are plenty of other scriptures which hint at such a period between the end of the latter day judgments, and our walking forth into paradise restored.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God spoke to Noah, saying</em>- We are presented with God speaking to Noah, and his direct obedience to the word received (<em><a href='B:10 6:3'>Gen 6:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 6:13'>Gen 6:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 7:2'>Gen 7:2</a></em>). This theme continues here. He is presented as obedient, just as Moses is.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Go out of the ship, you, and your wife, and your sons, and your sons’ wives with you</em>- Obedience to such a command might seem obvious. Surely Noah wanted to leave the ark. But he had been there for a year; was there some reticence in going forth into what might have appeared a somewhat spooky new world? Maybe he didn’t have the bravery for that new world, and typical of all humans, preferred to just stay where he was, where he felt safe. We see here a window onto the inertia which is a stronger part of human nature than we might wish to accept. We think of Joseph's brothers, nervous to accept his grace; and the language of the faithful being <em>made</em> to sit down and be served at the Messianic banquet, and those who really couldn't remember their good deeds being told "Come, enter the Kingdom!". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Bring out with you every living thing that is with you of all flesh, including birds, livestock, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply on the earth- "</em>Bring out with you" is you singular. Again, Noah is seen as the Saviour, with all the others saved due to being with him. We can in a sense save others by our witness, even though the Lord is their Saviour in the ultimate sense. "Breed abundantly" is the same word as in Gen 1:20, “let the waters bring forth abundantly”. Again we have the idea of a new start, with Noah as Adam given the chance to learn the lessons. But he gets dead drunk.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Noah went out, with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives with him</em>- As noted on :15, Noah is presented as obedient to words spoken from God. Perhaps we are to notice from the strict list of those who emerged that the sons and their wives produced no children during their year in the ark.  Again we note the repetition of "with" in :16-18; Noah was the saviour, and those saved were only saved because of being "with" him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Every animal, every creeping thing, and every bird, whatever moves on the earth, after their families, went out of the ship- </em>The order in which the animals are listed is different from that in <em><a href='B:10 6:20'>Gen 6:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 7:21'>Gen 7:21</a></em>. Perhaps because in the ark they mixed together; our experience in the Christ ark should lead to unity. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Noah built an altar to Yahweh, and took of every clean animal, and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar</em>- This was on Noah’s initiative. There had been no altars stipulated previously. God had asked Noah to build an ark, and now Noah of his own volition builds an altar. As we mature in Christ, we no longer simply follow commands but take our own initiative in God’s service. Noah’s first reaction may have been to build a house for himself and his family; but he put God first and built an altar. If one of "every clean animal" was offered, this would've been a huge number of animals. The idea was perhaps that representatives of all flesh will be acceptable to God in the end. This huge outpouring of gratitude speaks of how we will feel as we walk away from the judgment seat into the Kingdom at the last day.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh smelled the pleasant aroma- </em>The smell of huge numbers of burning animal carcasses isn't sweet to man. But what man finds foolish, pointless or abhorrent can touch the heart of God for its sweetness to Him. The Hebrew would be rendered "sweet savour". 'Sweet' translates <em>nychoah</em>, related to the word 'Noah'. Noah was his sacrifice. Our lives are sacrifices being offered up. Just as the Lord Jesus was an offering of a sweet-smelling savour (<em><a href='B:560 5:2'>Eph 5:2</a></em>).  (Eph. 5:2 uses the same language as the LXX here). Noah was his sacrifice, as we are ours. We each have our unique smell to God. Just as God's heart was melted by sacrifice, so even more was His heart touched and even altered by the Lord's death. And our sacrifices no less touch His very heart. It's why sacrifice is such an important principle in spiritual life. Again and again, Moses sought to refocus his people on the practical, the literal, the concrete, and away from the myths which surrounded them. And yet he does this by alluding to those myths, so as to alert Israel to the fact that the new, inspired record which he was writing was fully aware of the myths God’s people were being assailed with. This would explain the similarity of expressions between some of the myths and the Genesis record- e.g. "The Lord smelled the pleasing odour" (<em><a href='B:10 8:21'>Gen 8:21</a></em>) is very similar to the Gilgamesh Epic, 9:159-160: "The gods smelled the odour, the sweet odour". The Biblical record is one of hard human reality, undiluted with the fantastic or mythical: "The central figures of the Bible saga are not, as in so many hero-tales, merged in or amalgamated with persons belonging to mere mythology; the data regarding their lives have not been interwoven with stories of the gods. Here all the glorification is dedicated solely to the God who brings about the events. The human being... is portrayed in all his untransfigured humanity" (Martin Buber, <em>Moses</em> (Oxford: Phaidon Press, 1947) p. 17). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said in His heart</em>- We may never know in this life God’s feelings in response to our sacrifices. We can touch the heart of God, we tiny mortals on earth… And God’s word opens up to us the very inner thoughts of God Himself.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake, because the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I ever again strike everything living, as I have done- </em>see on <em><a href='B:10 8:10'>Gen 8:10</a></em>. <em>"</em>"We could surely conclude that as a result of seeing the carnage, God downgraded His view of man and His hopes and expectations of him. Not again curse" is alluded to in <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:21:1'>Rev 21:1</a></em>, there will be no more curse in God’s Kingdom. It seems Noah had the potential to enable the Kingdom there and then, as did so many- Solomon, the Jews returning from exile, Israel in the first century. Every time, human weakness and shortsightedness stopped it.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God saw that "the imagination of man's heart" was evil from his youth; not from his birth, showing that God is referring to the specific attitude of those times rather than to man's innate sinfulness. The implication is that God was especially saddened at the evil thinking of a reprobate, corrupted youth. And how much more today? God as it were reduced His expectations, cut us yet more slack, made even bigger concessions to humanity.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The essential struggle of God is brought out by the account of God’s ‘repenting’ that He had cursed the earth. According to one translation, <em><a href='B:10 8:21'>Gen 8:21</a></em> can read: “I will never again declare the earth to be cursed (as I have done hitherto) on account of humanity, because the imagination of the heart is evil from one’s youth”. The reference to cursing the earth surely alludes back to the curse of <em><a href='B:10 3:17'>Gen 3:17</a></em>. Could it be that God is saying that He ‘repented’ not only of the flood, but of the cursing of the earth in response to Adam’s sin? The final outworking of that repenting of course was through the work of the Lord Jesus, and the ultimate enablement of Paradise restored on this earth. It’s as if God is as it were coming to terms with the evilness of man; although He perceives that man is bent on sinning from his youth, by grace, He promises never to destroy mankind. In wrath, He remembered mercy. God has emotion and it’s hard to read this any other way than that He regretted how far He had punished humanity. This tension within God, between being immutable and yet being emotional, is impossible to ultimately explain.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>8:22 <em>While the earth remains, seed time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease</em>- The reference to the seasons, planting etc. suggest this is relevant to the earth / land of Israel and not world-wide (there is no Summer and Winter on the equator). There are six different seasons mentioned here. This would indicate a different climate at the time- although some cultures such as the Copts likewise split the year into six seasons rather than the four seasons common today in European countries.</p> <p>It was when "Yahweh saw that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil all the day" that He decided: “I will blot out from the earth the Adam I have created” (Gen. 6:5-7). But comparing this with Gen. 8:21, we get the impression that God comes to accept the weakness of man, and to tolerate it without destroying it: "Yahweh said in His heart, “I will never again curse the soil because of the Adam, for the inclination of the Adam’s heart is evil from youth”. This same pattern is seen later; God is so angry with human sin in His people that He decides to change His plans and destroy the sinners. But He later again changes, and decides to tolerate them. Thus in Ex. 33:3,5 God says that “I will not go up among you for you are a stiff-necked people, lest I would consume you on the way... You are a stiff-necked people; if for a single moment I should go up among you, I would consume you”. But after Moses' intercession, God does go up among them even thought they are a stiff-necked people. He hears Moses' prayer of Ex. 34:9: “I pray, let Yahweh go among us for this is a stiff-necked people, pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for your inheritance". This is not to say that God will not judge sin and sinners. He definitely will. But we see here a growth in tolerance, akin to what many men experience as they pass through the fatherhood experience. We think of how God tells Abraham "Now I know that you fear God, in that you have not withheld your son... from Me" (Gen. 22:12). Being a father is not simply an act of procreation; fatherhood is a relationship, and it could be argued that it goes with the territory of fatherhood to change and be changed in response to your children. This may be one window onto how God in this sense can change or learn. It was a choice He made to go through that experience. God is not fickle, and yet He has emotions. Later He will say that He repents of certain relationships with His people, and rejects them; and then He changes His mind again, repenting of His repentance as it were. His repentings are "kindled together" at the time of Hosea. This is how deeply involved God is in the response of His children to Him. It inspires us to love and serve Him with all we have and are; in a way that a stone faced, unfeeling god would never inspire. God's omnipotence is such that the Master of the plot as it were gets emotionally caught up within the plot.  As we go through life we are faced with the awesome reality that God responds passionately and emotionally to our every move. For or against Him. This is the huge meaning of the crucifixion- so much response is elicited, and in turn responded to by God. Realizing this dimension of God is the ultimate answer to the scepticism and stone facedness of the postmodern world.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, Be fruitful</em>- Remember that Noah had only produced three children in 600 years, and his sons had not had any children. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And multiply</em>- Clearly we are being invited to see this as a new creation, with the implication that they were to obey where Adam failed. The "earth" they were to multiply in was the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham, and so in chapter 10 we have a list of the nations within that area- as evidence of obedience to this commandment. Most of the flood myths claim that human overpopulation led the gods to destroy man. But the Genesis record instead stresses the value of human life, even if that life must be surrendered in judgment for sin. The focus is upon human sin. But God's encouragement of man to multiply stands in stark contrast to the idea that the gods didn't like man multiplying, and for that reason alone- destroyed him or reduced the human population through a flood.  
The invitation to be fruitful and multiply is exactly that given to Adam. Note the similarities with Adam in Eden- replenish the earth (9:1 = Gen. 1:28); have dominion over animals (9:2 = Gen. 1:28); commanded what to eat (9:3 = Gen. 1:29); prohibition of some things which they were not to eat (9:4 = Gen. 2:16,17). Adam's sin, resulting in cursing, is matched by Noah's sin and the pronouncing of cursings. Yet again, the great potential for the Kingdom of God was spoilt by human weakness. We have noted that the wind / Spirit upon the face of the waters is reminiscent of the Genesis creation. Here too, we have a new world emerging on the ruins of an old one. But like Adam, Noah goes out and soon fails [in that he gets drunk and has perverted sex with his own relative, rather than multiplying]. The tragedy of man's consistent failure stands writ large. And we marvel at God's amazing patience, His attempts to work with men; and it throws into relief the victory and perfection of the Lord Jesus, through whom we can in fact become the creation God wished for throughout human history.  After all the false starts and wasted potentials, He finally was the One in whom all the potentials were fulfilled and became enabled for a new race of people in Him.
</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And replenish the earth</em>- This is the same word as in <em><a href='B:10 6:11'>Gen 6:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 6:13'>Gen 6:13</a></em>, where the earth was “filled” with violence. Is the implication that Noah’s family were to fill the world with righteousness in place of the evil that had filled it? In this case, the subsequent failure of the family with sexuality and alcohol is a sad response to such a fine calling.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Note the similarities with Adam in Eden- replenish the earth (9:1 = <em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>); have dominion over animals (9:2 = <em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>); commanded what to eat (9:3 = <em><a href='B:10 1:29'>Gen 1:29</a></em>); prohibition of some things which they were not to eat (9:4 = <em><a href='B:10 2:16-17'>Gen 2:16-17</a></em>). Adam's sin, resulting in cursing, is matched by Noah's sin and the pronouncing of cursings. Yet again, the great potential for the Kingdom of God was spoilt by human weakness. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The fear of you and the dread of you will be on every animal of the earth, and on every bird of the sky</em>- This part of the promise seems only made to Noah and his sons in the context of the animals with whom they had contact in their work of replenishing the land / earth area which had been flooded. There are animals which don’t fear people, and God brings this to our attention in the later chapters of Job. Thus the ostrich is “without fear… she scorns the horse and his rider” (<em><a href='B:220 39:16'>Job 39:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 39:18'>Job 39:18</a></em>); the horse “goes on to meet the armed men. He mocks at fear, neither is affrighted (<em><a href='B:220 39:21-24'>Job 39:21-24</a></em>); behemoth and leviathan (the hippopotamus and crocodile?) are portrayed as fearless of men, indeed it is men who fear them (Job 40, 41). The “fear and dread” of humans which fell on the animals after the flood is clearly linkable with the “fear and dread” which was to come upon the inhabitants of Canaan due to the Israelites (<em><a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a></em> = <em><a href='B:50 1:21'>Deu 1:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:8'>Deu 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:25'>Deu 11:25</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Everything that the ground teems with, and all the fish of the sea, are delivered into your hand</em>- This may not be a general promise to all humanity. Rather it may mean that the effects of the curse in Eden were greatly reduced for Noah and his family when they left the ark. It is hardly so that all fish and animals are given into the hand of every man, worldwide. We can assume that Noah and his family failed to make good of the potential given them; and his drunkenness reflects that. The Hebrew phrase "delivered into your hand" will later be used of how the tribes of the <em>eretz</em> were all delivered into Israel's hand (<em><a href='B:20 23:31'>Exo 23:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 21:34'>Num 21:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 2:24'>Deu 2:24</a></em> etc.). And like Noah's family, Israel failed to make good use of that potential power. The worshipping of animals "that the ground teems with" (<em><a href='B:50 4:18'>Deu 4:18</a></em> s.w.) was therefore a refusal to accept that these things had been delivered into the hand of the faithful. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Every moving thing that lives will be food for you</em>- There was no distinction between clean and unclean animals, which could be eaten and which couldn’t. There are therefore no animals unclean of themselves; the Mosaic laws concerning them were therefore only to teach an object lesson, rather than being a reflection upon any intrinsic uncleanness of any specific animals.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>As the green herb, I have given everything to you</em>- This would imply that Noah's family didn’t eat animals but only "the green herb" before the flood. The concept of clean and unclean animals which was known to them therefore referred only to sacrifice and not to diet. It could be argued that it was God's original intention that man should not eat animals. But in line with His increased recognition of the moral weakness of man and promise to be more accommodating of it (see on Gen. 8:21), now God allows killing of animals by man. Possibly part of the corruption of all flesh recorded in Gen. 6:11,12 was that man had begun killing and eating animals anyway, when this was contrary to the intention at the time of the Genesis 1 creation. "All flesh" in Gen. 6:11,12 refers to the entire animal creation; it was 'corrupted' by man. Presumably in that man began killing, eating and perhaps having sex with the animals.  How else was the "all flesh" corrupted by man? And now God makes some partial concessions to man (see on Gen. 8:21), in allowing him to kill and eat animals, although not to consume their blood. After the Lord's death, the prohibition of blood was relaxed. So we see God becoming increasingly accomodating to people, His grace increases, and yet culpability to judgment also increases. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But flesh with its life, its blood, you shall not eat</em>- Much meat could never have totally been made free of blood. Here therefore we have an example of where a commandment was given, but 'best effort' was looked for rather than complete technical obedience. Likewise the stipulation that only unblemished animals be offered; for most animals have some blemish if scrutinized closely. But as noted on :5, the "flesh" in view may specifically refer to human flesh. The whole logic of the command and principle behind it [that life is God's] requires that the forbidden blood was actually giving life to the body. So the reference is surely to blood whilst it is pulsating, and not to "blood" per se. And as in some remote parts today, to eat live animals was not uncommon especially in worship rituals. The eating of live locusts is quite common still in many areas. All the arguments about 'kosher' food are therefore misplaced. For "blood" doesn't keep a dead body alive and is not therefore "the life". Blood is not magic; blood poured on a dead body will not revive it, and bodies die with blood in them- having blood in your body doesn't mean you cannot die. It is a beating heart and pulsating blood that is a sign of life. And it is that life, that beating heart and pulsating blood, whilst we have it, that is to be given to God. And to not do so requires us to forfeit life (:5). It's a very powerful choice- to totally give life to God because we have it, or lose it. We are driven thereby to recognize that our very life is God's exclusive property and not our own. The strict commands to pour out blood to God first in Lev. 17 are distinctively Israelite- no pagan system has this feature. Because God alone places this supreme meaning upon human life. So whilst God judges sin, as seen in the flood, this must be balanced against the huge importance God places upon human life. For it is actually His life. And this is why :5 will make the point that to take life is wrong, because it is actually taking life from God. And the Lord taught that to curse is to murder; and we should not curse man, because he is made in the image of God, and has God's life within him. Gen. 9:6 LXX makes the point: "He that sheds man's blood, instead of that blood shall his own be shed, for in the image of God I made man". 'Taking' extra life, another life, through murder... means that your life is to be taken from you and returned to God. Man does not have the right to dispose of his own blood or life; suicide is likewise ruled out here. If a man takes another man's life, the blood of the slain cries out for deliverance (Gen. 4:9; Job 16:18; Ez. 24:7), i.e. that that life is no longer with the murderer, but should be delivered back to God, through the death of the murderer. This is why God becomes the avenger of blood; for the shed blood cries out for vengeance, for the return of life to God through the death of the murderer (Is. 1:15; 59:3). This is why a murderer is a thief (Job 24:14). And animals who take human life are likewise to be slain, to have their lives returned to God (a principle repeated in Ex. 21:28,29 about the necessary death of an ox who gores a man). But the principle has far wider and more personal application, for the life we have been entrusted with is God's and must be lived for Him and given back to Him. 'Living for ourselves', in the chasing of careers, wealth and relationships in this life is therefore outlawed. It is a selfish taking of life, and is logically on the same level as suicide. The law of Moses forbad the use of money as compensation for taking life. If you give your life to making yourself wealthy, then you have taken away your life from God; you have stolen life from Him, and that cannot be compensated for by your acquired wealth. Once we accept this absolute sovereignty of God over human life, including my life, then we find a kind of freedom- freedom from the perceived need to achieve, to make something out of 'our' life, to 'succeed', to 'make a living', to 'make it' in life. And freedom from the fear of losing life or having life constrained, by health or economic issues. Because as we see in this context of the flood, God has sovereign power to create and de-create, to give and take life and then multiply it again. And we are to acknowledge His absolute claim over human life. "It's my life!" is totally wrong. The important thing is that our lives are His and surrendered totally to His loving and eternal care.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will surely require your blood of your lives</em>- God was the ultimate avenger of blood (<em><a href='B:10 9:5'>Gen 9:5</a></em>); in setting up a way of escape from the avenger of blood, He surely indicates how He recognizes the rightness of His own principles, and yet sought a way for humanity to not perish because of them. In this we see an exquisite prophecy of His provision in Christ, and of the tension between the justice and grace within God’s character, the tension Hoses spoke of as God’s internal struggle about whether to destroy or redeem Israel when they repeatedly sinned against Him. By all means compare the account of such a case in <em><a href='B:100 14:7'>2Sa 14:7</a></em>, where it was recognized that God ‘devises means’ to preserve people from the avenger of blood- a reference to the cities of refuge. In all this we see the tension within God’s person, as He so earnestly seeks to work through our failure to bring about His glory.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Their lives would be required of them if they presumed to take the symbol of life to themselves. It was to be critically important to recognize that all life is God’s, and to assume that we can live life for and to ourselves is punishable by losing the life we have.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>At the hand of every animal I will require it- </em>Does this mean that animals which ate meat with blood were to be killed? That would be hard to operate in practice, and would have led to the distinction of all carnivores. Or is the "flesh" of :4 human flesh? In this case, any animal which ate human flesh was to be killed, just as murderers were to be put to death.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>At the hand of man, even at the hand of every man’s brother, I will require the life of man</em>- This could mean that the duty of killing those who shed human blood fell upon the person's "brother", and if this were not done, then God would require it of the "brother". Or the idea may just be that the blood or life of our brother will be required from us if we slay him. In all this we see foreshadowed the idea that we are responsible for our brother, and cannot answer as Cain, that we are not our brother's keeper. If we take or hinder his life, as Cain did to Adam, then it will be required of us, as it was of Cain. This means that we must be especially careful not to make our brother lose eternal life by making him stumble.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God’s judgment is ongoing, He has not as it were switched off and will only open the books at the last day. <em><a href='B:230 9:10-12'>Psa 9:10-12</a></em> says that when God makes “inquisition (s.w. ‘require’) for blood, He remembers those who “seek” (s.w. ‘require’) for Him. He seeks and searches us out, holding us accountable for actions; and yet we are to seek after Him. And thus we meet… The verse means that God requires life from us- the Lord Jesus alludes here when He spoke of how the soul of a man would be "required" at the day of his death (<em><a href='B:490 12:20'>Luk 12:20</a></em>), and woe to us if we have only 'bigger barns', petty materialistic acquisition, to show for it. If we take another's life, that life will be required of us- because of the general principle, that God 'requires' human life from us. So the principle is that we should not merely avoid taking the life of another; we should give our lives back to God, knowing that life is required of us. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whoever sheds man’s blood, his blood will be shed by man</em>- This is not a command to shed the blood of murderers. The Lord seems to allude to it when commenting that he who takes the sword shall perish with the sword (<em><a href='B:470 26:52'>Mat 26:52</a></em>). It appears to be more of a warning, an observation as to what happens to those who shed blood, even if they consider they are doing it in justified vengeance for the shedding of blood. We must give full weight to the incident in 2 Samuel 14, where we learn that there is a higher principle than revenging blood- that of grace and forgiveness. God now continues to explain why man's blood shouldn't be shed- because we are made in God’s image. That reasoning is such that any shedding of blood, even in vengeance, ought to be avoided. </p> <p>These statements at this point in Genesis 9 all reflect the extreme value and dignity God places upon human life. For man is made in the image of God. At first blush, this may seem to jar against the record we have just read of God's destruction of most human life in judgment for their sins. But the juxtaposition is intentional. We are being warned not to view the judgment of the flood as meaning that God doesn't value human life. He does, intensely so. Those who read the account of the flood but fail to reflect upon Genesis 9... will be left with a totally wrong impression of God. The gift of His Son for the salvation of man proves that for all time. The conclusion is therefore that the flood was absolutely necessary judgment for sin; and it was a judgment that was made with full awareness of the value of human life. The reminder that man was made in God's image also serves to highlight God's pain and loss in judging man at the flood. It was as if He had cut off His own image, His own face; His personal loss was huge. But He 'had' to do this in order to preserve a line of believers who were willing to become in His moral image, and through whom His Son would come. For in Him we would see the image of God in human form. </p><p>We can also look at this commandment as a way of outlawing the murder / execution of others for minor matters. We see a contrast with how Lamech boasted of killing a young man for offending him. Tyrannical bullying and abuse of power is therefore clearly abhorrent to God. We must consider the fact that Cain and Lamech didn't die for their murders, committed before the flood. But it seems that now the death penalty for murder is being introduced. We see here how God's plan with man develops. He apparently more generously accepted the sinfulness of man after the flood (see on Gen. 8:21). But His judgment of sin actually increased at the same point, at least in this matter. And we can see a further extension of this in the Lord's work- which brought about even greater acceptance of man, and forgiveness of human sin. But the judgment level increased, with even hateful thoughts now being judged as murder. This comes to its full term as we face the cross. There was and is "the judgment of this world", the comfort of total forgiveness and grace; and yet an associated higher level of judgment for those who refuse it. And that has a seamless logic to it; a love like that cannot just be refused without consequence.  </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For God made man in His own image</em>- As <em><a href='B:660 3:9'>Jas 3:9</a></em>; the fact humans are made in God’s image means we should perceive the value and meaning of persons, from not killing to holding the door open for people... Defacing God’s image earns death. In what ways can we destroy the image of God in others apart from by killing them? Any form of dehumanizing surely does the same. Because we are made in God’s image, we should therefore not <em>kill</em> other humans (<em><a href='B:10 9:6'>Gen 9:6</a></em>). James says the same, in essence, in teaching that because we are in God’s image, we shouldn't<em> curse </em>others. To curse a man is to kill him. That's the point of James' allusion to Genesis and to God as creator. Quite simply, respect for the person of others is inculcated by sustained reflection on the way that they too are created in God’s image.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The command not to murder has its basis in the fact that human life is not for us to use as we will (<em><a href='B:20 20:13'>Exo 20:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 17:11'>Lev 17:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 9:6'>Gen 9:6</a></em>). It is God’s life within those other people around us. Others, therefore, are not for us to use as we will. Gentleness and sensitivity to the life of others, in family life, the workplace, on the road... is therefore an outcome of our belief that the 'other' person likewise has been created by God and has life from Him. To drive in an unkind way, to act in a thoughtless way to others’ detriment, is therefore the same basic error as taking human life in murder. </p><p> It is worth reflecting that nearly all other usages of the word "image" or 'making something after an image...' have a literal sense to them. An image was made which was a literal, physical representation of something else. Idols were "images" of the gods thought to be elsewhere, e.g. "in heaven". If the god was believed to have three heads, then so did the "image" of it have three heads. The word is used in 2 Kings 16:10 of a "replica" being made of an altar. The literal, physical sense of "image and likeness" is shown by how the term is used in Gen. 5:3, where Adam "begot a son after his own form, and after his own image". The idea of man being in God's image would therefore have been understood in a literal sense; all men are representations, or images, of God. How we treat men is how we treat God. God exists in human form, far grander and greater than us; but we are in His image. And there is a clear connection with the making of images of the gods, i.e. idols. If man is in God's image- then all idolatry is ruled out. The total focus of man is therefore upon his relationship with his God and creator. And the body, being in the image of God, is highly significant and important. This is a stark contrast with the Greek view, that the [supposed] "soul" was all important, and the body was a mere casing. The human body, and how it is used and related to in others, thus becomes of huge significance. Paul several times argued with the Corinthians against the idea that usage of the body was irrelevant.  </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Be fruitful and multiply. Increase abundantly in the earth, and multiply in it-</em> As Adam and Eve were to "be fruitful and multiply" in the land / Garden of Eden (<em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>), so Noah and his sons were to do just the same in the same land after the flood (<em><a href='B:10 9:7'>Gen 9:7</a></em>); and the children of Abraham were promised that they would do likewise in the very same land (<em><a href='B:10 35:11'>Gen 35:11</a></em>). I suggested on Genesis 3 that perhaps the first sin was one of omission- Adam and Eve omitted to go forth and mutliply as commanded. This would explain the emphasis upon this commandment, in this attempt to restore Eden. On the figurative level, it is the Lord Jesus who brings forth much fruit in us due to His resurrection out of the earth, as Noah came out of the ark (<em><a href='B:500 12:24'>Joh 12:24</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying</em>- Again, the family are addressed by God as being "with (Noah)"; just as salvation is predicated upon our being counted as together with Christ. The new covenant is likewise made primarily with the Lord Jesus, the singular "seed"; and thereby with us, insofar as we are in Him. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>As for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you, and with your offspring after you</em>- Covenants were two way agreements, with conditions for both parties and a token of the covenant. All the elements of a covenant are present- apart from the conditions for the other party, i.e. Noah. This is the force of the words "As for Me, behold...". It was unilateral. God’s covenant is of grace- He binds Himself to certain things, without any corresponding demands upon Noah. See on :10. "With you" is repeated in 9:11. The covenant wasn’t with humanity generally but to the children of Noah. </p>


