# commentaries

text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><strong>Joseph A Type Of Christ</strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>1. The seed of Abraham, in whom the promises of fruitfulness and blessing upon all nations were fulfilled (47:27; 46:3 cp. 12:2; <em><a href='B:50 26:5'>Deu 26:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 105.23-24'>Psa 105:23-24</a></em>). <strong><em>The seed of Abraham.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>2. The beloved son of his father. <em><a href='B:500 3:16'>Joh 3:16</a></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>3. "The servant" (37:2 Heb.) <strong><em>The suffering servant (</em></strong><em><a href='B:450 3:8'>Zec 3:8</a></em><strong><em>; </em></strong><em><a href='B:290 42:1'>Isa 42:1</a></em><strong><em> etc.)</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>4. Loved and exalted above his brethren <em><a href='B:650 1:9'>Heb 1:9</a></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>5. "They hated him" because of his dream that one day he would reign over them (37:4,8). <strong><em>Christ had problems with His brothers (</em></strong><em><a href='B:500 7:3'>Joh 7:3</a></em><strong><em>); the Jews hated Christ and would not have him reign over them (</em></strong><em><a href='B:490 19:14'>Luk 19:14</a></em><strong><em>)</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>6. Joseph was likened to a sheaf (37:7) <strong><em>Christ was the wave sheaf (</em></strong><em><a href='B:30 23.11-12'>Lev 23:11-12</a></em><strong><em>)</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>7. A progressive growth in hatred of Joseph (37:4,5,8) <strong><em>The Gospels give the same impression concerning the Jews and Christ</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>8. Rebuked by his natural father (37:10) <em><a href='B:490 2:48'>Luk 2:48</a></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>9. Israel would bow down to Joseph, although they refused to believe this at first and tried to kill him because of it (37:10) <strong><em>Ditto for Christ</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>10. " ...but his father observed the saying" (37:11) <strong><em>As did Mary , mother of Jesus (</em></strong><em><a href='B:490 2:19'>Luk 2:19</a></em><strong><em>; </em></strong><em><a href='B:490 2:51'>Luk 2:51</a></em><strong><em>)</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>11. "Let us slay him... and we will see what will become of his (prophetic, inspired) dreams" (37:20) <strong><em>Christ's inspired prophecies of His death and resurrection must have motivated the Jews' slaying of Him . </em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>.12. One of his persecutors tried to save him at the last minute (37:21) <strong><em>As did Nicodemus and Pilate.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>13. Cast into a pit with no water in it (37:24) <strong><em>Ditto for Jeremiah, another type of Christ; pit = grave (</em></strong><em><a href='B:450 9:11'>Zec 9:11</a></em><strong><em>; </em></strong><em><a href='B:230 69:15'>Psa 69:15</a></em><strong><em>)</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>14. "They <strong><em>stripped</em></strong>&nbsp; Joseph out of his coat" (37:23); was Joseph naked in the pit? <strong><em>Same LXX word in </em></strong><em><a href='B:470 27:28'>Mat 27:28</a></em><strong><em>; was Christ naked on the cross? See&nbsp; </em></strong><em><a href='B:650 6:6'>Heb 6:6</a></em><strong><em> "open shame" .</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>15. "And they sat down" after symbolically killing him. <em><a href='B:470 27:36'>Mat 27:36</a></em><strong><em>.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Sold him for pieces of silver. <strong><em>Ditto for Christ. Jesus was “him…whom they priced on the part of the sons of Israel” (</em></strong><em><a href='B:470 27:9'>Mat 27:9</a></em><strong><em> RVmg.). The reference to “the sons of Israel” is surely an allusion to the sons of Jacob selling Joseph for his value.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>16. His brothers said: "He is our brother and our flesh" (37:27) <strong><em>"We are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones" (</em></strong><em><a href='B:560 5:30'>Eph 5:30</a></em><strong><em>)</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>17. "Let not our hand be upon him" (37:27). They thought that the rigours of slavery would be enough to kill him. <strong><em>The Jews handed Jesus over to the Romans. Does the type indicate some of them thought this fact would absolve them of guilt? </em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>18. At least 2 of his 10 persecutors were unhappy about what they were doing , and said so (37:22,26). Perhaps the whole group egged each other on to adopt an attitude none were totally happy with in their conscience. <strong><em>Ditto for first century Israel, with Joseph and Nicodemus as the two who disagreed?</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>19. A blood drenched coat <em><a href='B:290 63:2'>Isa 63:2</a></em><strong><em>; </em></strong><em><a href='B:730 19:13'>Rev 19:13</a></em><strong><em>.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>20. Sent on a mission to his brethren, on which they symbolically killed him. <strong><em>Christ sent first and foremost to redeem Israel (</em></strong><em><a href='B:550 4.4-5'>Gal 4:4-5</a></em><strong><em>). </em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Go... see whether it be well with thy brethren" (37:14) <strong><em>Same Hebrew as </em></strong><em><a href='B:90 17:18'>1Sa 17:18</a></em><strong><em>, also typical of Christ.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>21. Symbolically killed by the shepherds of his father's flock (37:12). <strong><em>Christ killed by the Jewish priests, the shepherds of God's flock.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The anguish of his soul" and pleas for deliverance (42:21), ignored by the brothers. <strong><em>"The travail of his soul" (</em></strong><em><a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a></em><strong><em>), ignored by Israel (</em></strong><em><a href='B:290 53.1-4'>Isa 53:1-4</a></em><strong><em>). Did the Lord shout for deliverance in His pit?</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>22. "When they <strong><em>saw </em></strong>him afar off... they conspired against him to slay him" (37:18) <strong><em>"When the husbandmen saw&nbsp; the son, they said among themselves</em></strong> (i.e. conspired), <strong><em>This is the heir; come, let us kill him" (</em></strong><em><a href='B:470 21:38'>Mat 21:38</a></em><strong><em>) . </em></strong><em><a href='B:470 21:38'>Mat 21:38</a></em><strong><em> is quoting the LXX of </em></strong><em><a href='B:10 37:18'>Gen 37:18</a></em><strong><em>.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>23. "Joseph is...<strong><em> rent</em></strong>&nbsp; in pieces. And Jacob <strong><em>rent</em></strong>&nbsp; his clothes" (37:33,34); Jacob shared in Joseph's death. <strong><em>This is a fine prefigurement of the (sadly ignored) pain of God.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>24. Judah disgraced after the condemnation of Joseph (Genesis 38) <strong><em>Ditto for Judah as a nation after their rejection of Christ.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>25. His master committed all that he had into his hand (39:8) <strong><em>The Potiphar: Joseph and Pharaoh: Joseph relationship reflects that between God and Christ.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>He "prospered", s.w. <em><a href='B:230 1:3'>Psa 1:3</a></em> concerning the righteous man prospering because he meditates on God's word. <strong><em>Did the Lord's carpenter business likewise flourish, for the same reasons? He was in favour with God and man.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>26. Joseph lost his garment before he went into the pit and before he went to prison (39:13) . <em><a href='B:500 19:23'>Joh 19:23</a></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>27. Falsely accused of adultery, but with no remonstration on his part; cast into prison. <strong><em>Christ dumb before his shearers. In the 'Joseph as a type of Christ' story, prison = death; the ideas of prison and darkness are often associated (e.g. </em></strong><em><a href='B:290 49:9'>Isa 49:9</a></em><strong><em>). There was darkness at the death of Christ.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>28. All the prisoners in the prison committed to Joseph's hand; "and whatsoever they did there, he was the doer of it" (39:22) <strong><em>An eloquent echo of Christ's relationship with us?</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>29. "The Lord... gave him favour in the sight of the keeper of the prison" (39:21). <strong><em>Christ in favour with God and man (</em></strong><em><a href='B:490 2:52'>Luk 2:52</a></em><strong><em>) .</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>30. In prison with two malefactors (one good and one bad?) <strong><em>Christ on the cross with two thieves (one good, one bad)</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>31. "Remember me when it shall be well with thee" (40:14) <strong><em>"Remember me" </em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>32. Great pain in Joseph's heart because he knew his innocence (40:15); therefore the shame of a righteous man suffering as a sinner. <strong><em>Ditto for Christ- even more so.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>33. The shame of Joseph in the dungeon (40:15); the lowest of the low, according to <em><a href='B:20 12:29'>Exo 12:29</a></em>. <strong><em>A type of the supreme degradation of Christ on the cross.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>34. "They made him run hastily out of the dungeon... and changed his raiment" (41:14 mg.). <strong><em>The energy of Christ's resurrection; change of clothing = change of nature, </em></strong><em><a href='B:450 3.3-4'>Zec 3:3-4</a></em><strong><em>.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>35. Because he knew Pharaoh's mind, he was exalted over Pharaoh's house and people (41:40). <strong><em>Christ knew God's mind; now over both Angels (God's house) and us (natural & spiritual Israel)</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>36. "According unto thy word shall all my people be ruled" (41:40). Egypt would have been&nbsp; intricately obedient to his word. <strong><em>The supremacy of the word of Christ in our lives; obedience to his word has a sense of urgency&nbsp; about it.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>37. "Only in the throne will I be greater than thou" (41:40) <strong><em>Christ rules on God's behalf, but God is still King.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>38. "I have set thee over all the land of Egypt" (41:41) <strong><em>Christ given all power in heaven and earth (</em></strong><em><a href='B:470 28:18'>Mat 28:18</a></em><strong><em>). All Egypt ruled by his word, therefore 'Egypt' = the church now, and also the future Kingdom.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>39. "Bow the knee" (41:43). <em>Php_2:9</em><strong><em>.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Bread laid up in preparation for the famine. <strong><em>Laying up the word as a foundation against the judgment (</em></strong><em><a href='B:610 6:19'>1Ti 6:19</a></em><strong><em>).</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>40. Given a new name: "Zaphnath-paaneah": 'Saviour of the world', or 'bread of life' <strong><em>Christ given a new name on ascension (</em></strong><em>Php_2:6-9</em><strong><em>; </em></strong><em><a href='B:730 3:12'>Rev 3:12</a></em><strong><em>).</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>41. A Gentile wife from a pagan king-priest background (41:45). <strong><em>Marriage of Christ to us, king-priests (</em></strong><em><a <a' href='B:z 5:10'>Rev 5:10</a></em><strong><em>). Psalms 45 is full of allusion to Joseph (vv. 2,4,5,7,10,14, 16 etc.). Yet it is also a prophecy of the marriage of Christ to His bride, modelled on the marriage of Joseph.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>42. "Joseph went out over all the land of Egypt" (41:45). <strong><em>Christ's active involvement in our working out of our salvation.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>43. Joseph's (half-Gentile) sons were counted as the twelve tribes of Jacob (41:51) <strong><em>We are Christ's sons (</em></strong><em><a href='B:650 2:13'>Heb 2:13</a></em><strong><em>). Joseph was called "tender father" (41:43 mg.) as Christ will be called 'Father' in the future age (</em></strong><em><a href='B:290 9:6'>Isa 9:6</a></em><strong><em> Heb.)</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>44. Pharaoh's total confidence in Joseph and the power of his word (41:55) <strong><em>God's attitude to Christ.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>45. "According unto <strong><em>thy</em></strong>&nbsp;word shall all the people be ruled" (41:40) suggests a change in Egypt's legal system when Joseph came to power (cp. <em><a href='B:230 105:22'>Psa 105:22</a></em>). <strong><em>The changeover between the law of Moses and the word of Christ.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>46. Throughout the record there is the unwritten sense that the brothers had a niggling conscience that Joseph might be alive. <strong><em>This typifies the underlying Jewish conscience towards the Lord Jesus. They knew Christ as Messiah, but blinded themselves to the fact (</em></strong><em><a href='B:500 6:36'>Joh 6:36</a></em><strong><em>; </em></strong><em><a href='B:500 9:41'>Joh 9:41</a></em><strong><em>; </em></strong><em><a href='B:500 15:24'>Joh 15:24</a></em><strong><em> cp. 14:7). When Nicodemus secretly informed the Lord Jesus that "We know that you are a teacher come from God" (</em></strong><em><a href='B:500 3:2'>Joh 3:2</a></em><strong><em>) it seems he was speaking of the situation he knew existed in the hearts of Israel's religious leaders- hence the Lord replied: "You (plural) receive not our witness" (</em></strong><em><a href='B:500 3:11'>Joh 3:11</a></em><strong><em>). </em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>47. Joseph's brethren fulfil his predictions without realizing it (fully, at any rate) by bowing before him (42:6). <strong><em>Latter day Israel likewise?</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>48. Even under pressure, the brothers came out with the same old lie (42:13). They kept repeating it so much that they believed it. <strong><em>Exact replica of the Jewish attitude towards Jesus of Nazareth.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>49. The brothers suffer in prison for three days to prod their conscience about Joseph (42:17). <strong><em>Three year tribulation of Israel in the last days to bring them to accept Christ?</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We get the impression that Joseph changed his plans for them several times; he recalled them when already on their journey etc. &nbsp;<strong><em>Does this show that he hastened the day of revelation to them from purely emotional considerations- and will the Lord do the same with His Israel?</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>50. Joseph wept (this is recorded seven times in the record) (42:24). He must have found it hard to prolong the agony of not revealing himself to them immediately; he was motivated by a desire to make them see the enormity of their sin, for their spiritual good rather than his own vindication. <strong><em>Joseph as a type of Christ makes his story prophetic. This is a stunningly deep prophecy of the intensity of Christ's feelings, as the mighty Son of God, towards wayward Israel in the last days. He was a man of sorrow in his mortal life, and will still have an element of this characteristic in the future.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>51. The brothers delay in their return, doubtless because of the struggle with their conscience; never spoken of together, but operating on each man individually (43:10) <strong><em>Will there be a 'delay' in Israel's repentance, and therefore in the full manifestation of Christ? Every Jew in the last days will go through the silent struggle of conscience about Christ.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>52. Joseph celebrates their repentance with a meal together, at which they sit in their proper places (43:16) <strong><em>The marriage supper of the lamb, with each in his proper place (</em></strong><em><a href='B:490 14:10'>Luk 14:10</a></em><strong><em>; </em></strong><em><a href='B:490 22:30'>Luk 22:30</a></em><strong><em>; </em></strong><em><a href='B:730 19:9'>Rev 19:9</a></em><strong><em>)</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>53. "Slay and make ready" (43:16) for the meal. <strong><em>This is the basis of the prodigal son parable (45:14,15 = </em></strong><em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em><strong><em>); father = Christ; prodigal = repentant Jews, wanting to be servants and nothing else.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>54. "The men <strong><em>marvelled</em></strong>"&nbsp;at his discernment. <strong><em>Ditto for Christ- it is emphasized (</em></strong><em><a href='B:470 8:27'>Mat 8:27</a></em><strong><em>; </em></strong><em><a href='B:470 9:8'>Mat 9:8</a></em><strong><em>; </em></strong><em><a href='B:470 9:33'>Mat 9:33</a></em><strong><em>; </em></strong><em><a href='B:470 21:20'>Mat 21:20</a></em><strong><em>; </em></strong><em><a href='B:470 21:42'>Mat 21:42</a></em><strong><em>; </em></strong><em><a href='B:470 22:22'>Mat 22:22</a></em><strong><em>; </em></strong><em><a href='B:470 27:14'>Mat 27:14</a></em><strong><em>; </em></strong><em><a href='B:490 2:33'>Luk 2:33</a></em><strong><em>; </em></strong><em><a href='B:500 4:27'>Joh 4:27</a></em><strong><em>; </em></strong><em><a href='B:500 7:15'>Joh 7:15</a></em><strong><em>)</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They were merry with him (43:34) <strong><em>He would fain have them enter into the joy of their Lord.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>55. Joseph's cup is how he discerns (44:5) <strong><em>The cup of the Lord likewise.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>56. "Then Joseph could not refrain himself..." (45:1) implies he planned to drag out the process of spiritually refining his brothers, but his love for them caused him to cut it short. <strong><em>"For the elects sake the days shall be shortened" by Christ (</em></strong><em><a href='B:470 24:22'>Mat 24:22</a></em><strong><em>).The same Hebrew word is used in </em></strong><em><a href='B:290 42:14'>Isa 42:14</a></em><strong><em> about how God can no longer refrain Himself in the last days.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>57. "All them that stood before him" not present at his revelation to his brethren (45:1) <strong><em>The Angels who accompany Christ will not be present at his meeting with Israel (</em></strong><em><a href='B:450 3:4'>Zec 3:4</a></em><strong><em>; </em></strong><em><a href='B:290 63:3'>Isa 63:3</a></em><strong><em>)?</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Communication without an interpreter. <strong><em>A new paradigm of relationship with the Lord Jesus, face to face.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Fear not: for I am in the place of God" (50:19 Heb.); "thou art even as Pharaoh" (44:18) <strong><em>Joseph as a type of Christ reveals the revelation of God's essential love through the face of Jesus Christ.</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The struggle to make the brothers believe the extent of his grace. <strong><em>Our difficulty at the judgment</em></strong>.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>58. "A great deliverance" (45:7). <em><a href='B:650 2:3'>Heb 2:3</a></em><strong><em> "that great salvation" .</em></strong></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel saved, all the surrounding world also blessed with deliverance from the famine. <strong><em>Ditto for the last days; the nations around Israel blessed materially to overcome the problems of the latter day judgments. These judgments are to make Israel repent, but in that time of trouble the whole world suffers.</em></strong><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Gen 1:1 <strong><em>In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth</em></strong>- Genesis 1 begins with the summary statement that God created “in the beginning”. But this Hebrew word <strong><em>reshit </em></strong>can refer to a period of time at the beginning, rather than a specific moment in time (see <em><a href='B:220 8:7'>Job 8:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 10:10'>Gen 10:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 28:1'>Jer 28:1</a></em>). If a single moment of time was intended, then other Hebrew words could have been used, e.g. <strong><em>rishonah</em></strong>. How long this period was, or the processes used, are simply not spoken about. I suggest that “heavens and earth” is a merism, i.e. putting two words together in order to describe something greater. I don’t believe, therefore, that we are to divide the term into “heavens” and “earth”. This verse is a simple statement that in the beginning, perhaps over a period, all things were created by God. The process used is not commented upon.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But the zoom of the record then focuses upon the preparation of the <strong><em>eretz</em></strong> / the “earth”. Analysis of <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> demonstrates that we are reading here of the “earth” being prepared, rather than created. Sure, God created planet earth and all things else, that much is stated in 1:1. But the focus of all the cosmos is upon the <strong><em>eretz </em></strong>, and the structure of the record goes further and reveals that the pinnacle of that creation was in the man formed on the sixth day. Significantly, the Pentateuch begins with the account of the creation of “heaven and earth” and concludes with Moses appealing to the “heavens and earth” of Israel (<em><a href='B:50 32:1'>Deu 32:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 33:28'>Deu 33:28</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew for "beginning" is very often translated "firstfruit". The suggestion may be that the creation we are to now read of is but a firstfruit; and indeed, <em><a href='B:660 1:18'>Jas 1:18</a></em> appears to allude here in saying that through the creative word, we are "a kind of firstfruits of all His creations". The implication straightaway is that this creation is but a firstfruit, with far greater promise implied in future ages.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Created" doesn't have to mean 'from nothing'. You can create something, without that 'creation' implying that you brought matter into existence. The Genesis record of creation is alluded to so often, especially in Psalms, Isaiah and Paul' writings, as being the basis for God's creation of a new creation of persons; re-working the chaos and disorder of their lives into something beautiful and to His glory. Later usages of "create" are paralleled with 'calling forth / into visibility', and especially "forming" or moulding. This, I suggest, is what the "creation" here may refer to. And yet there is indeed the visual impression given of a creation from nothing, <strong><em>ex nihilo</em></strong>. That would be because effectively the new creation, the re-ordering and re-building of human life, is tantamount to something totally new. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>One of the most fundamental differences with the creation myths is that Genesis 1 presents God as uncreated, having no beginning, and focuses upon what <strong><em>He</em></strong> created- whereas the other records seek to explain where their gods came from and how <strong><em>they</em></strong> were created: “These foreign creation myths recount not only the origins of the visible world, but, at the same, of the gods. Genesis 1, however, distinguishes itself radically from these all sincere there is no such theogony. This observation indicates the grandeur of Israel’s religion” (Hermann Gunkel, <strong><em>Genesis</em></strong> (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1997 p. 126).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'> <em>Now the earth was formless and empty; darkness was on the surface of the deep and God’s Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters</em>- There is fair debate over whether <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 poetry or not. But there is fair evidence that it is in fact poetry- although the rhyme is in terms of the ideas rather than assonance of the words. The material is based around the number seven. <em><a href='B:10 1:1'>Gen 1:1</a></em> has seven Hebrew words, 1:2 has fourteen; 2:1-3 has 35 words; 5x7; <em>Elohim</em> is used 35 times; “firmament” and “earth” 21; 3x7 times each; and “it was so” and the comment that God saw “good” in it occur seven times each. The numerical value of the Hebrew words is also full of ‘seven’ patterns. This isn’t quite what one would expect in a scientific account. And what was God intended to do in explaining origins? To explain them in scientific terms comprehensible and acceptable to a modern person? Or in terms acceptable to a primitive Israelite? I suggest He avoids that conundrum by presenting the creation account as limited only to <em>eretz</em> Israel, and presenting it as a drama, a kind of Divine slideshow. </p>The speeches in the book of Job are likewise poetry; these were therefore surely not the words that literally fell from the lips of Job and his friends. But that does not mean that the words are not inspired, nor does it make them myth. The poetic structure of <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> can be seen reflected even in translation; the work of each day is described within the same rubric: “There was evening and morning… God said… It was so… God saw that it was good… there was evening and morning”. The account of creation is not evenly balanced, i.e. there is more detail given to some things than to others. This isn’t what we would expect if the text is intended to provide a literal account of creation. The Bible uses various genres - it is a collection of poetry, direct statement, history, letters etc. Inspiration and revelation are two different things. All the Bible is inspired, but not all of it is a specific “Thus says the Lord…”. The words of Job’s friends are recorded by inspiration, but God Himself says that they were not all true. We are to interpret, to perceive the genre, the essence being communicated. And nowhere is that more true that in the creation record.<p style='margin-left:1em'>So I suggest that we should read Genesis neither as literal history, nor as myth. It is a dramatic presentation of the origin of Israel, produced in a particular context at a specific time, and re-worked in the context of Judah’s captivity and God’s intention to re-create Israel at the restoration. The entire text from Gen 1:2 to Gen 2:4 is poetic; this itself surely warns us not to read this as a literal, blow by blow account of historical creation. If such a historical account was provided, we surely would find description and argumentation employed. But instead, we have a kind of poetry. Victor Hamilton has spotted many examples of chiastic structure within the section, and also within the individual verses. Take Gen 1:5 - Hamilton translates this as “God named the light ‘Day’; the darkness he named ‘Night’”; and he observes that the structure of verb - indirect object / indirect object – verb in the Hebrew text is essentially poetic. (Victor Hamilton, <em>The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17</em> Eerdmans, 1990 p. 118. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The earth </em>- I will be arguing that <em>eretz </em>here, as in much of Genesis and the Hebrew Bible, refers specifically to the land of promise. I have elsewhere discussed the definition of <em>eretz </em>at length<em>- </em>see <em>The Last Days</em> Digression 3 ‘The earth- land- <em>eretz</em>’. The Spirit “flutters” over the waters in <em><a href='B:10 1:2'>Gen 1:2</a></em>, just as God like an eagle -a symbol of the Spirit -“flutters” over Israel in bringing about their creation as a nation (<em><a href='B:50 32:1'>Deu 32:1</a></em>). The point is, what God did at creation, He can do at any time. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Understanding <em>eretz</em> as referring to the land promised to Abraham enables us to read the account of the flood as describing a local event in that area. The watery formless waste of the Genesis 1 creation drama is repeated in the flood; a re-creation occurs, with Noah taking the role of Adam. I suggest that the same geographical area is in view- <em>eretz</em> Israel, rather than the entire planet. Likewise the events of Babel and confusion of languages make more sense if they refer to a localized situation within the <em>eretz</em> of greater Israel; the list of nations descended from Noah’s sons in Genesis 10 all refer to the peoples within <em>eretz </em>Israel, rather than having any global reference. The nations mentioned there are found elsewhere in the Bible- and they refer to peoples within the land promised to Abraham, and not outside of it. No comment is made about e.g. Aborigines, African tribes or American Indians. Note also that later Biblical allusions to the flood speak of it as representative of God’s judgments upon Israel; and this has an added appropriateness if the reference is to the same geographical territory. Noah was to take both clean and unclean animals into the ark, and we are surely intended to think that the later classification of clean and unclean animals was used. But that classification concerns animals known in <em>eretz</em> Israel. The intention was to keep life going on the <em>eretz</em> after the flood. There was no classification of all the animals of Australasia or the Amazon into clean or unclean, and no special comment on specific animals from those regions; the special comments on clean or unclean animals were all concerning animals known within the <em>eretz</em>. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The sons of God marrying the daughters of men resulted in the <em>eretz</em> falling into sin; I suggest this refers to the people of God who had been placed in the <em>eretz</em> marrying the other surrounding peoples. The language used about the state of things in the <em>eretz</em> is exactly that used by the later prophets concerning the situation in Israel. 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>), likely connecting them with superhuman beings. These <em>nephilim</em> LXX <em>gigantes</em> had their origin explained by Moses in Genesis 6 - the righteous seed intermarried with the wicked outside of the <em>eretz</em>, and their offspring were these <em>nephilim</em>, mighty men of the world. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We read that people moved eastward and settled in Shinar before building Babel (<em><a href='B:10 11:2'>Gen 11:2</a></em>); but ‘east’ is relative to a fixed, defined area on earth. If we insist that it means the entire planet, then it’s hard to conceive where ‘east’ would be on a sphere like planet earth which is rotating on its own axis. But it makes sense within the boundaries of the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham. The same can be said of the account of Adam and Eve leaving Eden and moving east (<em><a href='B:10 3:24'>Gen 3:24</a></em>), and the rejected Cain likewise heading east (<em><a href='B:10 4:16'>Gen 4:16</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In<em> <a href='B:300 27:5'>Jer 27:5</a></em> there is an allusion to the creation record in speaking of how God had ‘made’ -the Hebrew word means more ‘prepared’ than ‘to create’- “earth” and would give it to the king of Babylon: "I have made the earth, the men and the beasts which are on the face of the earth by My great power and by My outstretched arm, and I will give it to the one who is pleasing in My sight”. It’s significant that <em><a href='B:10 1:1'>Gen 1:1</a></em> speaks of God creating all things- <em>bara</em>. But this word is paralleled in the later account with another word which has the sense of 'making' / preparing. The “earth” was to be given to Nebuchadnezzar- clearly it is the specific <em>eretz</em> of Israel which is in view, and not the entire globe. <em><a href='B:300 27:6'>Jer 27:6</a></em> actually defines the <em>eretz</em> as also including Ammon, Moab, Sidon and Tyre- all areas within the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If we understand Eden as being within the <em>eretz</em> Israel, then the Biblical predictions that the ravaged land of Israel would become as Eden take on an obvious appropriateness (<em><a href='B:290 51:1'>Isa 51:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 36:35'>Eze 36:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:360 2:3'>Joe 2:3</a></em>). It is the same geographical area in view. Note that the garden was <em>in </em>Eden (<em><a href='B:10 2:8'>Gen 2:8</a></em>), on the east of Eden. Adam and Eve were sent forth from the garden to the east - in the direction of Babylon (<em><a href='B:10 11:1'>Gen 11:1</a></em>), which was built east of Eden. This clearly looks forward to the expulsion of Israel from their land, to Babylon, and confirms the equation of Eden and <em>eretz</em> Israel. Adam’s place in Eden was dependent upon him obeying the “commandment” of <em><a href='B:10 2:16'>Gen 2:16</a></em> and a related word is used of how Israel’s place in the land / <em>eretz</em> was also contingent upon their obedience to Divine commandment (<em><a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now the earth was formless and empty </em>- This Hebrew phrase <em>tohu wabohu </em>is important in defining the “earth” spoken of as Israel. The Hebrew better means an "uninhabitable wilderness", although there is the idea of chaos also present. The same phrase is used about the state of <em>eretz </em>Israel after Israel had been exiled from it and it had been judged by God Jer 4:23-26. There are other creation allusions in that passage: "I looked on the earth, and behold, it was&nbsp;<em>formless and void&nbsp;</em>(<em>tohu wabohu</em>); and to the heavens, and they had no light; the fruitful land was a wilderness… there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens had fled”. The first audience of Genesis 1 was Israel, as they were travelling through a wilderness to the promised <em>eretz</em>. It has been claimed that <em>tohu</em> means “deserted”, and this would have relevance for the Jews in exile in Babylon, where Genesis was likely edited, being encouraged that God could indeed re-form the <em>eretz</em> they had left, and turn chaos into the beauty of His Kingdom. Note how the NASB margin offers “wasteland” for “formless”. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:50 32:10'>Deu 32:10</a></em> about the wasteland where Israel were located when Genesis was first given- for their instruction. <em><a href='B:50 32:11'>Deu 32:11</a></em> continues the creation allusion by speaking of God as a bird ‘hovering over’ Israel- the same word used to describe how God’s Spirit hovered over the surface of the waters - 1:2.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As to whether there were previous creations before our own, my basic sense is 'Yes, probably there were'. The earth being "without form and void" (<em><a href='B:10 1:2'>Gen 1:2</a></em>) uses a phrase elsewhere used to describe the judgment that has come on an order of things (<em><a href='B:300 4:23'>Jer 4:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 24:10'>Isa 24:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 34:11'>Isa 34:11</a></em>). It may be, therefore, that there was a previous creation on earth which was destroyed in judgment. John Thomas in the first section of <em>Elpis Israel</em> suggests (without much direct support from the Hebrew, it must be admitted) that the command to Adam to "replenish the earth" (<em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>) implies to re-fill, as if there had been a previous creation that was destroyed, presumably by water. "In the beginning" , perhaps a huge period of time ago, God created the heavens and earth. But the present creation can be seen as being constituted some time later, after the previous creations. When during the six days of creation He said "Let there be light" this may not have necessitated the actual manufacture of the sun; this was presumably done "in the beginning" . But the sun was commanded to shine out of the darkness (<em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em>), and therefore from the viewpoint of someone standing on the earth, it was as if the sun had been created. The earth was covered with water at the time the present creation began (<em><a href='B:10 1:2'>Gen 1:2</a></em>). This would mean that the destruction of the earth by the flood in Noah's time was actually a repeat of something God had previously done. This sheds light on His promise to never again destroy the earth with water: "I will stablish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth" (<em><a href='B:10 9:11'>Gen 9:11</a></em>). This sounds as if destruction of the earth by flooding had happened several times before. It's almost as if the God of all grace is showing Himself progressively gracious to earth's inhabitants: 'I've done it before several times, but now I promise you humans, you new race of inhabitants upon whom my special love is to be shown through My Son, that I'll never do it again'.</p><em>Formless</em>- Later allusions to the creation record parallel God’s creation with His forming or molding. Isaiah’s descriptions of God forming and molding the earth to be inhabited by His people clearly refer to His creation of the specific land of Israel, to be inhabited by the returning exiles (<em><a href='B:290 43:1'>Isa 43:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 43:7'>Isa 43:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 43:10'>Isa 43:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 43:21'>Isa 43:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 44:2'>Isa 44:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 44:21'>Isa 44:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 44:24'>Isa 44:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 45:18'>Isa 45:18</a></em>). The drama starts off with the land of promise being formless, waiting for God to form it into something habitable. I suggest we have here a kind of prologue to the Pentateuch. The creation is described as a series of six events, observed by someone standing on earth with it happening all around them. This is how Job begins. Clearly the book of Job is poetry, it is drama, and whilst Job was a historical person (at least, other Scripture alludes to him in this way), it is unlikely that the friends literally spoke in poetry, or that his loss of children was balanced out by gaining new ones, as if the pain of the loss was thereby compensated. And so the drama of creation is a poetic way of explaining to Israel in the wilderness where their promised land had come from. Just as it would be unwise to push the prologue of Job into a strictly literal framework of interpretation, so with the drama of creation which we have in early Genesis. The promised land being initially empty and formless speaks directly to the situation of the land when Israel first heard these words of Moses; they were travelling towards that land, whilst God was preparing it. Creation is therefore described in these terms, to remind them that the God of the cosmos was no less powerful in creating Israel. This is the sense of the many creation allusions in the restoration prophets. The deserted, abandoned land was to be re-formed by the same creative power which made it in the first place. The Babylonian invasion had made the land formless, empty and dark (<em><a href='B:300 4:23'>Jer 4:23</a></em>), using the very words of <em><a href='B:10 1:2'>Gen 1:2</a></em> about the land before God began to prepare it for His people. <p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The surface of the deep</em>- The usage of the more poetic “deep” rather than “sea” sets up allusion to how the Israelites came out of the deep to enter the land (<em><a href='B:230 106:9'>Psa 106:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 51:10'>Isa 51:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 63:13'>Isa 63:13</a></em>), just as the ‘land’ is portrayed in this drama as it were emerging from the deep. “The surface of the deep” occurs only three times in the Hebrew Bible, and one of them suggests that at this time, God was preparing the land for His people: “When he prepared the heavens… when he set a compass upon the face of the depth” (<em><a href='B:240 8:27'>Pro 8:27</a></em>). The allusion to Genesis 1 presents God as preparing rather than creating <em>ex nihilo</em>. He as it were is marking out with a pencil how He is going to prepare the material. And the focus of all His creative work was the earth, the land, and the people upon it, i.e. Israel.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God’s Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters</em>- This rare word translated ‘hovering’ is to be found in the description of God hovering over the wilderness / formless land from whence He took His people (<em><a href='B:50 32:11'>Deu 32:11</a></em>). The point is, what God did at creation, He can do at any time in the creation / formation of His people. In almost every phrase of the creation account, there appears reference to the creation of Israel. The land and people of Israel are frequently identified - appeals for the <em>land </em>to mourn obviously refer to the <em>people</em>. The later allusions to the creation record are therefore far more than simply allusions to God’s creative power; they are so frequent because the same <em>eretz</em> or land is in view as that which is centre stage in the drama of creation which opens the history of Israel. And out of our formless and chaotic lives, the Spirit brings forth a new creation. The Genesis account of creation is very much of re-creation and re-ordering, forming beauty out of pre-existing chaos brought about by judgment. And this is what the Spirit is doing in the lives of all those born of the Spirit. The way the Spirit hovered above the waters of baptism at the Lord's baptism clearly alludes here; and His baptism is programmatic for our baptism of water and Spirit. The language of <em><a href='B:500 3:3-5'>Joh 3:3-5</a></em> about being born out of water and Spirit may well allude here too; as the land arose from the waters, so the new life arises from the waters of baptism, with the gift of the Spirit from then onwards forming the new creation in that reformed, recreated life and person.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In the first group of three days, we read of things appearing in the sky (days one and two), then the seas (day three), and then the land (days three and four). In the second three days, things again appear in the sky (days four and five), then the seas (day five), and then the dry ground (day six).&nbsp;This strengthens the impression that we are being presented with a dramatic presentation, rather than a strictly literal, historical account of events. I write of ‘impressions’, and of course the interpretation of any Bible passage is in a sense deeply subjective and personal. I can only say that reading Genesis 1, 2 as literature, I don’t get the impression that this is symbolic; it isn’t a case of dragons with stars on their tails as we have in the book of Revelation. I also do not get the impression that there is an attempt to provide a scientific explanation of the creation process; neither in ancient nor modern terms. I do get the impression that we are to read the record literally, and later Scripture clearly takes Adam as a literal person - I don’t see the days as being presented as anything less or more than literal days. This is evidenced by the fact Adam was created on the sixth day but died at less than a thousand years old at some time after the seventh day. And yet clearly the record has elements of drama to it. I prefer therefore to liken the ‘creation’ account to a Divine drama or slideshow, observed by someone on the <em>eretz</em>. The events literally happened, in this dramatic presentation which serves as a prologue to the Pentateuch; just as the events of Job 1 are a prologue to the book, and are clearly drama. They happened literally enough - in the drama. But that is not to say that they are strictly literal, historical, verbatim.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'> <em>God said </em>- The creation record emphasizes that God spoke, and it was done. Creation was through a spoken word. This contrasts with the creation myths, which nearly all claim that the present world emerged from conflict between good and bad gods; or that the world came forth as a kind of self-birth or self-reproduction (the pagan forerunner of atheistic evolution), or the gods playing with dust in their hands. The Biblical record is strikingly different, demonstrating that God is omnipotent of Himself, His word is all powerful, and there is no personal Satan or other cosmic force of evil. The new creation likewise comes about through the word of the Gospel. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Let there be light, and there was light </em>- The sun was ‘created’, or appeared, on the fourth day. It has been argued that this light was therefore the <em>shekinah</em> glory of God. But I think that is an unnecessary argument. “Let there be light” doesn’t have to mean that light or the sun was then created, because I suggest the creation of all things in the cosmos was already touched on in 1:1. If we understand the whole record as a drama unfolding before an observer, we are to imagine dawn breaking, light appearing- and then on day four we find that this light comes from the sun. The same term describes the appearance of light at sunrise; and the sun or light isn’t created at a sunrise, but it is observed as appearing. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But in the Divine drama now unfolding, light as it were appears upon the <em>eretz</em> like a spotlight shining on a dark stage. Paul powerfully uses this image to speak of the light of Christ breaking into our otherwise chaotic and formless lives to re-work that same material into something beautiful. The “heavens and earth” were already in existence (1:1); therefore all we now read about can’t refer to their creation, but rather their appearance in the drama which is being unfolded. The whole language of “let there be light” doesn’t sound as if the creation of light is in view; but rather pre-existing light is summoned to appear. <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:22:5'>Rev 22:5</a></em> pictures a return to beginnings in saying that there will be light in the new Jerusalem, but no need of the sun (not ‘no sun’, but no need of it). We see here how the provenance of ‘creation’ in Gen 1:2 to Gen 2:4 is paralleled with the <em>new</em> Jerusalem, suggesting that the old creation drama was likewise centered around the <em>old</em> Jerusalem.</p>"Let there be" and "and there was..." translate the same Hebrew word, used twice in the sentence. The idea presented is that the Divine word of command was its fulfilment. The new creation is brought about by that same word of total power. What God says is as good as done. This explains why the Bible often uses language beyond and outside of our conceptions of linear time. The future is now, to the eye of faith. It would seem from later Scripture that the orders and intentions outlined by God on the six literal days are <em>still</em> being fulfilled. Take the command for there to be light (<em><a href='B:10 1:3-4'>Gen 1:3-4</a></em>). This is interpreted in <em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em> as meaning that God shines in men's hearts in order to give them the knowledge of the light of Christ. The command was initially fulfilled by the Angels enabling the sun to shine through the thick darkness that shrouded the earth; but the deeper intention was to shine the spiritual light into the heart of earth-dwellers. And this is still being fulfilled. Likewise the resting of God on the seventh day was in fact a prophecy concerning how He and all His people will enter into the "rest" of the Kingdom. The Lord realized this when He said that even on Sabbath, God was still working (<em><a href='B:500 5:17'>Joh 5:17</a></em>). The creation work had not <em>really</em> been completed in practice, although in prospect it had been. In this very context the Hebrew writer comments that although we must still enter into that rest, "the works were finished from the foundation of the world" (<em><a href='B:650 4:3'>Heb 4:3</a></em>).<p style='margin-left:1em'>The Genesis creation account repeatedly alludes to the Baal myths of creation - in order to show that it is God and not Baal who controls the cycles of nature and has brought an ordered creation out of chaos. Moses states early on in his inspired account that God created light. The Egyptians considered that light was in itself a great god, Re. And “in Persian cosmology…light…is uncreated and eternal” (J. Skinner, <em>Commentary On Genesis </em>(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956)). So to say that the one true God created light, and light is not a god in itself, was a radical thing. And hence the account of the fourth day of creation is longer than the accounts of the other days; because the sun, moon and stars were seen as gods in themselves. The moon god, Sin, was thought to be the one who “fixes day, month and year”. But Genesis 1 teaches that it is the one God who created the moon, who set the moon and stars to define time periods. There was only one God, one creator. We are to look beyond all created things to the Creator behind them. The peoples around the Israelites worshipped created things as if they were God. Moses was teaching that no, there is only one God, and we must primarily worship Him rather than anything which He has made. Paul brings out the error of worshipping the created rather than the Creator. And this echoes down to our day; where we can so easily worship the ‘idols’ of which this world is so full, rather than the ultimate Creator. That there is only <em>one</em> Divine Creator is a challenge to <em>any</em> form of idolatry. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God saw the light, and saw that it was good</em>- This shouldn't be read as meaning that God looked at what He had created, and was impressed by His own handiwork when He saw it in physical existence. That would seem strange for an omnipotent and omniscient God. The idea could equally be that God looked at the light because it was good, recognizing it was good, whereas He doesn't look at the darkness; His looking at the light as it were made it "good". The light of the new creation is clearly presented in John's gospel as the Lord Jesus, who was alone "good" in God's eyes. Seeing or looking in Hebrew thought is connected with presence. The Father in that sense cannot look upon evil (<em><a href='B:420 1:13'>Hab 1:13</a></em>), but He looks upon the Son, and we are in Him, and thereby in His presence acceptably.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God divided the light from the darkness</em>- This is the language of God’s ‘creation’ of Israel when He gives them light and divides them from the darkness of Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 10:21'>Exo 10:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:20'>Exo 14:20</a></em>). The division of light from darkness was the prelude to Israel’s inheritance of the prepared land; and thus it was at the beginning of creation. Likewise, prior to their entrance to the land, they heard the voice of God Himself coming out of the thick darkness (<em><a href='B:50 5:23'>Deu 5:23</a></em>) just as it did in this record of the creation of the land. Judah in Babylon were in darkness (<em><a href='B:290 42:7'>Isa 42:7</a></em>); a darkness created by God just as much as the light (<em><a href='B:290 45:7'>Isa 45:7</a></em>). They were brought to light in their return to a restored land: “Darkness shall cover the land, and gross darkness the peoples; but Yahweh will arise on you, and His glory shall be seen on you” (<em><a href='B:290 60:2'>Isa 60:2</a></em>). This imagery is taken directly from the drama of creation, and the same ‘land’ is surely in view. The connections between the restoration prophecies and the creation record are so strong that my personal belief is that Moses’ initial creation account was re-written in Babylon, under inspiration. I suggest Moses was the original inspired author because of the way parts of the Pentateuch are attributed to him in other Scripture, and because of the obvious relevance of the work for Israel in the wilderness, whom he was leading and teaching.</p>The idea of "division" is of separation; it is the word used of how God separates His people unto Himself. The division was in that God proclaimed a difference between light and darkness; what previously had been an apparent mixture of light and darkness is now clearly divided. This is helpful to all those who are part of the new creation. Outside of the Spirit's creative work, all seems an endless blur of grey. Moral truth and error is not apparent; people live according to feelings, or what society at their time defines as light and dark, good or bad. In the new creation, we progressively come to perceive light and darkness, and the chasmic difference between them.


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God called the light day, and the darkness He called night</em>- To name something was understood as effectively creating it (see on 2:20). So this naming was not <em>per se</em> creating these things, for they were already created in 1:1. Likewise Adam’s naming of the animals didn’t literally create them, but effectively brought them into known existence. And again likewise with God’s calling or naming of things in the creation account after 1:1. As noted on <em><a href='B:10 1:4'>Gen 1:4</a></em>, in the new creation, there is a labelling and crystal clear definition of light and darkness; darkness and light are called out for what they are. No longer are we left in the endless shades of grey which arise from human reflection upon ethical and moral issues. And the calling out of those things is in His word. Just as it was His voice which declared what was light and darkness. </p><em>There was evening and there was morning,</em> <em>one day</em>- Many have wondered why the Hebrew day begins at sunset and ends in the morning. The answer presumably goes back to the timing of creation- implying God started work on day one in the darkness, and the evening and the morning became the first day (<em><a href='B:10 1:5'>Gen 1:5</a></em>)- and the sequence thus continued. God's creative activity begins with all of us in the darkness, and creatively works to bring us through to the light. Interestingly, <em>ehad</em>, translated "first" in <em><a href='B:10 1:5'>Gen 1:5</a></em>, can imply 'unified'. The two periods- day and night- become united into one "day". The light and the dark, the created and the not yet created, the achieved and not yet achieved, are somehow united in God's understanding of our 'days'. <p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul, writing to those who thought they believed in the unity of God, had to remind them that this simple fact implies the need for unity amongst us His children, seeing He treats us all equally as a truly good Father: " If so be that God is one... he shall justify the circumcision by faith, and (likewise) the uncircumcision through faith" (<em><a href='B:520 3:30'>Rom 3:30</a></em> RV). Unity amongst us is inspired by the fact that God seeks to be one with us, exactly because He is Himself 'unity', one in Himself. The Rabbis have always been at pains to point out the somewhat unusual grammar in the record of creation in Genesis 1, which literally translated reads: "One day... a second day... a third day", rather than 'One day... two days... three days', as we'd expect if 'Day one' solely referred to 'firstness' in terms of time. "The first day" (<em><a href='B:10 1:5'>Gen 1:5</a></em>) therefore means more strictly 'the day of unity', in that it refers to how the one God sought unity with earth. "<em>Yom ehad, </em>one day, really means the day which God desired to be <em>one</em> with man... the unity of God is a concern for the unity of the world" (Abraham Heschel,&nbsp;<em>Man is Not Alone</em>&nbsp;(New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1979) p. 123). The spoken word of God is what brought light and darkness together in some meaningful synthesis; as noted on <em><a href='B:10 1:4'>Gen 1:4</a></em> and above on :5, there are now no longer the endless shades of grey in our lives. There is clear definition of right and wrong. And it is only God's creative work which enables us to synthesize the light and darkness into daily understanding. The Hebrew for "night" can suggest that which turns away (from the light). This is very much the conception of John's gospel, presenting the Lord Jesus as the light, and all else as a turning away from that light, because of a preference to remain in evil deeds.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said, Let there be an expanse in the middle of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters- </em>The language of "an expanse" &nbsp;is to me one of the clearest evidences that we are reading a reported drama and not a scientific, historical account of creation. Some creationists claim that it refers to a water or ice canopy which came to earth at the flood. But this just will not do, for the same word translated “expanse” or “firmament” occurs later in the Bible, as if it still existed (e.g. <em><a href='B:230 19:1'>Psa 19:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 150:1'>Psa 150:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 12:3'>Dan 12:3</a></em>). And the water released at the flood came from the clouds as well as from beneath the earth; there is no mention of this ‘firmament’ dissolving. God had already created the heavens and earth in <em><a href='B:10 1:1'>Gen 1:1</a></em>, so the ‘firmament’ cannot refer to space or the atmosphere; that was already there if the heavens were already created. Further, the Hebrew word itself refers to something which is beaten out, a dome covering the land. It was intended to separate the waters from the waters, and something solid is implied by that alone. If it were indeed a canopy of water, then it would not be separating the upper waters from the lower waters- because it would itself be water. <em><a href='B:10 1:20'>Gen 1:20</a></em> in Hebrew speaks of the birds flying on the face or surface of this ‘firmament’, as if it were a constraining dome. We are invited to picture the clouds pinned to it above, and birds constrained by it beneath. Seeing that birds can fly through clouds, it will not do to claim that this “firmament” is merely the sky or a water canopy. A water canopy would have made the earth too hot for humans to live on. Why use the unusual and hard to define Hebrew term translated “expanse” or “firmament” if in fact merely the sky or atmosphere was intended? And why use a word which implies something tangible and material? There are other Hebrew words which mean ‘space’ as in the gap between two objects; but they aren’t used here (consider the Hebrew words used for ‘space’ in <em><a href='B:10 32:16'>Gen 32:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 3:4'>Jos 3:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 26:13'>1Sa 26:13</a></em>). Rather is there the idea of a “firmament”; this is not the same as saying ‘there was a space’. <em><a href='B:220 37:18'>Job 37:18</a></em> uses the verb related to the noun “firmament” in saying that God “spread out (‘firmamented’) the sky, which is strong, as a molten looking glass”. The allusion is clearly to a common Ancient Near Eastern belief that there was such a dome over the earth. But later Biblical allusions to the firmament state that it is the platform upon which God sits and His cherubim ride (<em><a href='B:330 1:23'>Eze 1:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 1:25-26'>Eze 1:25-26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 10:1'>Eze 10:1</a></em> etc.). The firmament was understood as a solid structure and not simply the atmosphere. <em><a href='B:290 40:22'>Isa 40:22</a></em> continues this understanding, although in the context of Israel, by saying that God “stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in”. Moses saw God Himself enthroned upon such a blue firmament. My suggestion is that this was a prop, as it were, in the drama of creation; and above it is enthroned God and the Angels. But they are enthroned upon and over <em>Israel</em>. That is the point. Perhaps this is why day two of creation is the only one which lacks the Divine comment, that He saw what He had made and it was good. This expanse / firmament was part of the furniture on the stage, as it were, and not a reference to anything which He had materially created. The description in :14 and :17 of the planets as “lights” firmly located or “set” within this ‘firmament’ again gives the impression of a fixed dome, into which the lights are inset like spotlights shining down on a stage. And again, this is all appropriate to a person standing upon earth; for in reality, the planets are located at vastly differing distances from planet earth. We have similar language in Ezekiel 32, where we read of a kind of de-creation of Egypt, with the lights in her firmament going out as if they were strobe lights being turned off over a stage: "When I shall extinguish you, I will cover the sky and make its stars dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud and the moon shall not give its light. All the bright lights of the sky will I make dark over you and set darkness on your land, says the Lord Yahweh" (<em><a href='B:330 32:7-8'>Eze 32:7-8</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The restoration prophets speak of how God will as it were re-create Israel when He restores His people to their land. And the verb <em>raqa</em>, to spread out, to ‘firmament’, is used about the earth / land of Israel, paralleling the spreading out of the land to the spreading out of the heavens above it: “He that created the heavens, and stretched them out; He that spread forth the land” (<em><a href='B:290 42:5'>Isa 42:5</a></em>); “He that stretches forth the heavens alone, that spreads abroad the earth / land by Himself” (<em><a href='B:290 44:24'>Isa 44:24</a></em>); “Him that stretched out the land / earth” (<em><a href='B:230 136:6'>Psa 136:6</a></em>). Clearly, the ‘firmament’ was seen as a dome over the land of Israel; what was seen in the drama of creation was going to be repeated at Israel’s restoration. That restoration will not involve a literal creation of land out of nothing. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea of the creation scene occurring beneath a covering is one of many connections between the creation record in Genesis 1, and the tabernacle. There are so many points of contact:</p>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; As creation was achieved by a series of successive Divine commands being fulfilled, so the tabernacle was created in obedience to Divine commands, and was inspected by God and found good, and was blessed (<em><a href='B:10 1:31'>Gen 1:31</a></em> = <em><a href='B:20 39:43'>Exo 39:43</a></em>).<p style='margin-left:1em'>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The creation was “completed” (<em><a href='B:10 2:1'>Gen 2:1</a></em>) as the tabernacle was (<em><a href='B:20 39:32'>Exo 39:32</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; God finished His creation work (<em><a href='B:10 2:2'>Gen 2:2</a></em>), as the tabernacle was a “work” that was “finished” (<em><a href='B:20 40:33'>Exo 40:33</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The completed creation and tabernacle were both Divinely blessed (<em><a href='B:10 2:3'>Gen 2:3</a></em> = <em><a href='B:20 39:43'>Exo 39:43</a></em>); and creation and tabernacle were both “sanctified” on completion (<em><a href='B:10 2:3'>Gen 2:3</a></em> = <em><a href='B:20 40:9'>Exo 40:9</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The tabernacle was built in response to seven successive Divine speeches to Moses, each beginning with “The Lord spoke to Moses” (<em><a href='B:20 25:1'>Exo 25:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 30:11'>Exo 30:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 30:16'>Exo 30:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 30:22'>Exo 30:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 30:34'>Exo 30:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 31:11-12'>Exo 31:11-12</a></em>). This obviously connects with the seven days of creation, and some Jewish commentators perceive similarities between the events of the creation days, and the material constructed for the tabernacle in each of the matching sections of Exodus 25-31. Thus “sea” was created on the third day (<em><a href='B:10 1:9-11'>Gen 1:9-11</a></em>), and it was in the third command that the bronze laver or “sea” was commanded (<em><a href='B:20 30:16-21'>Exo 30:16-21</a></em>). And the seventh speech (<em><a href='B:20 31:12-17'>Exo 31:12-17</a></em>) mentions the need to keep the Sabbath, which was the theme of the seventh day of creation. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The significant theme of ‘separation’ in creation (<em><a href='B:10 1:4'>Gen 1:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 1:6-7'>Gen 1:6-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 1:14'>Gen 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 1:18'>Gen 1:18</a></em>) is reflected in the ‘separation’ of holy and less than holy in the tabernacle (<em><a href='B:20 26:33'>Exo 26:33</a></em>) and the associated legislation regarding separating clean from unclean.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Both creation and the construction of the tabernacle were the work of God’s Spirit (<em><a href='B:10 1:1'>Gen 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 31:3'>Exo 31:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 35:31'>Exo 35:31</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The tabernacle was finished as the new started (<em><a href='B:20 40:17'>Exo 40:17</a></em>), continuing the connection between tabernacle and creation.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The “firmament”, literally ‘the beaten thing’, uses the same word found in <em><a href='B:20 39:3'>Exo 39:3</a></em> and <em><a href='B:40 16:39'>Num 16:39</a></em> for the beating of metals into material for tabernacle usage. The precious stones of <em><a href='B:10 2:12'>Gen 2:12</a></em> are the very stones found in the breastplate. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Adam’s role was to dress and keep the garden (<em><a href='B:10 2:15'>Gen 2:15</a></em>); but the Hebrew words used are elsewhere used for “worship” and for dressing and keeping the tabernacle. The whole phrase “Behold I have given you…” (<em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>) occurs later when the Priests are told what God has given them (<em><a href='B:20 31:6'>Exo 31:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 6:10'>Lev 6:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:8'>Num 18:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:21'>Num 18:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:14'>Deu 11:14</a></em>). </p>- 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>). <p style='margin-left:1em'>The point is that the <em>eretz</em> and Eden were presented as God’s tabernacle, with the man of the <em>eretz</em>, Adam the first Israelite, intended to keep God’s ways and do His service within it. My point is that the focus of Genesis 1 is upon Israel and God’s people within that <em>eretz</em>, rather than being a literal account of the creation of the cosmos from nothing.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note again as on <em><a href='B:10 1:4-5'>Gen 1:4-5</a></em> the idea of division; as light was separated from darkness, so the waters were divided. The new creation is very much about division and separation- not simply <em>from</em> evil, but more positively, <em>unto</em> God's things.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God made the expanse</em>- A different word to that translated “created” in 1:1. It has been well observed that in the six days of creation God is&nbsp;<em>preparing</em>&nbsp;this land for man and not<em>&nbsp;</em><em>creating</em><em>&nbsp;</em>it. Indeed, the Hebrew word translated ‘made’ in the context of creation can be used just as in English we speak of ‘making a bed’. We don’t mean we created a bed, but that we prepared the existing materials for usage. The Hebrew word is used in just this sense in places like <em><a href='B:50 21:12'>Deu 21:12</a></em> (to ‘make’ fingernails); <em><a href='B:100 19:25'>2Sa 19:25</a></em> (to ‘make’ feet) and <em><a href='B:100 19:24'>2Sa 19:24</a></em> (to ‘make’ a beard). And this is exactly relevant to Israel in the wilderness being led to a land which their God had prepared for them. The <em>eretz</em> is presented to us in terms of its relation to the seas (:10) and sky (:20)- rather than with reference to the further cosmos, stars etc., as would be required if the <em>eretz </em>referred to the whole planet. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And divided the waters</em>- A phrase repeatedly used of the dividing of the Red Sea so that Israel could pass on “dry land” (:9). The creation and formation of Israel is consistently described in creation language- because it was exactly their creation which the creation drama speaks of. And the new creation likewise in each heart is to modelled on this same huge creative, re-ordering power seen here.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse</em>- Such references to location ("under... above") imply a flat surface is in view, from the viewpoint of a person standing on the earth. </p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And it was so</em>- There is a very positive feel in the record of the natural creation- each creative action is concluded with the comment “And it was so”- literally, “it was Yes” (Hebrew). This same positive upward spiral will be found in lives which submit to God’s new creation. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God called the expanse sky. There was evening and there was morning, a second day</em>- The Hebrew means to call out, to proclaim. This fits the idea of a Divine drama unfolding, with the voice of God as the narrator. The idea of a drama or slideshow helps us better address the question as to whether the events of Genesis 1 literally happened. ‘What happened in the film’. ‘What happened next in the slideshow?’- such questions have a ‘literal’ answer. The observer, in whose shoes we are placed by the drama, saw these things literally happen as they were presented to him. Whether that is what literally happened in order to create the cosmos is not the question in view. The creation of all things was briefly addressed in 1:1, and then the spotlight moved on to <em>eretz</em> Israel. Likewise the New Testament presents Adam as the first man, and yes indeed he is presented as the first man in the Genesis record. But that record is a drama of creation, focusing specifically on <em>eretz</em> Israel and the man and people of God upon it. No attempt is made at wider explanations concerning the rest of the planet or indeed the cosmos. The things recorded were indeed literally seen by the observer; I am not much attracted by attempts to make the events all purely symbolic or mythical. They are presented as literal events. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said, Let the waters under the sky be gathered together to one place</em>- See on 2:24. "One place" means just that, and the term often refers to the Jerusalem sanctuary or tabernacle. The reference does not fit comfortably with the idea of all water on the globe being gathered into the various ocean basins. Which is how we have to read this if we want to understand the record here as explaining the literal&nbsp; creation of planet earth. There are inland seas, and the distribution of the oceans hardly fits the idea of "one place" as it is Biblically used. The gathering of the seas or peoples is envisioned as being to "one place", the sanctuary of Yahweh. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Let the dry land appear</em>- This hardly sounds like the actual creation of the dry land; rather does it fit admirably with the idea of a drama or slow motion slide show (as it were) being recorded in words, from the standpoint of an observer. The events of the various days of creation are visions, acts in a drama, whereby the <em>eretz</em> of promise appears, as it were, out of the sea; the mist covering it is gathered up into clouds, the dry land appears etc. The drama is recorded from the standpoint of a human standing on the already created earth, watching it happen. This was God’s creation story; it was how He wished Israel to dramatically conceive of the creation of their land, as opposed to accepting the fanciful creation myths they had encountered in Egypt. The “seas” are spoken of in the plural whereas the <em>eretz </em>is singular. There are various islands and continents on planet earth; the focus is on a particular land mass, the <em>eretz</em> of Israel. If we wish to read this as referring to the emergence of the continents, then "land" would have to be in the plural; but it isn't. A particular land is in view. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God called the dry land earth</em>- This does not specifically state that the earth is flat, but it’s significant that there is no mention of it being a sphere; and the words would rather suggest that a flat earth was in view. But this makes sense if the “land” in view is that of Israel. This would also explain why there is no obvious reference in Genesis 1 to the ‘earth’ as being spherical, which we would rather expect if the global planet was in view. This explains why <em><a href='B:290 40:28'>Isa 40:28</a></em> speaks of ‘God creating’ (the same words as in Genesis 1) “the ends of the earth / land”. The Hebrew for “ends” means a frontier, a border, a corner. If we are insistent upon understanding the <em>eretz</em> as referring to the whole planet, then we are left with the conclusion that the Bible speaks of a flat earth, with literal ends and boundaries to it. I suggest however that Isaiah is understanding the Genesis creation as referring specifically to the bringing about of the land of Israel. The borders were created, in that they were defined by God and then the enclosed territory was promised to Israel. In the same way we read of God creating the north and south- of the land of Israel. We have similar language in <em><a href='B:290 45:18'>Isa 45:18</a></em>, where the ‘creation of heaven and earth’ is cited as evidence that God didn’t therefore create the earth / land in vain, but to be inhabited; and this is in the context of God assuring Judah that they would return to their land, for He had created the heavens and land of Israel in order that the land should not remain waste, for that would have meant creation in vain, but rather to be inhabited- by the returned exiles. The new ‘heavens and earth’ which were to be created are defined specifically as being Jerusalem and a restored Judah (<em><a href='B:290 65:17-18'>Isa 65:17-18</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The gathering together of the waters He called seas</em>- Perhaps a reference to the three ‘seas’ which are spoken of in Israel, the Dead Sea, the Sea of Galilee and the “Great Sea”, the Mediterranean. Waters and flooding are Biblical symbols of judgment. God can be seen as gathering together the previous judgments, and bringing order and beauty out of condemnation. Which is exactly why the creation narrative is so repeatedly used as the pattern for our transformation by the work of the same Spirit.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God saw that it was good</em>- This comment is specifically about the earth / <em>eretz </em>which has now ‘appeared’. The <em>eretz </em>is very often called the “good” land, using the same Hebrew word translated “good” in the repeated declarations that the created <em>eretz</em> and all in it was “good” (<em><a href='B:10 49:15'>Gen 49:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 3:8'>Exo 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:7'>Num 14:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:25'>Deu 1:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:35'>Deu 1:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:25'>Deu 3:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:21-22'>Deu 4:21-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:18'>Deu 6:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:17'>Deu 11:17</a></em> and many other times). The making "good" of the land can be understood as a function of God's seeing or looking upon it. The land was in His eyes, in His presence, as the idiom can mean. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said, Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed</em>- The same words used in <em><a href='B:370 7:2'>Amo 7:2</a></em> for how the “grass of the earth”, i.e. the land of Israel, was eaten up by her invaders. The emphasis is upon how the <em>eretz</em> was to be filled with vegetation as a result of seed being distributed. This lays the basis for the promises to Abraham concerning the spread of His seed throughout the <em>eretz</em>. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with its seed in it, on the earth; and it was so</em>- This particular emphasis upon fruit trees with edible fruit appears strange if the whole planet is in view. But it suddenly makes sense if the <em>eretz</em> in view is in fact the garden, to which we will be introduced in Genesis 2. That garden was full of fruit trees which had fruit on them. Likewise the reference to “grass” is relevant to the land of Israel; for not all areas of planet earth have grass or fruit trees. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The earth sprouted vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind</em>- Again this is not the language of creation from nothing. Rather is the visual impression given of vegetation arising, having already been created and now planted in the earth of the <em>eretz</em>. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And trees bearing fruit, with its seed in it, after their kind; and God saw that it was good</em>- The record focuses on the grass and fruit trees- characteristic of Israel. There is no attempt to mention every aspect of the plant and animal creation, but only those things which are felt to characterize Israel. There is no focus upon the creation of bushes, or even trees generally; the focus is on fruit trees. The text is clearly not even attempting a scientific explanation; rather are we seeing something impressively visual, fruit trees, appearing on the stage in the drama being unfolded. As noted on :11, the language of seed and fruit is full of spiritual imagery. It is the people of Israel who were to fill the face of the earth with (spiritual) fruit (<em><a href='B:290 27:6'>Isa 27:6</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of sky to divide the day from the night- </em>The Hebrew idea is: 'Let the lights in the expanse be for separating the day and night...'. The actual planets, sun and moon etc. were already created in the “beginning” (1:1); but now in this Divine slideshow presentation, they play a specific role over the <em>eretz</em> of Israel. The stars do not of themselves divide day from night. God had already divided light from darkness in :4; now we learn how He did it. Again, we are not being given a blow by blow account of strict chronological creation. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years</em>- This is the language of the Mosaic feasts. The GNB offers “religious festivals” as a fair translation here. The stars were placed in order to tell Israel beneath them when to perform the rituals of Divine worship. Again, we are invited to see the ‘land’ upon which these heavenly bodies shined as the land of Israel, inhabited by God’s people.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Let them be for lights in the expanse of sky to give light on the earth</em>- The “lights” in view are hardly the entire cosmos, because not all planets shed light upon planet earth. The stars likewise are spoken of giving light on earth (:16,17). If we are going to limit the reference of the lights and stars to those relevant to planet earth, we are tacitly admitting that the creation record is not speaking of the creation of literally all planets, or all things. It is therefore no problem, surely, to accept that in fact the record here may not be speaking simply of part of the cosmos, i.e. planet earth, but of a part of the planet, the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham. We note that God “prepared” the “light (s.w.) and the sun” (<em><a href='B:230 74:16'>Psa 74:16</a></em>). This is a direct statement that the ‘creation’ record in Genesis 1 speaks of the preparation of things rather than their creation <em>ex nihilo</em>. Note that the moon is not of itself a light source- it reflects light. Yet in this drama of creation, the moon over the <em>eretz</em> is presented as a bulb which is switched on, thus giving light on <em>eretz </em>Israel. These lights were intended to give light on the <em>eretz</em>. Perhaps believers or Angels are in view. The idea of giving light is clearly suggestive of sharing the light of God's word. It may be that these lights don't refer to the stars, because they are "made" in :16. In this case, Moses is seeing a special creation around the <em>eretz</em>, and the lights in view here are not referring to literal planets. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God made the two great lights</em>- I have noted earlier that ‘made’ is used in the sense of ‘preparing’, as in ‘making a bed’. The heavens and earth, a merism for ‘everything’, had already been created in 1:1. We are to imagine at this stage of the drama the preparation of two great lights, and then placing them inset into the ‘firmament’ or dome (:17). The plants and vegetation had already appeared on the previous day, which would have been impossible without the sun. Their appearance was apparently instantaneous. Clearly this is all part of a drama which we are invited to watch unfolding, entering into the man standing on earth seeing it all come about, rather than seeking to read all this as literal acts of the historical creation. This answers the obvious objection: "How could light be produced on the first day, and the sun, the fountain of it, not be created till the fourth day?". In the drama presented, the sun is only revealed on ‘Day Four’. This is strong evidence for thinking that the whole drama is being recorded from the viewpoint of a person standing on earth. It is not, therefore, a literal explanation of the historical creative process. </p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'>The sun and moon are only “great” relative to the earth; so we are not reading here of an explanation of the cosmos, but are seeing things described from the viewpoint of a person on earth. </p>Having recently left Egypt, the Israelites had been exposed for 400 years to the idea that Ra, the sun God of Egypt, was ruling the world. But <em><a href='B:10 1:16'>Gen 1:16</a></em> teaches that the God of Israel created the sun, the sun was not uncreate as the Israelites had been taught, and he ruled only by God's fiat and allowance. Even if people wanted to believe in a sun God who ruled- the point being made was that the God of Israel was far above that sun god, had created the sun, and given it power to 'rule'. &nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'>It’s possible to perceive significance in the colours of the things created. The record starts with black and white, day and night; then the blue sea and sky; then green grass; now yellow sun; and finally man is created from the <em>adamah</em>, the red soil. This would then complete a rainbow, and we note a rainbow appears when God as it were re-creates the <em>eretz</em> after making it a watery mass again at the flood. Again we are invited to see the provenance of the flood as being that of the <em>eretz</em> of Genesis 1, and there are good reasons for believing the <em>eretz</em> of the flood to refer to a specific part of the Middle East rather than the entire planet.</p><em>The greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night</em>- Rulership of day and night is hard to apply to the literal sun and moon. The concept of rulership suggests we are to see something more than literal creation here. <p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He also made the stars</em>- This is added as an afterthought, almost. The focus is upon sun and moon. Seeing sun and moon are almost insignificant compared to the other stars in the cosmos, we are obviously being given a very earth-centred account, rather than an explanation of the entire cosmos. The pagan creation myths gave priority to the stars, which they considered critical in determining human fortune; but God’s account says that He brought them into being, but gives no great emphasis to them. <em><a href='B:360 3:15'>Joe 3:15</a></em> speaks of the sun, moon and stars no longer shining when Israel is overcome by; again, the message is that the creation record is focused upon <em>eretz</em> Israel. The literal stars are billions of light years away, and if they were suddenly created, they would not be immediately observed by an observer standing on earth. Again it stands to reason that we are not reading a literal account of creation, but rather a dramatic presentation of how things appeared to an observer on <em>eretz</em> Israel.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For want of a better way of putting it, the spiritual culture of God comes through so sublimely in these records. He began His written revelation with the comment, as an almost throw-away clause, that "He made the stars also" (<em><a href='B:10 1:16'>Gen 1:16</a></em>). The vastness of that creation, far more wondrous and extensive than just this planet, is treated <em>en passant</em>. The actual resurrection of the Lord Jesus is likewise not recorded; we only learn of it from the recorded witness of those who went to the tomb, and who later met the Lord. </p>


text:
<em>God set them in the expanse of sky to give light to the earth</em>- The stars don't really give light to the earth as in the entire planet. This strengthens my suggestion that the account of creation here refers to a vision seen, and the focus is upon <em>eretz</em> Israel rather than the globe. The lights which are placed in the material "firmament" or "expanse" are as it were spotlights fitted into a stage set, giving light in various forms upon the specific territory defined as the "earth" or <em>eretz </em>which is the stage&nbsp; upon which our attention is focused. We are as the stars (<em><a href='B:340 12:2'>Dan 12:2</a></em>) in giving light to others. The mediation of light was therefore through various heavenly bodies, of different magnitudes and each giving light in a different way. And this is exactly how God's self revelation operates towards His people, coming through people, prophets, leaders and Angels.


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good</em>- The sun, moon and stars do not literally divide light from darkness. This would support my suggestion that Genesis 1 describes a kind of slideshow of creation, with a material dome in which the planets are set. The planets all being set within the same dome, or firmament, they divided light from darkness in that they were located on the dome (“firmament”) which did so. This all sounds like a description of some kind of model, a theatrical set above which lights appear, waters gather, land appears, grass shoots forth etc. The language of 'ruling over' nudges us to see in it something symbolic. For the sun and moon do not in any literal sense 'rule over' day and night.</p>God had divided light from darkness in <em><a href='B:10 1:4'>Gen 1:4</a></em>; now we read that He created or better "made" the solar system&nbsp; in order to divide light from darkness. So clearly we aren't reading a chronological account of creation. At best we are reading what He "did" on one "day", and then how this came about on a later "day".


text:
<em>There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day</em>- The Divine concept of "day" is the very inverse of how humans would intuitively understand a day- beginning with dawn and ending with night. His day begins with the evening of darkness, and concludes with the light. Out of our darkness, He creates eternal light, and that is how His eternal day concludes- in light, not in the closure of darkness. This is the dramatic inversion of all evil which is the ultimate hope exhibited in the gospel of God's Kingdom.


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures</em>- “Swarm” translates a word implying that the waters “brought forth” these creatures. The literalist reading, following the KJV, would have to conclude that the creatures somehow originated from H2O. The sentence makes more sense surely if we read this as drama- the spectator saw the creatures swarming out of the water. This was how it appeared, visually, to the observer. But that was for the purpose of the dramatic scene, and shouldn’t be read to mean that the creatures evolved as it were out of water. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The creation account was the basis for the de-creation, if you like, of Egypt through the plagues. The same Hebrew term for ‘the waters swarming’ is used in <em><a href='B:20 8:3'>Exo 8:3</a></em> about how the Nile water swarmed with frogs. As He made the waters “swarm” in <em><a href='B:10 1:20'>Gen 1:20</a></em>, so He made the waters of the Nile “swarm” with frogs in order to save His people from a no-hope, chaotic, disordered, hopeless situation.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea of the Hebrew word for "swarm" is of "abundance. We have been given life in Christ, and “life more abundant” (<em><a href='B:500 10:10'>Joh 10:10</a></em>)- an allusion to how the natural creation brought forth life ‘abundantly’ (<em><a href='B:10 1:20'>Gen 1:20</a></em>). Those who have become part of the new creation are to experience this same ‘abundance’ of life- whether trapped in poverty, difficult family situations, ill health or even clinical depression. The ‘abundance’ of our lives is to be what makes us different from those in the world- we are to salute not only our brethren because we are living “more (same Greek word translated ‘abundantly’) than others. There is a power at work in us which does “exceeding abundantly above all we ask or think” (<em><a href='B:560 3:20'>Eph 3:20</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of sky</em>- The idea is that the birds arose out of the water. This is clearly not a scientific statement, but rather a visual account of how the scene looked to the observer of the drama. The AV more correctly reflects the Hebrew word for “firmament”: “fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven”. The birds are described in Hebrew as flying ‘across the face of’ the “firmament” rather than “in” it. This further supports the idea of a dome, arching across an area of flat land, with the birds moving across the surface of it- the same surface where the planets are spoken of as being “set”. This is clearly not a literal scientific explanation of material creation, but rather does it seem to describe the appearance seen by the observer of this Divine drama in which the dome or firmament is a major stage prop. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God created- </em>Again, the idea is that He "made" things, but 'making' is used about making things out of pre-existing material, rather than creation from nothing, <em>ex nihilo</em>. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The large sea creatures</em>- Most of the other Biblical occurrences of the Hebrew word refer to large creatures which live in rivers- serpents, crocodiles etc. Why the strange focus upon just one kind of water creature? Surely because the record is focusing upon the animals of the <em>eretz</em> which lived in the rivers which formed the boundaries of <em>eretz</em> Israel. Remember that “sea” can refer to any body of water, and not necessarily a saltwater ocean. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And every winged bird after its kind. God saw that it was good</em>- It might seem axiomatic that birds have wings, but the stress upon wings may well be because of the pagan, and Babylonian specifically, belief in winged gods. This is another reason for believing that the Genesis record was edited, under inspiration, whilst the Jews were in Babylon. The point being that it was Israel’s God who had created all winged beings. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas-</em> This is presented as a command which the animals, especially fish, had the capacity to understand and choose to obey. For the same language will later be used in the command to Adam and Eve. Again we are being nudged to perceive that this record of creation is intended to be understood as having a strong figurative element to it. For fish in their literal sense do not listen to Divine commandment and then decide as to whether or not to obey. If there is no element of choice implied, then the concept of commandment seems misplaced and inappropriate.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And let birds m</em><em>ultiply on the earth</em>- The same words used about the multiplication of animals in the land / earth which had been the territory affected by the flood (<em><a href='B:10 8:17'>Gen 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 9:1'>Gen 9:1</a></em>). This command of God to animals surely wasn’t understood by them; it makes more sense as part of a dramatic presentation, where Yahweh’s voice addresses the scene rather than literally the animals. The specific command is for birds to multiply on the earth; when birds typically live above the earth in nests on trees. The idea is that the multiplication on earth, in obedience to Divine commandment, results in birds flying above, higher than, where they began. The command to multiply on the <em>eretz</em> is going to be used later about the multiplication of Abraham's seed on the <em>eretz</em>, with the implication they had the potential to arise so much higher. </p>


text:
<em>There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day</em>- As noted on :19, the Divine concept of "day" is the very inverse of how humans would intuitively understand a day- beginning with dawn and ending with night. His day begins with the evening of darkness, and concludes with the light. Out of our darkness, He creates eternal light, and that is how His eternal day concludes- in light, not in the closure of darkness. This is the dramatic inversion of all evil which is the ultimate hope exhibited in the gospel of God's Kingdom.


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said- </em>One major difference between Genesis and the pagan creation myths was that Moses told the Israelites that God created everything by His word. He spoke, and it was done. This was markedly different to the (then) popular myths of gods hatching eggs, or procreating to produce the world. Repeatedly, later Scripture alludes to the fact that it was by the word of God that the world was created; and that same powerful, re-forming, saving word was and is that heard by His people still (<em><a href='B:230 33:6'>Psa 33:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 33:9'>Psa 33:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 104:7'>Psa 104:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 147:15-18'>Psa 147:15-18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 148:3-5'>Psa 148:3-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 40:26'>Isa 40:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 44:23'>Isa 44:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 48:13'>Isa 48:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 50:2'>Isa 50:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 55:10'>Isa 55:10</a></em>). A. Heidel comments: “The word of the Babylonian deities was not almighty. On the contrary, the word of the creator in Genesis 1 is almighty. He commands and the result is in perfect conformity to his command…there is a profound difference between the Bible and non-biblical religions” (on this point of the word being the agency of creation). This feature of Genesis 1 paves the way for <em><a href='B:20 25:1'>Exo 25:1</a></em> and many other passages later in the Pentateuch recording how “God said…”, and Israel therefore ought to obey His word of command in ‘creating’ the tabernacle out of existing materials. Thereby they would show themselves at one with the Angel-elohim, who had earlier likewise obeyed God’s word of command in creating the world. God spoke, and it was done. And so when God speaks now to His <em>elohim</em>, His people- it ought likewise to be done. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Let the earth produce living creatures after their kind, livestock, creeping things</em>- The Hebrew translated “produce” has a wide range of meaning. The account of the emergence of animals from Noah’s ark is clearly intended to be understood as a re-creation on the <em>eretz</em>. The same word is used of how the animals ‘came out of’ the ark and likewise began to reproduce abundantly in the earth (<em><a href='B:10 8:17'>Gen 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 8:19'>Gen 8:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 9:10'>Gen 9:10</a></em>). This doesn’t mean they were created <em>ex nihilo</em>, they appeared on the <em>eretz</em>; and that is the same picture we have here in Genesis 1. The word is used of how rivers were produced, or sprung out, of the land of Israel (<em><a href='B:50 8:7'>Deu 8:7</a></em>), and frequently of the ‘coming forth’ of Israel from Egypt. So I suggest the drama of creation at this point saw the animals of the <em>eretz</em> arising out of the <em>eretz</em>. This is not to say that animals were created from dust, because that would require a different Hebrew word. Here, <em>eretz</em>, the land, is used.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God created matter. Ultimately, all that exists was made by Him; and by faith we believe that things which now exist were not made from what already existed apart from God. The Genesis record of creation, however, emphasizes how God brought order out of chaos. He brought this present world of beauty and order out of a darkness that brooded upon a sea, and from an earth that was “without form and void”, the Hebrew images behind the words implying ‘a chaos’. The frequent references to the earth and sea ‘bringing forth’ (e.g. <em><a href='B:10 1:12'>Gen 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 1:24'>Gen 1:24</a></em> "produce") use a Hebrew word which means ‘to let something which is within to come out’. The present world was created by a re-organization of things which existed in some form before. This means that when our own lives, or the collective life of God’s people, appears to be in chaos- then we can in faith reflect that God has brought beautiful order out of chaos, and He can likewise powerfully bring order to what seems hopeless. This is the context of the creation allusions in the laments of <em><a href='B:230 74:12-17'>Psa 74:12-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 89:10-15'>Psa 89:10-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 51:9'>Isa 51:9</a></em> etc. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And animals of the earth after their kind; and it was so</em>- We can understand this as the observer of the drama viewing specifically the animals native to the earth / land of Israel appearing; likewise the birds which appeared on the <em>eretz</em> in :22 would refer specifically to birds known to <em>eretz</em> Israel. Likewise the lists of clean and unclean animals we encounter later in the Pentateuch are all animals known within <em>eretz </em>Israel, they are not a global list. If the intention of the record is to describe the entire animal stock of the planet, the emphasized additional phrase “of the earth” would appear superfluous. This would explain too why there is particular emphasis upon <em>fruit</em> trees. Such trees are not in every land of planet earth, but they were characteristic of Israel. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God made the animals of the earth after their kind, and the livestock after their kind</em>- As noted on :24, the reference here is to the specific animals of the <em>eretz</em>, the land promised to Abraham. The command in :24 to "let the earth produce..." these animals is now put into operation by God. The idea is that He states&nbsp; His intention, and then puts His word into operation on the ground. The impression is given that His word is then operationalized. And His spoken word to this day has that same pregnancy of power. The oft repeated "after their kind" suggests that all the various animals within their respective families were created. The impression is of the creation of families, even within the animal kingdom. And as we will see later in the Genesis record, the creative purpose of God operates through families.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And everything that creeps on the ground after its kind. God saw that it was good</em>- The same word used later in the Pentateuch for the “creeping” animals which were unclean. But here we learn that even those ‘creepers’ were created by God and pronounced “good”. Hence Paul argues that there is nothing unclean in itself (<em><a href='B:520 14:14'>Rom 14:14</a></em>). The distinctions between clean and unclean were therefore purely for teaching purposes, and not because the "unclean" were unclean of themselves; for here they are pronounced "good" because of their very presence or 'seeing' before God. Here, then, we see the great hope of the Gospel- the unclean were created by God and can be "good" in His presence or eyes.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said, Let us make man</em>- Adam is presented as the first man, and the genealogies of Genesis 5, 10 trace the developments of genealogy from him. But the list of nations in Genesis 10 relate specifically to the peoples found in the land promised to Abraham. This relieves us from worrying about whether there were other people around before Adam, or from where his children found marriage partners. The focus of the account is upon the land promised to Abraham; and the later Biblical mentions of Adam as the first man can be understood as continuing this Israel-centered focus which we find throughout the Bible. The Bible is the Divine history of His relationship with His people and their land; it doesn’t attempt to chronicle human or global history beyond that. </p>The <em>elohim</em> in view here can be understood as an intensive plural referring to God Himself. But the word is once translated "angels" in the KJV. In this case, man is made in the image and likeness of God, as manifested through the angels. Thus man is made in the image and likeness of God, as manifested through the Angels. These words cannot apply to man's mental image, because by nature our minds are totally distanced from God and in many ways fundamentally opposed to His righteousness. " For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are my ways your ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (<em><a href='B:290 55:8-9'>Isa 55:8-9</a></em>). Therefore the image and likeness which we share with God must be in physical image. Whenever Angels have been seen on earth they are described as having the form of men - e.g. Abraham entertained Angels unaware, thinking that they were ordinary men. Our creation in the image of God surely means that we can infer something about the real object of which we are but an image. Thus God, whom we reflect, is not something nebulous which we cannot conceive of.<p style='margin-left:1em'>"Let us make man" (<em><a href='B:10 1:26'>Gen 1:26</a></em>), "Behold, the man has become like one of us" (<em><a href='B:10 3:22'>Gen 3:22</a></em>) and "Come, let us go down" (<em><a href='B:10 11:7'>Gen 11:7</a></em>) are examples from early Genesis of a plural being used about God. Franz Delitzsch &nbsp;analyzes the Hebrew constructions here at great length, concluding that these verses manifest a "communicative plural", implying God conferring with His council. Perhaps here we have the Angels making a joint decision, as they did at Babel: "The LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the children of men builded (again, the language of limitation, as if God had to make closer inspection- the 'LORD' must therefore be the Angels). . Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language" (<em><a href='B:10 11:5'>Gen 11:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 11:7'>Gen 11:7</a></em>). And in Genesis 18 we have an example of Angels discussing their policy with regard to one of their charges in the physical presence of the saint: . . "and Abraham went with them (the Angels) to bring them on their way (they were therefore in his presence). And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do? For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him. . " (v. 17-19). This conversation was presumably inaudible to&nbsp; Abraham. Who knows what conversations go on between our guardians as we sit with Bibles in our hands, obedient to God, and our Angels decide how much to reveal to us in accord with how they know we will behave in the future? The cherubim and living creatures are representative of the Angels. See on <em><a href='B:330 3:13'>Eze 3:13</a></em>.</p>I note that Trinitarians are increasingly recognizing that their standard arguments are weak. There was a time when <em><a href='B:10 1:26'>Gen 1:26</a></em> would be often quoted to support the Trinity. But it's now widely recognized that there are several Hebrew words which have plural endings, and yet refer to a singular entity- e.g. panim means "face". Nearly always, elohim is referred to in the singular by the grammar surrounding it. Thus "Christians have traditionally seen this verse as (proving) the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural means to the original author" (G.J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1997) p. 27). The note in the NIV Study Bible likewise takes the approach that this passage refers to Angels: "God speaks as the Creator-King, announcing his crowning work to the members of his heavenly court".<p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew construction used here has been described as “a plural of deliberation”. C. Brockelmann describes it as “a form of speech which occurred primarily in self-deliberation”. In other words, an individual may use a plural to describe his or her decision. Take David’s words in <em><a href='B:100 24:14'>2Sa 24:14</a></em>: “Let <em>us</em> fall into the hand of the Lord…but let not <em>me</em> fall into the hand of man”. <em><a href='B:150 4:18'>Ezr 4:18</a></em> has a King saying: “The letter ye sent unto <em>us</em> hath been plainly read before <em>me</em>”. In <em><a href='B:290 6:8'>Isa 6:8</a></em> we read the same of God Himself: “Whom shall <em>I</em> (singular) send, and who will go for <em>us</em>?”. And this would enable us to better understand God’s decision making in <em><a href='B:10 11:7'>Gen 11:7</a></em>: “Go to, let <em>us</em> go down, and there confound their speech”. The same sort of thing occurs in modern English slang: “Let’s see…” = ‘let me personally consider’; ‘Give us that pen’ = ‘Give me that pen’; ‘We was just…’ = ‘I was just…’. So “Let <em>us</em> make man…” may refer to God’s personal self-deliberation in making human beings; to a Semitic reader of the original, it would emphasize the vast passion which God Almighty put into this decision. And it therefore follows, that He passionately wishes to have a very definite purpose with us, that He <em>so</em> loves us, and wishes only our eternal good. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In our image</em>- The kings of Babylon and the ancient world were called ‘the image of God’. Here we see the huge value ascribed by God to the human person. It’s not at all that the leaders are God’s image and the rest of humanity of no significance. All God’s people are His king-priests to reign on the earth (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:5:10'>Rev 5:10</a></em>). Many of the creation myths emphasize the infinite gap between the gods and man, and how this was particularly manifest at creation. But the true account of creation emphasizes God’s closeness to man and His particular focus upon not only the earth and solar system, but specifically <em>eretz</em> Israel. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>When we read that we are made in God’s image, the Hebrew word for ‘image’ is that to be used later throughout the Old Testament concerning the ‘images’ of idols. Hence the awfulness of Israel making images of the false gods, in human likeness (<em><a href='B:330 16:17'>Eze 16:17</a></em>)- because this was a studied statement that they rejected the one true God as their creator, in His image. If we are made in God’s image, then we simply cannot admit the existence of any other image of God- which, in the end, is what all the gadgetry and idols of this world amount to. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>After our likeness- </em><em><a href='B:660 3:9'>Jas 3:9</a></em> speaks of “...men, which are made in the similitude of God.” Our creation in the image of God surely means that we can infer something about the real object of which we are but an image. Thus God, whom we reflect, is not something nebulous of which we cannot conceive. Ezekiel saw God enthroned above the cherubim, with the silhouette of “the likeness of a man” (<em><a href='B:330 1:26'>Eze 1:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 10:20'>Eze 10:20</a></em>); it is God Himself who is located above the cherubim (<em><a href='B:120 19:15'>2Ki 19:15</a></em> RV). All this has a practical import; because we are in the image of God, because it is imprinted on every part of our bodies, we must give that body to God, just as men were to give the penny which had Caesar’s image on it to Caesar (<em><a href='B:490 20:25'>Luk 20:25</a></em>). Commenting on this matter in relation to <em><a href='B:10 1:26-27'>Gen 1:26-27</a></em>, Risto Santala writes: “There are two Hebrew words here, <em>tselem</em>, ‘image’ (in modern Hebrew ‘photograph’), and <em>demuth</em>, ‘figure’ or ‘similitude’… these expressions are very concrete. God is a person and he has a definite form and being” (<em>The Messiah In The Old Testament In The Light Of Rabbinical Writings</em> (Kukkila, Finland: BGS, 1992), p. 63). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth</em>- This continues the use of royal language which we noted in the idea of the image of God. It was royalty who ‘exercise dominion over’, but here that invitation is to Adam. And it is to us too, insofar as we dominate the natural mind and extend Kingdom rule over all creation. The language of "dominion" is used of how Israel were to subject the peoples living in the land / <em>eretz</em>. They failed to do so, and were therefore dominated by them. The animals of the <em>eretz</em> are thereby presented as symbolic of the inhabitants of the land, whom Israel were to provide light to, care for and lead / be masters over. We can reason back that Adam and Eve failed in this, being dominated by the serpent rather than dominating it. Right at the beginning of the Bible, the "beast" is therefore introduced as symbolic of the entities dwelling within the<em> eretz</em> promised to Abraham, who were to be dominated and cared for by God's special creation, Israel His people. And this symbolism continues and recurs in later Scripture, particularly in Daniel and Revelation. Misunderstanding or ignoring Genesis has led to all manner of fanciful historical interpretations of the beast.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God created man in His own image</em>- The impression is again given that God states His word of intention, and then fulfils it. His word is, therefore, pregnant with power and certain of fulfilment. This is the inspired narrator’s comment upon the preceding account of how God had decreed “Let us make man in our image”. This comment shows that the <em>elohim</em> in view amount to God Himself personally- not so much Angels, and certainly not a Trinitarian godhead, which is unknown to the Bible text. If any plurality was in view, the narrator here would have written of God creating man ‘in <em>our</em> image’. The plural I therefore take as being an insight into God’s mind, just a man may say to Himself “Let’s (‘let us’) see… let me just make this…’. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In God’s image He created him; male and female He created them</em>- This comment seeks to show in what we are differentiated from God. And in contrast to the animals, there are no species of human beings, all humans are one and the same. </p>The creation of man is clearly given special attention; the word ‘create’ is clustered three times in that one verse alone: “God created man in His own image. In God’s image He created him; male and female He created them” (<em><a href='B:10 1:27'>Gen 1:27</a></em>). God addresses man directly, in a way He is not recorded as doing to the other created things and animals (<em><a href='B:10 1:28-29'>Gen 1:28-29</a></em>). The Pentateuch, and the book of Isaiah, repeatedly insists that Israel are not to have images of God; the reason is that they have an image of God constantly before them, in their own bodies. We are to share God’s immense human focus, perceiving the unique value and meaning of the human person. In passing, focus upon the welfare of the rest of creation is all well and good, but it must not lead us away from God’s emphasis upon the unique value of human beings. God is, if you like, the humanist <em>par excellence</em>. Unlike the emperors of Babylon and the ancient world, the one true God doesn’t need to have images of himself built throughout his empire, as evidence of His ownership; we humans are witnesses to Him. And moreso in the new creation, made spiritually after the image of the Lord Jesus, who in spiritual terms was the exact replica of His Father (<em><a href='B:540 4:4'>2Co 4:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:15'>Col 1:15</a></em>).<p style='margin-left:1em'>The Babylonian Marduk myth and Ras Shamra epic has the creation story reaching a climax and crowning conclusion with a temple being built for Marduk the creator. The Biblical record is quite different- the climax to the story is the creation of a man. We see in this the supreme importance attached to humanity by the one true God; and this tacitly paves the way for the explicit New Testament teaching that the human body is the temple of God (<em><a href='B:530 6:19'>1Co 6:19</a></em>)- supremely of course demonstrated in the Lord Jesus, who was in person the temple (<em><a href='B:500 2:21'>Joh 2:21</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God blessed them</em>- No pagan creation myth includes the idea of the Divine Creator then <em>blessing</em> His creation. Here we see the surpassing grace of God. He lavishes His love upon what He created. None of the creation myths include such a wonderful feature. Within Genesis, this idea of blessing of course paves the way for God promising to “bless” the children of Abraham, and the blessings upon them with which Deuteronomy concludes (see too <em><a href='B:30 9:22'>Lev 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 6:22-24'>Num 6:22-24</a></em>). The pagan creation stories sometimes spoke of the things created by the gods then blessing <em>them</em>. The Sumerians recorded that at ‘creation’, “The whole universe, the people in unison, to Enlil in one tongue gave praise” (S.N. Kramer, <em>Sumerian Literature and the Bible</em> (Rome: Pontificio Instituto Biblica, 1959) p:107). But the true God, the God of all grace, not only creates His people and other creatures, but then blesses <em>them</em>! And the spirit of that grace should be seen in all our relationships. The Sumerian and Babylonian myths speak of people being created in order to serve the gods, “to bear the yoke of the gods” (S.G.F. Brandon, <em>op cit</em> p. 115), to relieve them in their everyday work. But the Genesis creation has God creating man and giving him great freedom, and blessing him. It has often been rightly observed that the first use of a word in Scripture should influence how we later understand it as we read through the Bible. ‘Blessing’ in Genesis 1 is clearly related to the ideas of fertility and reproducing. When we later read that God has ‘blessed’ us His people with the Abrahamic blessing of forgiveness (<em><a href='B:510 3:24-26'>Act 3:24-26</a></em>), the implication is that this must lead to some bringing forth of fruit. We can’t simply be passive to what we’ve received. We must go forth and multiply it, in sharing it with others, in bringing forth spiritual children, in creatively forgiving others… </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And God said to them, Be fruitful, multiply</em>- This contrasts sharply with the pagan ideas that fertility and reproduction required rites and sacrifice. The silence of the Biblical record about anything like this stands in opposition to this. The simple statement is that human reproduction is a result of God’s gracious blessing of man, and requires no ritual to realize it. “Be fruitful, multiply, replenish the earth” is the language of Israel multiplying in the land of Israel (<em><a href='B:50 6:3'>Deu 6:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 24:3'>Jos 24:3</a></em>). Adam, the first Israelite, was intended to do this; but like Israel, he was distracted by the serpent, whom he failed to dominate and subdue as commanded.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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'>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>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Replenish the earth, and subdue it</em>- I suggest that this is parallel to caring for the garden of Eden, which is therefore the <em>eretz</em>. See on 2:15. The only other references to ‘subduing’ in the Pentateuch are to Israel subduing <em>eretz</em> Israel (<em><a href='B:40 32:22'>Num 32:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:29'>Num 32:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 18:1'>Jos 18:1</a></em>). The <em>eretz</em> was to be understood as Israel. As to whether "replenish" implies a previous creation, see on 1:2. Adam and Eve were disobedient; because the serpent subdued them, rather than they having dominion over it. And Israel likewise were subdued by the inhabitants of Canaan, rather than subduing them. The descriptions of the promised land, covered with good trees, whose fruit could be freely eaten, were reminiscent of the descriptions of Eden. Israel were to enter that land and tend it, as Adam should've done; they were to learn the lesson of Adam and Eve's failure in their possession of Eden. But as Eve lusted after the fruit, so Israel lusted after the fruits of Egypt. As Adam and Eve failed to "subdue" the garden of Eden (<em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>), so Israel failed to fully "subdue" (s.w.) the tribes of the land (<em><a href='B:40 32:22'>Num 32:22</a></em>). They subdued a few local to them; but they never really rose up to the reality of being able to have the whole land area promised to Abraham subjected to them. And so Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 promised a curse to come upon the land (of Eden / Israel) for their failure within it, just as happened to Adam and Eve; and of course ultimately they were driven out of the land just as Israel's very first parents had been. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is good internal reason to think that the Pentateuch likewise was re-written in places to bring out the relevance of Israel's past to those in captivity. Consider the use of the word <em>pus</em>, 'scatter'. It was God's intention that mankind should scatter abroad in the earth and subdue it (<em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>); but it required the judgment of the tower of Babel to actually make them 'scatter' (<em><a href='B:10 11:4'>Gen 11:4</a></em>). Thus even in judgment, God worked out His positive ultimate intentions with humanity. And this word <em>pus </em>is the same word used with reference to Judah's 'scattering' from the land into Babylonian captivity (<em><a href='B:330 11:17'>Eze 11:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:34'>Eze 20:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:41'>Eze 20:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 28:25'>Eze 28:25</a></em>). The intention, surely, was to show the captives that they had been scattered as the people had at the judgment of Babel / Babylon, but even in this, God was working out His purpose with His people and giving them the opportunity to fulfil His original intentions for them. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth</em>- The Hebrew word for "dominion" likewise elsewhere refers to having dominion over <em>eretz</em> Israel by driving out or conquering the peoples who lived there (<em><a href='B:110 4:24'>1Ki 4:24</a></em>). The Messianic King was to have dominion over the land promised to Abraham, the <em>eretz</em> (<em><a href='B:230 72:8'>Psa 72:8</a></em>). 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>). But as Adam failed to have dominion over the serpent, so Israel failed to subdue the land and its inhabitants.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The most basic principle behind the symbolism of the beast is found in <em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>, where man is told to " have dominion over" (Heb. 'to break to powder', cp. <em><a href='B:340 2:35'>Dan 2:35</a></em>) the beasts.&nbsp;&nbsp; This was to teach him the need to dominate the bestial instincts of the flesh.&nbsp;&nbsp; Thus the beasts are set up as representative of the flesh.&nbsp;&nbsp; Indeed, Strong defines the Hebrew word for 'beast' as fundamentally meaning 'raw flesh'.&nbsp;&nbsp; It is therefore understandable that the devil (sin), the beast and the serpent are linked in <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:12:9'>Rev 12:9</a></em>, and that <em><a href='B:240 28:15'>Pro 28:15</a></em> parallels " a wicked ruler" with a wild bear or lion; the beast epitomizes the sinful person who controls it.&nbsp;&nbsp; The Apocalyptic beast of the earth (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:13:11'>Rev 13:11</a></em>) must look back to the common phrase " beast of the earth" in Genesis (e.g. <em><a href='B:10 1:25'>Gen 1:25</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food</em>- Surely this doesn’t mean that Adam was to literally eat of every tree and herb on the planet. Adam was invited to eat from all the plants which were on the surface of the <em>eretz</em>. Unlike in the present creation, they were all edible by him. Again we have the implication that we are not reading here of how our current planet came about, but of something more specific and local, with especial reference to Adam. The parallel account in chapter 2 says “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat” (<em><a href='B:10 2:16'>Gen 2:16</a></em>). I suggest that the <em>eretz</em> in view is the garden of Eden. See on <em><a href='B:10 2:19'>Gen 2:19</a></em>. Not all plants on the surface of the planet are edible, and so this sits more comfortably with reference to a specific, localized area of planet earth. The objection of course is that such inedible plants were a result of the fall. But the Biblical record of the fall doesn’t say anything to the effect that once Adam sinned, the Angels, as it were, sped around the planet smashing the place up and making many plants inedible. This is an argument from silence. The Genesis record doesn’t state that- although it is required by those who believe that the <em>eretz</em> includes the whole planet, and that references to all plants and animals on “earth” is to be read on a global level. This creates all manner of practical and moral difficulties; were the Siberian tigers only created after the fall, when their habitat had become cold and inhospitable, etc etc. For the record stresses that everything was created according to its species, both plant and animal, before the fall. It is far more natural to read the changes required by the fall as applying to Eden / <em>eretz</em> Israel, rather than the whole planet. The whole phrase “Behold I have given you…” occurs later when the Priests are told what God has given them (<em><a href='B:20 31:6'>Exo 31:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 6:10'>Lev 6:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:8'>Num 18:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:21'>Num 18:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:14'>Deu 11:14</a></em>). We see here a hint that the situation before Adam's personal fall can be partially restored in the experience of God's obedient people.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food; and it was so</em>- The animals and birds were given all the leafy plants of the earth as food, whereas Adam was given all the fruit bearing plants to live from (:29). This sounds like a special situation in a localized area. Because some species are designed to eat other animals, some plants aren’t edible by animals, and some fruit bearing plants aren’t edible by man; some birds only eat fish, not plants. To argue that this was all a result of the curse means that we are positing that new species were created after the fall. But the record appears to disallow that. I suggest all manner of logical and scientific problems are avoided by reading the “earth” here as a specially designated area on the planet, where there were special conditions. The message seems to be that in the <em>eretz</em>, which I suggest was the same as Eden, there were only herbivores. When Adam sinned and was exiled from the garden and <em>eretz</em> Israel, the carnivores from the surrounding world moved in. And that is exactly what happened when Israel sinned “like Adam” and were exiled from their land; the carnivorous beasts moved in. And the beasts of Daniel and Revelation refer, I suggest, to Israel’s enemies moving in upon her land and sanctuary. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God saw everything that he had made</em>- The “everything” refers to the creation of man on the sixth day. Man was God’s “everything”; the rest of creation had been described as “good” in God’s eyes, but man was seen as “very good”. The drama of creation has come to a climax. <em><a href='B:10 1:1'>Gen 1:1</a></em> begins with the comment that God created literally all things, and then from <em><a href='B:10 1:2'>Gen 1:2</a></em> the focus is upon the creation of <em>eretz</em> Israel, and now the focus narrows down to man within that land- God’s people. And we sense the especial Divine focus and thrill in Adam.</p><em>And, behold, it was very good</em>- Adam alone was "not good" . Adam and Eve together are described as "very good" (<em><a href='B:10 1:31'>Gen 1:31</a></em>). Paul seems to have this in mind when he says three times that "it is good" to be single (<em><a href='B:530 7:1'>1Co 7:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:8'>1Co 7:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:26'>1Co 7:26</a></em>). But what's the point of this paradox? Perhaps Paul's point is: 'In the old, natural creation, it wasn't good that a man should be alone. But now, in the new creation, it's good that a man does try to live a single life, because as Adam married Eve, so we are now married to Christ'. Or it may be that attention is being drawn to the fact that God's provision of Eve was&nbsp; the first of God's countless concessions to human need. It was God's intention, ideally, that Adam be single, therefore he was potentially "good" in his single state. But he couldn't handle it, therefore God made him a partner. And therefore Paul says that to live the single life is "good" . But in the same way as God made a concession to Adam, so He does to believers now; "but if they cannot contain, let them marry". "Behold" invites us to look upon this creation as God did; to see the goodness in it, particularly in mankind whom He created; to take a positive rather than a negative view.<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There was evening and there was morning, a sixth day</em>- The English translations generally miss the point that days one to five are described as e.g. ‘a second day’, ‘a third day’. But the determinate “<em>the</em> sixth day” (Hebrew-missed by many translations, including NEV) is different, to highlight the importance of the creation of Adam. This is yet another reflection of the supreme value and meaning God attaches to the human person. And His perspective is to be ours. </p>Previous CreationsAs to whether there were previous creations before our own, my basic sense is 'Yes, probably there were'. The earth being " without form and void" (<em><a href='B:10 1:2'>Gen 1:2</a></em>) uses a phrase elsewhere used to describe the judgment that has come on an order of things (<em><a href='B:300 4:23'>Jer 4:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 24:10'>Isa 24:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 34:11'>Isa 34:11</a></em>). It may be, therefore, that there was a previous creation on earth which was destroyed in judgment. John Thomas in the first section of <em>Elpis Israel</em> suggests (without much direct support from the Hebrew, it must be admitted) that the command to Adam to " replenish the earth" (<em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>) implies to re-fill, as if there had been a previous creation that was destroyed, presumably by water. " In the beginning" , perhaps a huge period of time ago, God created the heavens and earth. But the present creation can be seen as being constituted some time later, after the previous creations. When during the six days of creation He said " Let there be light" this may not have necessitated the actual manufacture of the sun; this was presumably done " in the beginning" . But the sun was commanded to shine out of the darkness (<em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em>), and therefore from the viewpoint of someone standing on the earth, it was as if the sun had been created. The earth was covered with water at the time the present creation began (<em><a href='B:10 1:2'>Gen 1:2</a></em>). This would mean that the destruction of the earth by the flood in Noah's time was actually a repeat of something God had previously done. This sheds light on His promise to never again destroy the earth with water: " I will stablish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth" (<em><a href='B:10 9:11'>Gen 9:11</a></em>). This sounds as if destruction of the earth by flooding had happened several times before. It's almost as if the God of all grace is showing Himself progressively gracious to earth's inhabitants: 'I've done it before several times, but now I promise you humans, you new race of inhabitants upon whom my special love is to be shown through My Son, that I'll never do it again'.&nbsp;&nbsp; All That FallIt 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 (<em><a href='B:10 3:22'>Gen 3:22</a></em>). 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>). Bro. 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 style='margin-left:1em'>Apostasy has a long continuity; all who fall follow a similar pattern, ultimately sharing the same apotheosis. It could even be that the fall of the Kings of Tyre and Babylon (Isaiah 14; Ezekiel 28) are recorded in the language of an angel / " anointed cherub" who wanted superiority over the others, and who then fell from Heaven (<em><a href='B:330 28:14'>Eze 28:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 14:13-14'>Isa 14:13-14</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:560 4:10'>Eph 4:10</a></em>). There are strong similarities between these passages and the Jewish understanding of Angels that sinned before creation. These similarities would be in order to show the same kind of historical continuity: between the Angels who once sinned, and spiritually blessed men who turned away from what they could have had. The fact that <em>all </em>the Angels <em>now</em> are righteous and incapable of sinning (cp. <em><a href='B:490 20:35-36'>Luk 20:35-36</a></em>) doesn't mean that Angels never sinned in a previous creation. But the point to note is that they are now in the grave, chained in darkness- not running around as evil spirits causing mischief. They are " reserved unto judgment" (<em><a href='B:680 2:4'>2Pe 2:4</a></em>),&nbsp; when " we shall judge angels" (<em><a href='B:530 6:3'>1Co 6:3</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>The Wonder Of It AllFrom these thoughts comes a powerful devotional point. God, who existed from eternity, has doubtless been <em>active</em> from eternity. He is Spirit, and His Spirit is essentially His power in action. There was at least one previous creation, involving the Angels. The fossil record, if indeed it can be taken seriously, would suggest that there were plants and animals (e.g. dinosaurs) which lived millions of years ago. These may have been part of those previous creations. And yet Adam was the first human being (<em><a href='B:530 15:45'>1Co 15:45</a></em>), created around 6,000 years ago.&nbsp; <p style='margin-left:1em'>The human race which descended from him has generally rejected God. The majority of His chosen people, Israel, rejected Him to the point of crucifying His Son. But for such a small group of people, existing at such a small time and in such a tiny physical area in the perspective of infinite time and space, God gave His only begotten Son. The Lord Jesus didn't physically exist before His birth; He wasn't some kind of time traveller who had shown up in previous creations. The <em>only begotten </em>Son of God was born for the very first time. This is the pure wonder of the narratives of His birth. He was a human being, not an Angel, because He shared the nature of those He came to redeem (Hebrews 2 develops this at length). The <em>only</em> and <em>begotten</em> Son of God was a human being because He came to save just a few million (or however many) little human beings on this little insignificant planet, a pin prick in the vastness of space <em>even within this present creation</em>, people who lived out their history for just a few thousand years compared to infinity. And this only son of His was born to an illiterate young girl, and then the crying, gurgling <em>Son of God</em> was laid down in a cattle stall (Luke, the doctor who appreciated the need for hygiene, so emphasizes this: <em><a href='B:490 2:7'>Luk 2:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:12'>Luk 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:16'>Luk 2:16</a></em>), because the other guests in that cheap hotel couldn't make space for a heavily pregnant woman (again, Luke the sometime-gyn doctor would've sensed the shame of it).&nbsp; And this was the beginning of the<em> only and ever begotten Son of God</em>, who dwelt light years away from that humble barn. It's almost too wonderful to believe. There will be many " ages" to come, as there have doubtless been many " ages" of previous creations already (<em><a href='B:520 1:25'>Rom 1:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:5'>Rom 9:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:8'>Heb 13:8</a></em>); but for our " age" alone was the only begotten Son of God given as a representative of <em>us</em>, the humans who live in this brief " age" . God thus describes Himself as a first timer falling in love with His people; as a young marries a virgin, so God marries us (<em><a href='B:290 62:5'>Isa 62:5</a></em>); Israel were as the lines graven on a man's palm, with which he was born (<em><a href='B:290 49:16'>Isa 49:16</a></em>). Thus from absolute eternity, we were the great " all things" to Almighty God, the God of all, all past and future creations.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We may well ask why space is so big, why there were countless previous creations, why out of all the teeming species and forms of life on this planet&nbsp; (and perhaps others), God's salvation in Christ is only for human beings, whom He represented in His very nature; why out of all humans, only a few are called, and why out of those few called are even fewer chosen; why in the past&nbsp; He <em>delighted t</em>o choose Israel, one of the smallest and unlovely nations, and their small, despised land, as <em>His</em> land and <em>His</em> people (and in principle He has done the same in His calling of the new Israel)... and the answer may be that God has arranged it this way in order to show us the magnitude of His humanly senseless love; that He has given <em>so</em> much, even His Only Son, for <em>so very few</em> in such a very small geographical area in such a very short time span.&nbsp; Brethren, think on these things. Look up at the night sky and like father Abraham, struggle, successfully, to believe the wonder of it all.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The heavens and the earth were finished, and all their vast array</em>- My suggestion has been that the creation of the cosmos is briefly spoken of in <em><a href='B:10 1:1'>Gen 1:1</a></em>, and then we have a dramatic slide show of the preparation of the <em>eretz</em> Israel. But we are being told here that the intention of the creation of the cosmos was not finally fulfilled until Israel was created and populated. Paul shares a glimpse of this when he writes of how all things are for our sakes. The "vast array" translates the common Hebrew word usually rendered "hosts". Again the hint is that we are to see in these "hosts" a representation of beings, be they Angels, Israel or God's people generally. The "array" may refer in the first instance to the stars, but they are connected as belonging to "the heavens and earth". This would mean that the stars are presented as belonging to the earth; they are the array around the earth, as it were. This is the impression given in chapter 1, where the stars and lights in the firmament are to give light upon the earth /<em> eretz</em>. This is not the literal function of the physical stars and planets; the planets of the solar system revolve around the sun, not around the earth. But this is how they are presented, both here and in the account in chapter 1. Again, we are not being given a literal account of how the cosmos came into being; at best we are being given a perspective from someone standing on earth, to whom it could appear that all the "array" of the heavens circle around the earth. But this isn't bad science; the "creation" envisioned here is a special "model" as it were, and the "hosts" of heaven do indeed circle around the <em>eretz</em>. All things are for Israel's sake and for the sake of that territory. Yahweh is Yahweh of hosts, the God of the hosts of Angels and of His people; and they are all centred around the things of the Kingdom, the <em>eretz</em>. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the seventh day, God finished His work which He had made</em>- Heidel understands the grammar here to mean rather “God declared His work finished” (Alexander Heidel, <em>The Babylonian Genesis</em> (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951) p. 127). Seeing nothing was created on the seventh day, this would make sense. The finished work of God in creating all things, the whole universe, is therefore only finished in the creation of His Kingdom-land <em>eretz</em> and His man- the Lord Jesus and all who are in Him, the second Adam. Quite literally, all things were on account of the Christ, and thereby all things are for our sakes. Let us never therefore feel insignificant in the vastness of the cosmos. Let us never again slip into a sense that we are meaningless, that the scale of the cosmos means that therefore we are without significance. Quite the opposite. The scale of the cosmos and the range of life forms even on planet earth are simply in order to provide scale and context, in order to bring home to us our intense significance before the loving Father who created us.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>When Moses “finished the work” of the tabernacle (<em><a href='B:20 40:33'>Exo 40:33</a></em>), there is clear allusion to God ‘finishing the work’ of creation.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made- </em>"Rested" is Heb. S<em>habbat</em>. Remember that the creation record alludes to contemporary creations myths in order to deconstruct them, and to teach Israel Yahweh’s version of creation. The suggestion has been made that much of the Hebrew language in early Genesis alludes to similar words in the surrounding languages which were used in the creation myths of the pagan peoples. In this case, the allusion would be to the Akkadian <em>shappatu</em>, the day of the full moon, the 15th day of the lunar month, a day when sacrifice had to be offered to appease the moon god, hence the word meant ‘the day of the quieting (cp. ‘rest’) of the heart’ (of the god) (Victor Hamilton,&nbsp; <em>The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17 (</em>Eerdmans, 1990) p. 142) . The contrast is that in the Biblical record, God ‘rested’ from the colossal works of grace He had performed throughout the week in the preparation of His land for His people. He was not resting because He had been appeased by human sacrifice, but rather because He was at rest / peace / at quiet after all His expenditure of energy in the grace of creating all things for His beloved people. </p>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 shabbat. This was why, it was claimed, the gods first created man and put him to work in their garden- so that they could "rest" (Joseph Campbell, <em>The Masks Of God: Vol. 3, Occidental Mythology</em> (New York: Viking Arkana, 1991) p. 103). This background is alluded to in the way that Genesis speaks of man being cast out 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 man a shabbat 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 style='margin-left:1em'>A unique feature of the Genesis account of creation is that God is described as resting on the seventh day. No creation myth includes this feature. Moses developed this theme later, when he taught that therefore, man was to rest on the seventh day likewise. Whilst God is omnipotent, there is what I have called elsewhere ‘the limitation of God’- in that He <em>portrays Himself</em> as somehow limited, only allowing Himself to use some of His limitless power. This idea of a God who seeks to come so close to us that He limits His limitless power is altogether wonderful. The pagan gods were all some kind of supermen, untouched by human emotions and limitations. But the true God is not like that; He has always wished to come so close to His creatures. In a related way, the Genesis record brings out how God has delegated so much freedom and freewill to His creations. <em><a href='B:10 4:20-22'>Gen 4:20-22</a></em> explains how it was human beings who themselves developed skills of metal working, cattle breeding, music etc. The creations myths of the world surrounding the Israelites assumed that these <em>very things</em> were “the outcome of the internal conflicts of the gods”. The Sumerian legends taught that things like ploughs and axes were created by the gods, and they should be praised for them. Moses teaches a far higher respect for humanity, in keeping with the hugely-significant teaching that man was made in God’s image. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>When Elohim rested on the seventh day, the implication is that they were tired- language impossible to apply to God Himself. The Hebrew for "rested" does not only mean that He ceased, but that He ceased for a reason. <em><a href='B:20 31:17'>Exo 31:17</a></em> is even clearer- "In six days the LORD made Heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He rested, and was refreshed"- the word used to describe refreshment after physical exhaustion, e. g. regarding David and his men at Bahurim when fleeing from Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:100 16:14'>2Sa 16:14</a></em>). Notice in passing that the Angels who gave the Law of Moses are often mentioned specifically as instituting the sabbath (e. g. <em><a href='B:20 31:3'>Exo 31:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:12-13'>Eze 20:12-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:16'>Eze 20:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:20'>Eze 20:20</a></em>)- because it is "the sabbath (the rest) of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:30 23:3'>Lev 23:3</a></em>)- i. e. of the Angels who rested on that day back in Genesis. The fact man was to physically rest on the sabbath as a replica of how the Angels "rested" on that day implies that they too physically rested. The ‘language of limitation’ in Scripture may well often refer to the Angels rather than God personally.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God blessed the seventh day, and made it holy, because He rested in it from all His work which He had created to make</em>- God is spoken of as resting on the seventh day as if all creation has been finished. This is indeed what it sounds like- and from God's perspective, it was true. He had spoken, and so it was done. <em>He</em> through His word had created. The Angels were now working it all out in practice, having 'set it up' in the six literal days. This view of the record explains two verses which would seem to defy any other sensible interpretation: "God blessed the seventh day... because that in it he had rested from all his work which God had created to make" (2:3 AVmg.). God "had created to make" by the seventh day. He had created, because His word was as good as executed; but the things were not all made. But He had "created to make". Likewise <em><a href='B:10 2:5'>Gen 2:5</a></em> speaks of the day that the Lord "made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew". Now this is saving the best for last. Here surely is concrete evidence for the thesis presented. The plants were made before they were actually in the earth. This doesn't mean that they were made in Heaven and then transplanted to earth. Surely it is to be read in the context of all the other hints that God stated His commands regarding creation, and this was as good as it all being made. But in material terms, it all appeared some time later. &nbsp; </p>God made the seventh day holy at that time; yet that doesn't mean that <em>we</em> must always sanctify or make it holy. He sanctified or made holy various things, not least the tabernacle and the Levitical priesthood (<em><a href='B:20 29:44'>Exo 29:44</a></em>). But we are specifically taught that we need no tabernacle nor Levitical priesthood because they have been replaced in Christ. And it's the same with the Sabbath. He is our rest, our means of being at peace with God without works- every moment of every day, not just one day out of seven. The emphasis is upon God sanctifying the seventh day rather than Israel sanctifying it; it was a reminder that God and not their works sanctified them (<em><a href='B:20 31:13'>Exo 31:13</a></em>). That lesson is now taught and commemorated in Christ and not in ritual observance. So the fact something was sanctified or made holy in Old Testament times was to teach something; no day is any more holy of itself than any other day. Likewise all the firstborn were made holy to the Lord (<em><a href='B:40 3:13'>Num 3:13</a></em>) but that doesn't mean that we have to treat firstborn likewise today. <p style='margin-left:1em'>The stars in particular were thought to be in control of human destiny but the Genesis record emphasizes that they are merely lights created by God with no independent influence, therefore, upon human life on earth. The sun, the moon and the stars were all worshipped as gods in the Middle East but in Genesis 1 they are simply created things made by God. Genesis 1 is based around the number 7- and the practical issue of the creation record was that Israel were to remember the seventh day as Sabbath. Yet this was a purposefully critical commentary upon the Babylonian views. "According to one Babylonian tradition, the seventh, fourteenth, nineteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days of each month were regarded as unlucky: Genesis however, declares the seventh day of every week to be holy, a day of rest consecrated to God (2:1-3)" (Gordon J. Wenham, <em>Word Biblical Commentary Genesis 1-15</em>, (Waco TX: Word Books) Vol. 1 p. 49).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is the history of the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made the earth and the heavens</em>- “The history of the generations” is often interpreted as meaning ‘This is the account of…’. But the phrase is used in Genesis many times, and it means just that- an outline of the generations of people. The term refers to people, not material things. This adds weight to the impression that the creation record is an account of the preparation of <em>eretz </em>Israel for God’s people within it, and that the heavenly "hosts" created (see on <em><a href='B:10 2:1'>Gen 2:1</a></em>) are to be understood as representing God's people, His hosts, who were to be the spiritual light of the <em>eretz</em>. The focus of the account is upon people- and the whole structure of the account reflects that, beginning with an almost casual statement about the creation of all things, then focusing upon the <em>eretz</em> Israel, and then focusing upon Adam. Then the creation record of Genesis 2 repeats the creation story but is totally focused upon Adam and Eve. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>No plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up</em>- The AV appears more faithful to the Hebrew here: “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew”. This seems to confirm the suggestion made that the creation record is not speaking of origins, but rather of the preparation of the <em>eretz</em> for the habitation of God’s created people. The plants and herbs were created before they were placed in the <em>eretz</em>. They are part of the general creation which is briefly spoken of in <em><a href='B:10 1:1'>Gen 1:1</a></em>. The rest of the record in Genesis 1-3 speaks of how those things were ordered and prepared in relation to <em>eretz</em> Israel. And here we have that pretty much stated- those things were created before they were placed in the earth / <em>eretz</em>. 2:5 says that <em>every</em> plant and herb was created “before it was in the earth”. The definition of “every” is therefore ‘every plant and herb in the <em>eretz</em>’. What is in view is every plant or herb known to <em>eretz</em> Israel. If we insist on reading 2:5 as a literal record of creation, then we have the prospect of every herb and plant being created and kept somewhere and then placed on planet earth. Even the most ingenious would be hard put to come up some scientific explanation of that, seeing that plants and herbs depend upon each other and the environment of planet earth in order to live. I suggest that my idea that the record is a Divine slideshow or drama, observed by someone in <em>eretz</em> Israel, makes far better sense.</p>Quite simply, the plants Israel knew had been made by God and somehow transplanted or moved into the land, just as one does when developing a garden. It was Moses' understanding that on entering the land, God would be planting Israel there (<em><a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 24:6'>Num 24:6</a></em>), just as God had planted in Eden (<em><a href='B:10 2:8'>Gen 2:8</a></em> s.w.).<p style='margin-left:1em'>The early chapters of Genesis were intended as the seed bed from which Israel would understand that they had grown. The nature of the record of creation was therefore primarily for their benefit. The lesson for us likewise must be- that what God did at creation, He can in essence do in our lives and experiences too. The record of Genesis 1-3 especially opens up in a new way when viewed from this angle. Difficult parts of the account seem to fall into place. <em><a href='B:10 2:5'>Gen 2:5</a></em> says that the creation account explains how God created "every plant of the field before it was in the earth / <em>eretz</em> / land (promised to Abraham)". Quite simply, the plants Israel knew had been made by God and somehow transplanted or moved into the land, just as one does when developing a garden. It was Moses' understanding that on entering the land, God would be planting Israel there (<em><a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 24:6'>Num 24:6</a></em>), just as God had planted in Eden (<em><a href='B:10 2:8'>Gen 2:8</a></em> s.w.). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For Yahweh God had not caused it to rain on the earth. There was not a man to cultivate the ground- </em>This doesn’t have to mean that there had never been rain on the planet. It’s saying that there was no rain on the <em>eretz</em>. There is no statement that there never had been rain on the <em>eretz</em>. If that was the intention, surely other language would have been chosen. But the idea of <em>God not causing rain to fall on the land</em> (of Israel) is quite common in the later Scriptures. We think of the situation at the time of Ahab. God not causing rain on the <em>eretz</em> is a result of His judgment. The <em>eretz</em> had been judged, in terms of the record in Genesis 1, it was formless and made empty, covered in the waters of judgment. “There was not a man” is likewise an idea later used in the Bible concerning how <em>eretz</em> Israel would be left without a man to cultivate its ground- as a result of Divine judgment (<em><a href='B:300 4:29'>Jer 4:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 14:15'>Eze 14:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 1:21'>Zec 1:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 7:14'>Zec 7:14</a></em>). So we are being told that the plants were outside the <em>eretz</em> because it had been judged and was empty and dry; but now they are to be brought into the <em>eretz</em> because a river was now providing water. This was exactly the situation with Elijah- there was no rain on the <em>eretz</em> as it was under judgment, but he was kept alive by a Divinely provided river. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Mist came out of the land, there was no rain on the land (there may have been on the rest of the planet), it was watered by a canopy over the land. Now this would have had tremendous significance for Israel in the wilderness, likewise under a canopy of cloud each day. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The lack of "a man" is alluded to in the prophetic statements that there was "no man" on the <em>eretz</em> because of God's judgments upon it during the exile; and God's search for "a man" was met in Messiah (<em><a href='B:290 41:28'>Isa 41:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 50:2'>Isa 50:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 59:16'>Isa 59:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 4:25'>Jer 4:25</a></em>). Thus we are set up to expect the Lord Jesus to be just whom Paul later declares Him to be, the second Adam. His role was to cultivate the plants in order to bring forth fruit; and this indeed is the Lord's work with us through the Spirit. And the arena of our spiritual fruitfulness will be the Kingdom of God, the <em>eretz</em>. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The plants needed “a man to cultivate” them. Because there was no man in Eden, therefore the plants weren’t put there. But the plants had been created before they were placed “in the <em>eretz</em>”, i.e. Eden. This is what Genesis 1 is saying- the creation of all things is briefly mentioned in 1:1, and then the rest of Genesis 1 is about the arrangement and preparation of the <em>eretz</em> to receive those things after a time of Divine judgment had fallen upon it. The argument is that the <em>eretz</em> and man within it were intimately connected; without man upon it, there could be no creation or paradise as God intended. This was so relevant to the Jews in Babylon who were tempted to remain within Babylon and not return to their chosen <em>eretz</em> and re-create God’s Kingdom there. It was likewise relevant to a displaced Israel tramping through the wilderness to enter that <em>eretz</em>, constantly tempted to quit the dream and return to Egypt. Israel and their land were inextricably linked from creation.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I recall as a young convert being deeply disturbed when I realized that there were many myths of creation existing in the peoples that surrounded the Israelites (the Sumerians, Babylonians, Canaanites, Egyptians, Hittites etc.) which were extremely similar in some aspects as the Genesis record of creation. Indeed, in a few places the correspondences are almost verbatim the same- “There was not yet rain…there was not yet a man to till the ground” (<em><a href='B:10 2:5'>Gen 2:5</a></em>) reads very similarly to an Egyptian text that speaks of “When there was not yet rain…when there was not yet the fear that came to be…”. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I assured myself that all those peoples must have copied their ideas from the Genesis record, rather than vice versa. But I was never totally comfortable with that view. Having now read through some of the myths and reflected upon the situation, and faced up to the fact that some of them were around well before Moses wrote Genesis, I’ve come to another view. It seems to me that the Genesis record, under inspiration, is a commentary upon those myths, telling Israel the truth, bringing out where they were wrong, and why. One Egyptian myth claimed that man was created from dust, and then the goddess Hat-Hor holds the symbol of life to the mouth and nose of the created body. You can see the similarities with the Genesis record. The Gilgamesh Epic also has a primeval man seeking to eat forbidden fruit. Many creation myths included the idea of the first woman having two sons, who then have conflict with each other and even commit fratricide. The tension between farmers and cattle raisers in southern Babylonia was at the root of a number of myths very similar to the Cain and Abel account. But Moses, under inspiration, is giving Israel the true account, after their long period under Egyptian influence. So Genesis may <em>allude</em> to the other stories closely- as they were myths and legends which would’ve been well known to Israel as they walked through the desert. They would’ve discussed them, and some probably believed them. And so Moses wrote Genesis to show them where the truth really was from God’s viewpoint. This explains something which has been widely observed by students of the ancient Middle East: the Israelites had no myths in their culture. The surrounding nations (cp. the world around us) were full of poorly defined and contradictory myths relating to life’s origin. But the Israelites were different. They had ultimate truth for them clearly laid down.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Genesis itself was part of a five volume, Divinely inspired masterpiece. The purpose of Genesis was to teach God’s people something in their day, whenever and wherever that was or is experienced by the readers / hearers of the book. This is why so many parts of the Bible allude back to the Genesis record of creation, in seeking to inspire faith <em>now</em> that God will powerfully act creatively and dramatically in <em>our</em> lives today. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But a mist went up from the earth, and watered the whole surface of the ground</em>- LXX “But there rose a fountain out of the earth, and watered the whole face of the earth”. This would then be the river of <em><a href='B:10 2:10'>Gen 2:10</a></em> which went out of the garden. The idea of a fountain arising and watering the earth is the language of later Scripture, especially Revelation, about the fountain which shall flow from the new Jerusalem. The <em>eretz</em> is yet again associated with <em>eretz</em> Israel and the Jerusalem area particularly. The idea of an underground stream suggests a subterranean ocean of living water, and this is the basis of the prophetic pictures of a stream of living water issuing from the temple (<em><a href='B:330 47:1-12'>Eze 47:1-12</a></em>). Again, the idea is that the fountain of Eden was located where the temple was and will be restored again there in the future when Eden is restored.</p>The argument could be that until there was a man to cultivate the land, there was a mist or fountain which watered the ground. This would explain why in John's Gospel, the second Adam, the Lord Jesus, likens Himself to a spring giving living water (John 4, 7). And all in Him likewise will have this same function (<em><a href='B:500 7:38'>Joh 7:38</a></em>).


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh God formed man- </em>The Hebrew has the sense of forming as a potter, and the Hebrew translated “dust” can equally mean ‘clay’. Later allusions to this state that God is the potter, and Israel the clay in His hand (<em><a href='B:290 64:8'>Isa 64:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 18:4-6'>Jer 18:4-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:21'>Rom 9:21</a></em>). Adam, the man of the <em>eretz</em> (see later) was to be seen as Israel, created to be in their land, just as all God’s people were created to be in His Kingdom. This was of especial meaning to the first audience- Israel in the wilderness, travelling towards the promised land, and likewise to the later audience- Israel in captivity in Babylon awaiting restoration to the land. They had been created for a purpose- to inherit the land / Kingdom prepared for them, and all the power of creation was behind that intention. And this is no less powerful encouragement to we who also wonder, in our weakness, quite why we are here, and whether really there is a Kingdom ahead of us. There indeed is, and all the power of creation was to this end, and is behind us as we travel there. This would explain the frequent allusions to God’s power in creation which we find in the restoration prophecies, as well as in Moses’ encouragement of Israel to enter the land, particularly in Deuteronomy.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>From the dust of the ground</em>- “Ground” here is <em>adamah</em>. Adam effectively means 'dust'; a powerful statement that man is but dust. <em><a href='B:10 3:19'>Gen 3:19</a></em> will later comment that Adam was taken out of, or, 'from among' (Heb.), the ground / dust. He was an extension of it, just as the Lord Jesus, the ultimate Adam, was taken out from among the rest of the dust of the earth. And in <em><a href='B:10 28:14'>Gen 28:14</a></em> (cp. <em><a href='B:340 12:2'>Dan 12:2</a></em>) we are to find Abraham's seed likened to the dust of the earth. Adam and later the Lord Jesus were taken out from among the dust, He was of the same nature as all the promised seed. A correct grasp of Genesis forbids all the low grade theology about the Trinity which later developed, leaving such theories stillborn.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But there is a parallel between <em>adamah</em> and <em>eretz</em>. Adam was made from the dust of the <em>eretz</em>- he was an Israelite, as it were, a man of the <em>eretz</em> or land. Just a few examples of the parallel will demonstrate the point: </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“Every living substance was destroyed from the face of the earth (<em>adamah</em>)… they were destroyed from the earth (<em>eretz</em>)” (<em><a href='B:10 7:23'>Gen 7:23</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“Joseph bought all the land (<em>adamah</em>) of Egypt for Pharaoh… so the land (<em>eretz</em>) became Pharaoh’s” (<em><a href='B:10 47:20'>Gen 47:20</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“You shall inherit their land (<em>adamah</em>)… a land (<em>eretz</em>) that flows with milk and honey” (<em><a href='B:30 20:24'>Lev 20:24</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“The land (<em>adamah</em>) which You have given us… a land (<em>eretz</em>) that flows with milk and honey” (<em><a href='B:50 26:15'>Deu 26:15</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 4:32'>Deu 4:32</a></em> is significant: “For ask now of the days that are past, which were before you, since the day that God created man on the earth, and from the one end of the sky to the other…”. Man, Adam, was created on the <em>eretz</em> of Israel, and this area is parallel with “the one end of the sky to the other”. The sky, or “heavens”, was considered to meet the land at its ‘ends’. ‘Heaven’ was thought to touch the earth at its ‘ends’. This is not how things are of course in scientific reality. But I suggest that instead of ridiculing the Bible as teaching a flat earth, we rather consider the possibility that the allusion to creation here is made with the understanding that the creation record specifically spoke of the preparation of the <em>eretz</em>; that land, the land promised to Abraham, did indeed have boundaries or ‘ends’, and in the dramatic slideshow of <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>, it would be fair to say that the heavens did indeed meet the earth at the boundaries. This kind of language is very frequent. Babylon is spoken of in <em><a href='B:340 4:11'>Dan 4:11</a></em>: “The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ends of all the earth”. The ‘earth’ clearly refers not to the whole planet, and likewise the ‘heaven’ which it touched is not to be read literally.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Critics often note that the creation record of <em><a href='B:10 1:1'>Gen 1:1</a></em> to <em><a href='B:10 2:4'>Gen 2:4</a></em> uses <em>elohim</em> and the record of the creation of man uses <em>Yahweh</em>. That is correct, but I think they are wrong to suggest that we therefore have here two different records which have been stuck together. It’s all a question of focus. <em><a href='B:10 1:1'>Gen 1:1</a></em> gives the brief statement that God created all things, in the beginning. Then, the focus moves to <em>eretz</em> Israel, and then to man. The question of cosmic origins is dismissed, irrelevant compared to the wonder of God’s focus upon His people and His land. And many believers need to likewise stop their obsession with origins, and refocus upon the wonder of the things of the Kingdom / <em>eretz</em> and the things of the Name of Jesus Christ, the second Adam. So we then in chapter 2 have the huge focus upon man intensified by more detail being provided about Adam, and the zoom of the screen moves in beyond the <em>eretz </em> to a particular part of it, the garden planted in the east of Eden, the Jerusalem area. “Yahweh” is now used because this is God’s covenant name, the name He uses in relationship with man; He as <em>elohim</em>, the mighty One(s), created all the physical stuff; but He as Yahweh relates to man personally. The zoom of the camera progresses seamlessly once we perceive what is going on.</p><em>And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul</em>- This is clearly alluded to in <em><a href='B:330 37:9'>Eze 37:9</a></em>, where the Spirit / breath is breathed into the corpse of Israel to revive them. We are to see in Adam's creation the spiritual revival of all the true seed of the Kingdom. True life is only spiritual life; we are only truly alive when we have received the Spirit. All other forms of life are in fact not life at all. "Breath of life" is not <em>ruach</em> but <em>neshamah</em>; however the two words are paralleled, e.g. in <em><a href='B:220 27:3'>Job 27:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 32:8'>Job 32:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 33:4'>Job 33:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 34:14'>Job 34:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 42:5'>Isa 42:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 57:16'>Isa 57:16</a></em>. In the latter two passages, the whole language of the gift of the breath of life is again applied to spiritual life being given to a recreated people of God.As <em><a href='B:10 2:7'>Gen 2:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:250 12:7'>Ecc 12:7</a></em> make clear, the spirit / life is given by God to our bodies; it doesn’t come from anywhere else. There is no reincarnation. And this is no painless Bible fact; it demands that we live lives that are <em>His</em>, and not lived out as if our spirit / life / soul is <em>ours</em>. The fact that God “holdeth our soul in life”, a reference to <em><a href='B:10 2:7'>Gen 2:7</a></em>, means that David wanted to “make the voice of his praise to be heard” (<em><a href='B:230 66:8-9'>Psa 66:8-9</a></em>). This was the meaning of the basic facts of creation for David!"Living soul" or creature is exactly the word used about the animals (<em><a href='B:10 1:20-21'>Gen 1:20-21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 1:24'>Gen 1:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 1:30'>Gen 1:30</a></em>). The animals also have a breath of life within them, given by God. In man's case, this looked ahead to how God's people can become spiritually alive by the gift of the Spirit. So often, having the breath of life in the nostrils becomes a Biblical idiom for 'being a live human being'. This must be given its full weight in the consideration of whether aborting a fetus, in whose nostrils there is no breath of life, is in fact murder.


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden, in the east- </em>Eden is introduced without definition. It is a fair assumption that this is the <em>eretz </em>/ earth which has just been "made". The very concept of "East" presupposes that a specific portion of territory on earth is being spoken about. Because looking at the globe as a sphere revolving upon its own axis, there is no 'eastern' part of a revolving sphere. Such points of the compass demand that a defined territory upon planet earth is being spoken of. The lack of introduction to this idea suggests that "Eden" is the "earth" we have just seen 'made' in chapter 1. Eden is portrayed as being surrounded by water- the rivers Euphrates, Tigris, Pison and “Gihon, the same river that flows through the whole land of Cush” (<em><a href='B:10 2:13'>Gen 2:13</a></em>). Seeing that Gihon is also a river near Jerusalem, we wonder whether after the flood, the course of this river was changed to begin in the centre of the <em>eretz</em> (<em><a href='B:110 1:33'>1Ki 1:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 32:20'>2Ch 32:20</a></em>). Cush is Egypt (<em><a href='B:10 10:6'>Gen 10:6</a></em>). The <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham was bounded by the same rivers- the Nile and Euphrates (<em><a href='B:10 15:18'>Gen 15:18</a></em>). The course of rivers surely changed after the massive upheavals associated with the flood, but all the same, the impression is given in Genesis 1 that the <em>eretz</em> was a flat area bounded by waters. This is the picture of the promised land and the garden of Eden which we have later in Genesis. This would also explain why <em>eretz </em>Israel is often spoken of as again becoming like Eden- for the same geographical area is in view (<em><a href='B:290 51:3'>Isa 51:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 36:35'>Eze 36:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:360 2:3'>Joe 2:3</a></em>), and Israel’s sin within their land is likened to Adam’s sin in Eden (<em><a href='B:290 66:17'>Isa 66:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 6:7'>Hos 6:7</a></em>). This also makes sense of the way that the prince of Tyre is spoken of as being in "Eden the garden of God" …"upon the holy mountain of God" (<em><a href='B:330 28:13-14'>Eze 28:13-14</a></em>)-thus associating Mount Zion, the temple mount,&nbsp;with Eden. I have written more about the identity of Eden with Israel at . This holy mountain may well be identifiable with Ararat, ‘holy hill’ (<em><a href='B:10 8:4'>Gen 8:4</a></em>). The flood likewise destroyed the <em>eretz</em>, and a new beginning was made from Mount Zion. More thoughts about this at . Note too that Eden is presented as being a place of gold, silver and precious stones- all of which are associated with God’s sanctuary in Zion (<em><a href='B:440 2:7-8'>Hag 2:7-8</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:21:18'>Rev 21:18</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are many references in later Scripture to God planting, and nearly always they refer to God planting Israel in their own land. This confirms us in understanding Eden as Israel. Some of the more significant references include:</p>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a></em> “You shall bring them in, and <em>plant</em> them in the mountain of your inheritance, the place, Yahweh, which You have made for yourself”. This recalls the creation of Adam outside of Eden and then bringing him into it. <p style='margin-left:1em'>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:40 24:6'>Num 24:6</a></em> Israel were “as gardens by the riverside, as aloes which Yahweh has planted, as cedar trees beside the waters”. Trees planted by God in an idyllic setting by water is exactly the language of Eden. The same figure of God planting Israel in their land as trees is to be found in <em><a href='B:230 44:2'>Psa 44:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 80:8'>Psa 80:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 80:15'>Psa 80:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 5:2'>Isa 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 2:21'>Jer 2:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 12:2'>Jer 12:2</a></em>. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:50 6:11'>Deu 6:11</a></em> and other references speak of Israel being given a land full of trees which they had not planted- which was Adam and Eve’s situation in Eden. <em><a href='B:230 104:16'>Psa 104:16</a></em> actually says that it was God who planted the trees in the <em>eretz</em> Israel. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:100 7:10'>2Sa 7:10</a></em> “I will appoint a place for My people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in their own place, and be moved no more”. “Appoint” translates the same Hebrew word used for God’s ‘putting’ of Adam in Eden (<em><a href='B:10 2:8'>Gen 2:8</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And there He put the man whom He had formed</em>- "Formed" is the word used of how the Divine potter "formed" clay into the people of Israel (<em><a href='B:290 43:1'>Isa 43:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 43:7'>Isa 43:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 43:21'>Isa 43:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 44:2'>Isa 44:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 44:21'>Isa 44:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 45:9'>Isa 45:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 45:11'>Isa 45:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 64:8'>Isa 64:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 18:6'>Jer 18:6</a></em>). Adam represented the people of God, who were to subdue the <em>eretz</em>. They were "put" into that land, just as we are all placed into a life situation which is optimally designed for us to be fruitful and useful in God's work. "Formed" is used of how David was "formed" in the womb (<em><a href='B:230 139:16'>Psa 139:16</a></em>; as <em><a href='B:300 1:5'>Jer 1:5</a></em>). The creation is therefore ongoing in every human life; "forming" is used also of the creation of a person's wiring or psychology, the formation of the spirit or heart of a man (<em><a href='B:450 12:1'>Zec 12:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 33:15'>Psa 33:15</a></em>). And it is used of the "forming" of Messiah (<em><a href='B:290 49:5'>Isa 49:5</a></em>). The creation of humans therefore refers not simply to our physical body, but to our hearts. We are all given a unique personality type and psychology, which the Father works further upon through the Spirit. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Out of the ground Yahweh God made every tree to grow</em>- As in the account in chapter 1, there is special emphasis upon the trees. <em><a href='B:330 31:3-9'>Eze 31:3-9</a></em> speak of Assyria (which was located within <em>eretz</em> Israel) as being a powerful tree in “the garden of God”, with all the trees subject to him. “All the trees” surely refer to all the nations subject to Assyria, and they were all located within <em>eretz</em> Israel. “All trees” therefore do not refer to all trees / nations on a global level, but relative to the territory promised to Abraham. We can safely infer that Eden, the garden of God, refers to <em>eretz</em> Israel. </p>There is clearly a connection between how both man and vegetation are portrayed as formed out of the ground / dust. The trees were not made from pre-existent seeds, like Adam they are presented as special creations. The similarity serves to highlight the difference.&nbsp; Man alone is described as having the Spirit to enliven him, turning him into a living soul or creature. Unless we receive the Spirit, we are likewise existing merely on the level of animals and plants, made from dust, to return thereto. In this observation lies the need to carefully assess any denials of the Spirit's operation in our lives. For if we have not the spirit of Christ, we are none of His; for all our much vaunted Biblicism and good theology.<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>That is pleasant to the sight, and good for food- </em>The text here suggests that every created tree was good for food and pleasant to the eyes. Not all trees are in these categories. So we have in view not a global creation, but a specific creation of a limited number of plants and animals- those found in Eden, the <em>eretz</em> / earth which is here the focus of all things. The fact other trees existed implies there may well have been the existence of other human beings outside of Eden; and that solves the question as to where Adam and Eve's children obtained their partners from. Adam was "the first man" as presented in the Bible, and in the sphere of the history of God's Kingdom which is what the Bible is all about. Just as Bible prophecy (in my view) has nothing much to say about the nations outside the <em>eretz</em>, likewise this creation narrative has little to say nor imply about other areas. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again, similarity serves to highlight a difference. The fruit of the forbidden trees was "also" pleasant to the sight... but the difference is that it supposedly offered knowledge, and this appealed to Adam and Eve. </p>The description of the fruit as "pleasant to the sight" (<em><a href='B:10 2:9'>Gen 2:9</a></em>) is found in the Gilgamesh epic about the trees in the garden of the gods. But that myth is alluded to, and Israel are told what <em>really</em> happened in the garden.<em>The tree of life also in the middle of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil</em>- The Bible begins with the tree of the lives (Heb.), and concludes in Revelation with men eating of the tree and there appearing a forest of trees-of-life. Our experience of salvation will be the basis of our witness to men in the Millennium, just as it should be now. On the basis of our experience of reconciliation with God, we have been given “the ministry of reconciliation”, in that God “hath put in us (Gk. settled deep within us) the word of reconciliation” (<em><a href='B:540 5:18-19'>2Co 5:18-19</a></em>). I have suggested that Eden is the land / <em>eretz</em>, and "the midst" of that <em>eretz</em> is the sanctuary, Jerusalem, Zion (the Hebrew term is thus used in <em><a href='B:140 32:4'>2Ch 32:4</a></em>). Yahweh's voice and presence was found in the midst of (NEV "among") the trees of the garden (<em><a href='B:10 3:8'>Gen 3:8</a></em>); "middle" here is s.w. "among" in <em><a href='B:10 3:8'>Gen 3:8</a></em>. The idea of Divine presence and word appearing between two things is very much that of <em><a href='B:40 7:89'>Num 7:89</a></em>, where Yahweh's voice and presence issue from between (s.w. "in the middle of") the two cherubim. The Proverbs several times speak of our having some kind of experience of the "tree of life" now. And likewise the Lord offers "eternal life" to His followers as a present experience. In this we see how the curse has already begun to be lifted for those led of the Spirit.<p style='margin-left:1em'>The attraction of the trees was that they apparently offered eternity immediately, and the knowledge of things which were beyond the ability of Adam and Eve to cope with. These are the essence of so many temptations today, if not all of them. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>A river went out of Eden to water the garden- </em>The river “went out” or ‘sprung up’ out of Eden. <em><a href='B:50 7:7-9'>Deu 7:7-9</a></em> describes <em>eretz </em>Israel in the very language of the creation record, suggesting that it is the same territory, <em>eretz </em>Israel, which is in view: “Yahweh your God brings you into a good land (the same words used in 1:10 about the land being pronounced “good” by God), a land of brooks of water, of springs and underground water gushing (s.w. about the river which “went out” of Eden into the rest of <em>eretz </em>Israel) into valleys and hills; a land of wheat and barley, vines, fig trees and pomegranates; a land of olive trees and honey; a land in which you shall eat bread without scarcity. You shall not lack anything in it; a land whose stones are iron and out of whose hills you may dig copper”. Eden is described likewise as full of precious stones. </p>"To water the garden" is alluded to in the idea of God watering Israel and its people (<em><a href='B:290 27:3'>Isa 27:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 43:20'>Isa 43:20</a></em>). This source of water is clearly behind the Lord's teaching that His Spirit is as living water, by which the new Israel are to live.<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And from there it was parted, and became four headstreams</em>- This is hard to translate or visualize, but I suggest the idea is that Eden was surrounded on each compass point by water. This is the equivalent of the <em>eretz</em> being presented in Genesis 1 as an area of land which appeared with the waters gathered around it. Remember that the Hebrew ideas of ‘rivers’ and ‘waters’ are similar. Eden, like <em>eretz </em>Israel, was surrounded by waters, and rivers / waters in the Bible usually represent the Gentile world. The flood doubtless changed the course of the rivers in the <em>eretz</em>, but the impression remains that the same basic rivers surrounded both Eden and <em>eretz </em>Israel according to the boundary definition of <em><a href='B:10 15:18'>Gen 15:18</a></em> - because they refer to one and the same area. The “Gihon” of 2:13 flowed through Cush, i.e. Egypt (<em><a href='B:10 10:6'>Gen 10:6</a></em>); and the boundaries of <em>eretz</em> Israel were from the Euphrates to the river of Egypt. </p>The parting of the one water source into four may mean that when the <em>eretz</em> was "divided" by the topographical changes wrought by the flood (<em><a href='B:10 10:25'>Gen 10:25</a></em>), four currently known rivers came from it. The water source became four rivers by which the <em>eretz</em> was to be defined. Note that on <em><a href='B:10 2:13'>Gen 2:13</a></em> I suggest that "Gihon" is a reference to the Nile. I have suggested that the creation narrative is effectively a vision from the viewpoint of a person within the <em>eretz</em>. It could be that visually we are being asked to envisage a fountain of water, which then divided into the four rivers which we are invited to see as the boundaries of that land.


text:
<em>The name of the first is Pison: this is the one which flows through the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold- </em>"Havilah" could refer to a person rather than a place (<em><a href='B:10 10:7'>Gen 10:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 1:9'>1Ch 1:9</a></em>). The Hebrew means ‘circular’ and may suggest that the garden was encompassed by Havilah; in this context, see on <em><a href='B:10 2:12'>Gen 2:12</a></em> <em>Gold…</em>. The present tense suggests that the initial audience of Genesis knew the area. I suggested on :10 that the four rivers refer to four rivers by which the <em>eretz</em> came to be defined after the flood; the Nile (see on :13), the Tigris to the north and Euphrates to the East (:14). The southern border of the <em>eretz</em> is never clearly defined- unless we take this reference to the "Pison" as referring to a river or wadi, perhaps now dried up, which was to define the southern border. The reference to gold could connect with the Queen of the South, or Sheba, who brought gold to Solomon. This would then refer to some boundary in what is now Saudi Arabia.


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And the gold of that land is good. There is aromatic resin and the onyx stone</em>- Note that what men count as the most materially valuable things were outside the garden. What was in the garden was relationship with God and work for Him, not material ease and wealth. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The name of the second river is Gihon: the same river that flows through the whole land of Cush- </em>See on <em><a href='B:10 2:10'>Gen 2:10</a></em>. The land that borders (Heb.) Cush or Ethiopia is the Nile; the same Hebrew phrase is used for the "river of Ethiopia" in <em><a href='B:290 18:1'>Isa 18:1</a></em> (where it is the border of Egypt) and <em><a href='B:430 3:10'>Zep 3:10</a></em>. The connection between Gihon, a water source in Jerusalem, and the Nile is in that the river which once flowed in Jerusalem before the flood is now the Nile, after the topographical changes in the <em>eretz</em>; but this is memorialized by the fact that there is still a Gihon in Zion.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The name of the third river is Tigris: this is the one which flows east of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates</em>- The present tenses may mean that this is now, after the flood and the remaking of the topography in the<em> eretz</em>, where these rivers flow. I suggested on :10 and :11&nbsp; that the rivers are being used to define the borders of the <em>eretz</em> after the topographical changes brought about by the flood.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden- </em>Adam was a man of the <em>eretz</em> and the <em>eretz</em> was effectively Eden. The Hebrew need not mean that Adam was created outside of Eden. He was taken in the sense of commissioned, and placed in Eden to keep it. "Garden" can imply a walled area; the idea is that this was a separate area to be kept as paradise.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To cultivate it and to keep it- </em>Note that there was work before the fall, just as there will be when Eden is restored. The Kingdom of God is no tropical holiday. Laziness is not at all what God is about. And our eternal future with Him will be of active, working service. “Keep” could well imply ‘protect’, and this has various implications which are beyond us in that it is unclear what it need protecting from; perhaps from influences and even people from outside of the <em>eretz</em>, just as Israel were to keep His Kingdom pure from defiling influences. Clearly all was not ultimately perfect- it was “good”. If the garden required such care, it follows that vegetation there was not as it were self-caring; the <em>eretz</em> was created in need of man, reflecting how in a sense, God is in need of man. Israel needed to be in their land, they needed the land and the land needed them. The decorum and appropriacy of the language surely suggests that Adam’s mission to care for the <em>eretz</em> was of a local, manageable scale. See too on <em><a href='B:10 2:19'>Gen 2:19</a></em>. He surely wasn’t required to tend every plant or animal on the planet, but within a more local territory. The command here in 2:15 surely repeats that of <em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em> “fill the earth and subdue it”. The subduing of the <em>eretz</em> was his mission; but this is defined here in 2:15 as working and keeping the land in the garden of Eden, again supporting my suggestion that the <em>eretz</em> was Eden.</p>We can easily imagine how the people of Israel were prone to be confused by all the mythology they had encountered in their surrounding world. Being illiterate and having no inspired record from their God as to how to understand the past, they relied on dimly recalled traditions passed down. Hence Moses was inspired to write the Pentateuch. It is full- as so much of Scripture is- of allusion to the surrounding religious ideas- not because it in any sense depends upon them, but because it seeks to allude to and correct them. And further, the Torah labours how the one true God is so far superior to all the other gods whom Israel were tempted to believe in. In contrast with Near Eastern mythology, which had men as the lackeys of the gods to keep them supplied with food, the God of Genesis makes man and woman in His own image and gives them responsibility for His creation.


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat</em>- Literally: ‘Eat! Eat!’. This was a command to eat from every tree of the garden. They were all fruit trees, therefore. This is the equivalent to <em><a href='B:10 1:29'>Gen 1:29</a></em> in the creation narrative: “God said, Behold, I have given you… every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food”. Note the repetition of “every tree”, confirming that the arrangement of the <em>eretz</em> in chapter 1 is being explained from a different perspective in the Eden account of chapter 2. But the geographical territories concerned are one and the same. </p>


text:
<em>But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it</em>- Adam 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>). 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. 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; 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. <p style='margin-left:1em'>The lack of reference to the tree of life may be because it only bore its fruit every month, according to Revelation. This would suggest that the potential for eternity was there, but not immediately available; and that they sinned within the first month. "Knowledge" in Hebrew thought doesn't usually mean theoretical, academic knowledge; but rather experience or relationship. The desire to experience good and evil is at the root of all sin and temptation. The desire for the apparent 'goodness' of sexual experience would be the classic example; and the desire to vicariously experience good and evil from the comfort of our screens would be another. Adam was being asked instead to focus on doing God's work. The Father was to guide Adam to the experience of good and evil in His own way according to His program; and He knew that this must be developed in baby steps. But Adam, so typically human, wanted it all immediately, and on his own terms. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For in the day that you eat of it you will surely die</em>- The Hebraism simply means 'You will really die'. Adam didn't die in the day he ate of it; and thus we are introduced to God's grace toward sinners, and what the reality of forgiveness means in practice. Attempts to make this text mean that he was given a mortal, sinful nature seem to me forced at the very best. Punishing a sinner by making him 'sinful by constitution' seem to me very far from what the text here is actually saying. And all we posit about human nature we are saying about the Lord Jesus, who had our nature and yet was "holy, harmless and undefiled". "You will surely die" is only one word in Hebrew, repeated twice: "Die, die!". It echoes the construction at the end of :16, "Eat, eat!" ("Freely eat", NEV). The choice was to "eat, eat!" or "die, die!". If he had got on with God's work and been satiated by His provision, he would have had no appetite for the forbidden fruit. And this is so true of us. We have been given talents and we are to trade them; to get on with our calling in the work of the Kingdom garden, and temptation will then seem the less attractive. This is the key to dealing with temptation, rather than trying to find the steel within our soul to resist what appears so overpoweringly attractive with our knuckles white from the stress. None of us have that kind of iron in the soul.</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>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said, It is not good that the man should be alone</em>- By the end of the sixth day, all had been pronounced “very good” (<em><a href='B:10 1:31'>Gen 1:31</a></em>). So this is providing more detail regarding the creation account of chapter 1. The creation of woman was after Adam had first interviewed the animals of the <em>eretz</em> and found them incompatible for helpers in his work. Woman was created on the sixth day. The decorum of the language surely requires that on the sixth day Adam met all the animals and named them. This would be appropriate for all the animals in the garden, but not for every animal on planet earth; see on 2:19.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will make him a helper suitable for him</em>- "Make" is the same Hebrew word used in chapter 1 for the making or creating of things. But here, the woman is made not <em>ex nihilo</em> but from pre-existing material, Adam's rib. And so likewise the 'creation' or 'making' language of chapter 1 doesn't have to mean <em>ex nihilo</em>. The role of both woman in marriage and the church / Israel of God is made clear here; we are the Lord's helpers in His work in the garden / Kingdom. We are "suitable", the Hebrew meaning to stand opposite, to be the equal complement. Her formation from His side rather than His feet likewise speaks of this equality, to the end Eve may assist Adam in his mission and calling in the things of the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Out of the ground Yahweh God (had) formed every animal of the field, and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. Whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name</em>- This rather stretches credibility to imagine every species of animal and bird of the Amazon being brought to Adam in Eden for him to name, within the course of a day; for he found no appropriate helper, and so Eve was created for him on the sixth day. The more comfortable reading is to assume that every bird and animal known within <em>eretz</em> Israel, the garden, was named by Adam. See on 2:15 and <em><a href='B:10 1:28-29'>Gen 1:28-29</a></em>. “God formed” can quite legitimately be translated “had formed”. The focus of Genesis 2 is upon the creation of Adam and Eve within Eden; it is not a literal attempt to explain creation in any scientific sense.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"To see what he would call them" in Hebrew means just this. God had granted Adam freewill, and He was waiting to see / understand / perceive what Adam would decide to name the animals. And His own language and purpose is able to absorb the freewill decisions of man; for whatever Adam called the animals of Eden, God accepted that as their name in His revealed language in the Bible. This little incident perhaps exercised Adam’s freewill in preparation for the test which was to come. In Hebrew thought, to name something was a statement of their subordinance to the one who names. God had commanded Adam to have dominion over the animal creation, and He encouraged his obedience by inviting him to name the animals. The Father likewise uses commandment and asks us to serve Him as part of a program which is intended to induce our spirituality. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The language also implies God was interested in the freewill decisions of Adam; He perhaps limited His omniscience as He limits His omnipotence, in order to "see" Adam, to get to know him, to see how his mind worked as reflected in what he named them. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The man gave names to all livestock</em>- “In the ancient world, things did not exist until they were named… The name of a living being or an object was ... the very essence of what was defined, and the pronouncing of a name was to create what was spoken”. John H. Walton, <em>Genesis</em> (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011). This concept is being alluded to; but Adam of course was not thereby the creator of all the animals he named. And yet the idea is that all the animals in <em>eretz </em>Israel were named by Adam and were effectively ‘created’ or brought into known being by this naming process. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The pagan creation myths tend to leave man as created, as a servant to the gods. The implication is that the true meaning of life is the same as our mere existence. We are created to exist, so, we just exist. That’s what life is about. This isn’t existential, philosophical nonsense. That’s a sad, real, concrete fact of what this life is about for many people on the earth. They’re just existing. The Genesis record, however, gives more purpose to life than just existing. Adam was created, and he started existing. But, as the account brings out, he couldn’t find the meaning of life by merely existing in an ideal physical, material situation. Just like people today don’t find satisfaction in that, either. He needed Eve; he needed some form of human community, of fellowship, of binding with others, in order to find fulfilment. And so it is with us, driven as we are towards isolationism and individualism by the abuses of society around us. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And to the birds of the sky, and to every animal of the field- </em>The record invites us to see this process as happening the same day Adam was created; for the creation of man and woman is spoken of in chapter 1 as occurring on the same day. For him to name all the birds on the globe within one day is unrealistic. Surely we are being asked to deduce that the creation in view covers only a limited part of earth's surface; "the sky" in view is that over the <em>eretz</em> and not the entire sky above the earth. It could be argued that "the field" is put here for "the earth"; the enclosed territory in view, the "field", is Eden, the <em>eretz</em>, and not the entire planet. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But for man there was not found a helper suitable for him- </em>this connects with the statement in <em><a href='B:10 2:20'>Gen 2:20</a></em>, that God made Adam a helper, because no animal had been found appropriate for him and his work. The opposition of ideas is between him <em>seeking to find</em> a helper (which search failed), and God <em>making </em>a partner for him. And this is a profound commentary upon the union between man and woman in marriage. No amount of searching for a partner will be ultimately successful; the partner is made by God. Marriages truly are made in heaven, in this sense. This principle has profound relevance to the internet generation, who go out online to try to find a partner. An appropriate partner is ultimately of God's creation, rather than human searching.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh God caused a deep sleep to fall on the man, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place</em>- The Hebrew for "rib" is often translated "side". This is replete with reference to the gash in the Lord's side at His crucifixion, through which His bride was created, from His water and blood. This may well have reference to the crucial role of water baptism in the creation of the Lord's bride, which is the church. The "deep sleep" speaks of the depth of the Lord's death, the hardest and most profound death died by any human. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:10 15:12'>Gen 15:12</a></em> of the "deep sleep" upon Abraham, prefiguring the Lord's death, through which the covenant of salvation was confirmed. The closing or shutting of the flesh may speak of the Divine victory against the flesh in His Son, on account of which we who are in Him shall be saved from our flesh. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made the rib, which Yahweh God had taken from the man, into a woman, and brought her to the man</em>- The implication is that the rib was taken away somewhere, worked upon, and then brought to Adam. This may look forward to our formation for the Lord, and then being presented to Him at the last day. We have been "reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and without blemish and unreproveable before him" (<em><a href='B:580 1:22'>Col 1:22</a></em>). We now are in process of being brought to the Lord Jesus. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh!- </em>Clearly alluded to in <em><a href='B:560 5:30'>Eph 5:30</a></em> AV, confirming we are correct in seeing Eve as representative of the bride of Christ: "For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones". "Flesh" and "bones" are several times used together as an idiom for 'the whole person' (<em><a href='B:230 38:3'>Psa 38:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 14:30'>Pro 14:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 3:3'>Mic 3:3</a></em>). Eve was totally like Adam; and in this we see a visual demonstration of the unity of nature and purpose between the Lord Jesus and His people. Again, understanding Genesis would leave theories like the Trinity stillborn. The core attraction between Adam and Eve was that they were the same. Whilst opposites do indeed attract, that is but superficial. The essential attraction between the Lord Jesus and us, His attraction to us and ours to Him, is because of our commonality of nature and mission in this world. In this we see the huge practical import of understanding that the Lord was our representative, of our nature. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>She will be called ‘woman’, because she was taken out of Man</em>- As just noted, the mutual attraction between Adam and Eve, as between the Lord Jesus and ourselves, is because of our closeness of nature. The Hebrew words for "woman" and "man" are connected, just as they are in English. The woman was part of the man, and yet the male is born out of the female; thereby the man and woman need each other. <em><a href='B:530 11:11-12'>1Co 11:11-12</a></em> is Paul's inspired reflection upon this verse: "Neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman. For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman". The same mutuality is therefore to be found between the Lord Jesus and His bride. He is in need of us. He is not indifferent, passing time in Heaven without emotions nor feelings, until the moment comes to return to earth. He is bound up with us, as we should be with Him. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Marriage as ordained by God was clearly intended to have a spiritual dimension, and marriage to an unbeliever nullifies or ignores this intention. God created Adam and gave him the command not to eat of the tree; He then created Eve because Adam alone was the only thing “not good” in an otherwise “very good” creation. It could be argued that the provision of Eve was in order to “help” Adam not only in God’s work of tending the garden, but against temptation. The whole story of Eve’s creation teaches that in Christian marriage, there is one specific woman intended for the believer. David Levin’s translation brings this out:</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“<em>This one</em> at last, bone of my bones</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>And flesh of my flesh,</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This one</em> shall be called Woman,</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For from man was <em>this one</em> taken”.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This sense that ‘this is the <em>one</em> for me’ can only ultimately and lastingly be true in the context of Christian marriage. The creation record teaches that the bond between parents and children is somewhat temporary- for the children must leave them and cleave to their partner. But the bond between man and wife is to be permanent, and is an ever increasing process of being ‘joined’ to each other by God. Insofar as the man represents Christ and the woman represents the church, this speaks of how we are progressively bonded with Christ and feel a decreasing bond with our natural background. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Therefore a man will leave his father and his mother, and will join with his wife, and they will be one flesh</em>- They initially disobeyed this. See on <em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>. As explained on :22 and :23, the nature of creation explains the attraction between male and female within the Divine sphere; it is because of this that "therefore" a man desires to join with his wife. This same natural attraction, to connect or re-connect with the opposite sex, is reflected in the natural attraction of the Lord Jesus toward us, and we toward Him. It is only human dysfunction which interferes with this; atheism and rejection of the claims of Jesus are in my view a psychological reaction against religion and those perceived as representing God on earth. "They will be one flesh" is "they two will be one" in the LXX, and the Lord Jesus and the New Testament prefer this reading. Two becoming one would axiomatically rule out polygamy; indeed, many relationships Biblically recorded, and currently experienced, amongst faithful believers are in contradiction to the ideals laid down here. Failures to rise up to these ideals is therefore no basis for condemnation or rejection. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As a couple "cleave" or 'join' to one another, so they become one flesh (<em><a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a></em>). But this becoming one flesh is interpreted by the Lord Jesus as meaning that God actively joins the couple together (<em><a href='B:470 19:6'>Mat 19:6</a></em>); as <em>they</em> cleave to each other in the process of married life, so <em>God</em> joins them together. Clearly the Lord understood <em><a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a></em> as speaking of the process of marriage, rather than simply the ceremony of a wedding. In passing, note that the Hebrew idea of two becoming one has already been used in Genesis- the morning and evening, the day and night, were fused by God into one day (<em><a href='B:10 1:5'>Gen 1:5</a></em> - the same Hebrew phrase is used). Similarly we read of the waters becoming, or being made one, by God (<em><a href='B:10 1:9'>Gen 1:9</a></em>). It's as if the immense power of God in creation is unleashed in His bonding of man and wife together. To put that asunder is to fight against the very creative power of God. <em><a href='B:460 2:15'>Mal 2:15</a></em> comments that the purpose of the two becoming one was in order to produce a Godly seed. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Genesis record describes how woman was taken out of man, and yet in marriage man and woman become "one flesh" again. A man will desire to "cleave" to his wife (<em><a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a></em>), literally to chase, follow hard after. The desire to chase a woman and marry her is therefore a natural urge that will always play itself out. There is a natural desire within human beings to achieve this rejoining. The lonely world in which we live, with the breakdown of the extended family and local community, makes loneliness all the more poignant. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The earliest anticipation&nbsp; of the one body was the fact that man and woman become one flesh / body in the marriage process. If we are all members of the one body, this fact requires us to strive for unity with each other. We can't just sit back and think 'OK, so there's one body'; rather like a married couple can't just say they are one because they are " one flesh" . They must work on it if they want to be truly one. And likewise with the one body of Christ.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed</em>- The implication is that after the fall, they were ashamed and knew their nakedness. These two words are frequently used about Judah’s judgment- they were made naked and ashamed by the exile from the <em>eretz</em>. <em><a href='B:300 9:19'>Jer 9:19</a></em> speaks of them being ashamed having forsaken the <em>eretz</em>- an allusion back here to Adam’s exile from the same <em>eretz</em>. <em><a href='B:350 13:15'>Hos 13:15</a></em> speaks of Israel’s spring and fountain being ashamed and no more- a reference to the spring of <em><a href='B:10 2:6'>Gen 2:6</a></em> LXX. </p>Eve was created from Adam and brought to him. I have explained above that on one level, this speaks of the bride of Christ taken from His pierced side, through the work of the blood and water. We are now before Him, naked, known completely by Him, and yet unashamed because of His love (<em><a href='B:520 1:16'>Rom 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 5:5'>Rom 5:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:33'>Rom 9:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 10:11'>Rom 10:11</a></em>), just as the Lord is unashamed of us now (<em><a href='B:650 2:11'>Heb 2:11</a></em>). But it's a case of now, but not yet. For the language of being presented without shame before our Lord is picked by the New Testament in describing our final union with Him at the last day (<em><a href='B:540 11:2'>2Co 11:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:22'>Col 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:28'>1Jn 2:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:24'>Jud 1:24</a></em>).Ongoing CreationThere is no doubt in my mind that the six days of creation were six literal days of 24 hours. There is no suggestion in the way the Lord Jesus and Paul both quote from and allude to the Genesis record that it is to be taken figuratively. Israel were to keep the seventh day as Sabbath and creatively labour in the six other days (which was just as much a command as the keeping of Sabbath), because " in six days&nbsp; the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the seventh day" (<em><a href='B:20 20:11'>Exo 20:11</a></em>).&nbsp; Adam was the first man, and Eve was the mother of all living human beings. >From one blood all were created (<em><a href='B:510 17:26'>Act 17:26</a></em>). It is emphasized that God created through His word of command; He said, and it was done (<em><a href='B:230 33:6'>Psa 33:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 33:9'>Psa 33:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 148:5'>Psa 148:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 40:26'>Isa 40:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:3'>Joh 1:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:3'>Heb 11:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 3:5'>2Pe 3:5</a></em>). God is outside the constraints of time, and outside the possibility of His word not being fulfilled. Therefore if He says something, it is as it is done, even if in human time His command is not immediately fulfilled. Thus He calls things which are not as though they are (<em><a href='B:520 4:17'>Rom 4:17</a></em>). It is in this sense that the Lord Jesus and those in Him are spoken of as if we existed at the beginning; although we didn't physically. And so God spoke the words He did on six literal, consecutive days, and the orders ('fiats' is the word Bro. Hayward uses) were therefore, in this sense as good as done. But the actual time taken to carry them out by the Angels may have been very long. The Genesis record can then be understood as stating these commands, and then recording their fulfilment- although the fulfilment wasn't necessarily on that same day.&nbsp;&nbsp; <p style='margin-left:1em'>Indeed, it would seem from later Scripture that the orders and intentions outlined by God on the six literal days are <em>still</em> being fulfilled. Take the command for there to be light (<em><a href='B:10 1:3-4'>Gen 1:3-4</a></em>). This is interpreted in <em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em> as meaning that God shines in men's hearts in order to give them the knowledge of the light of Christ. The command was initially fulfilled by the Angels enabling the sun to shine through the thick darkness that shrouded the earth; but the deeper intention was to shine the spiritual light into the heart of earth-dwellers. And this is still being fulfilled. Likewise the resting of God on the seventh day was in fact a prophecy concerning how He and all His people will enter into the " rest" of the Kingdom. The Lord&nbsp; realized this when He said that even on Sabbath, God was still working (<em><a href='B:500 5:17'>Joh 5:17</a></em>). The creation work had not <em>really</em> been completed in practice, although in prospect it had been. In this very context Paul comments that although we must still enter into that rest, " the works were finished from the foundation of the world" (<em><a href='B:650 4:3'>Heb 4:3</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Another example is the command uttered on the sixth day to make man in God's image. The creation record in Genesis 2 is not about a different creation; it is a more detailed account of how the Angels went about fulfilling the command they were given on the sixth day. The process of bringing all the animals to Adam, him naming them, becoming disappointed with them, wishing for a true partner need not therefore be compressed into 24 hours. It could have taken a period of time. Yet the command to make man, male and female, was given on the sixth day. However, this may have taken far longer than 24 hours to complete. Indeed, the real intention of God to create man in His image was not finished even then; for <em><a href='B:580 1:15'>Col 1:15</a></em> interprets the creation of a man in God's image as a reference to the resurrection and glorification of the Lord Jesus. <em>This</em> was what the Angels had worked for millennia for, in order to fulfil the original fiat concerning the creation of man in God's image. Even now, we see not yet all things subdued under Him (<em><a href='B:650 2:8'>Heb 2:8</a></em>); the intention that the man should have dominion over all creation as uttered <em>and apparently fulfilled </em>on the sixth day has yet to materially come to pass. The Angels are still working- with us. For <em><a href='B:530 15:49'>1Co 15:49</a></em> teaches that <em>we</em> do not now fully have God's image, but we will receive it at the resurrection. Therefore we are driven to the conclusion that the outworking of the creation directives regarding man in God's image was not only in the 24 hours after it was given, but is still working itself out now. The new creation is therefore a continuation of and an essential part of the natural creation; not just a mirror of the natural in spiritual terms.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I can foresee that the objection to this thesis would be that God is spoken of as resting on the seventh day as if all creation has been finished. This is indeed what it sounds like- and from God's perspective, it was true. He had spoken, and so it was done. <em>He</em> through His word had created. The Angels were now working it all out in practice, having 'set it up' in the six literal days. This view of the record explains two verses which would seem to defy any other sensible interpretation: " God blessed the seventh day...because that in it he had rested from all his work which God had created to make" (2:3 AVmg.). God " had created to make" by the seventh day. He had created, because His word was as good as executed; but the things were not all made. But He had " created to make" . Likewise <em><a href='B:10 2:5'>Gen 2:5</a></em> speaks of the day that the Lord " made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew" . Now this is saving the best for last. Here surely is concrete evidence for the thesis presented. The plants were made before they were actually in the earth. This doesn't mean that they were made in Heaven and then transplanted to earth. Surely it is to be read in the context of all the other hints that God stated His commands regarding creation, and this was as good as it all being made. But in material terms, it all appeared some time later.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>And let's take deeply to ourselves the power of God's word as revealed here. He has spoken to us and of us, He has promised us His salvation and the inheritance of the earth. It is as good as done. Our difficulty in grasping this in the Genesis record of six literal days creation is continued in our hesitancy to apprehend the utter certainty of our promised salvation and the spiritual heights into which we have therefore already been translated.&nbsp; </p>


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>- </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>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><p style='margin-left:1em'>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. 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>


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. 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>


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 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>


