# comment

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>


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth</em>- see on <em><a href='B:10 5:29'>Gen 5:29</a></em>. The flood came when Noah was 600 (<em><a href='B:10 7:11'>Gen 7:11</a></em>), yet he spent 120 years preparing it (<em><a href='B:10 6:3'>Gen 6:3</a></em>). So it's possible that he wasn't married when the call came to build the ark; he'd have explained his life mission to his wife, and she'd have been his first convert. Alternatively, if he were already married at 480, they had many years of barrenness in their marriage. Given the long lifespans in those days, this would've been very hard to take. Yet he didn't take another wife. He was "moved with fear", 'reverently apprehensive' at what God told him, and prepared the ark in order to save his family (<em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em>). Yet he began doing this before he had any children, and perhaps before he was married. He had faith that he would one day have a family, in accordance with God's invitation to make an ark in which to save his family. The mention of three sons being born in one year might mean they were triplets. Perhaps there was a far higher incidence of multiple births in those days, just as lifespans were far longer. This would mean that there would have been a veritable population explosion going on in the lead up to the flood- another connection with our last days, which are "as the days of Noah".</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:330 14:20'>Eze 14:20</a></em> could imply that Noah's sons and daughters in law were saved by his faith and intercession, rather than their own righteousness: "Though Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, as I live, says the Lord Yahweh, they would save neither son nor daughter; they would save only their own lives by their righteousness". He presumably had other children, and his three sons and their wives presumably had children and grandchildren. But none of these were saved. They would've been destroyed amongst the wicked. We can imagine the deep division within the family as a result of Noah's commitment to the ark project, his belief in judgment to come and God's word. Or maybe the rest of the family were killed due to the conflict with the line of Cain. Or it could be that for some reason, the family was afflicted with barrenness, as were many other faithful in the Biblical record. I suggest this because Noah is described as preparing the ark for the saving of his household, and his three sons and their wives and Noah's wife are described as "all of your household" (<em><a href='B:10 7:1'>Gen 7:1</a></em>). But it could be that he was commanded to prepare an ark for the saving of his household (<em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em>), but many of his family refused the salvation made potentially available to them. </p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the surface of the ground; man, along with animals, creeping things, and birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them- </em>Man, beast, creeping things, birds- a reversal of the creation order in Gen. 1:20-27. 6:7,8 <em>I will destroy man... but Noah </em>could imply that God’s initial intention was to totally destroy humanity, but because Noah found grace (the idiom could imply God heard his prayer), God made a way of escape for Noah and intended to found a new humanity from him. I’ve elsewhere commented that much in the early Pentateuch is connectable with Israel’s later history; Moses’ account in Genesis was in order to explain to Israel in the wilderness the background to their situation. The situation here in 6:7,8 recalls how God wanted to destroy all Israel and make of Moses a new nation (<em><a href='B:20 32:10'>Exo 32:10</a></em>); but Moses, like Noah, found grace in God’s eyes (<em><a href='B:20 33:13'>Exo 33:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:9'>Exo 34:9</a></em>). Moses describes himself as one who had found grace in God’s eyes at the very time that God speaks of making a new nation from him- he saw the connection. God's expressed regret that He had made the animal creation can read strangely; it reads as if it is an emotional statement. And perhaps that is indeed how we are to read it; here in early Genesis we are being introduced to a God who has passion, whose anger flares up in His face (<em><a href='B:330 38:18'>Eze 38:18</a></em>), and only subsides because of His grace. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But Noah found favour in Yahweh’s eyes- </em>Or, "found grace"; see on <em><a href='B:10 9:21'>Gen 9:21</a></em>. Noah was saved by grace and was likely not without his weaknesses. Finding grace may suggest that He sought it- that he recognized his weakness (alcoholism?) and asked for God's grace; and found it. <em><a href='B:680 2:5'>2Pe 2:5</a></em> speaks of how "the old world" was not "spared", but Noah was, in that he was saved. His salvation was by grace, it was a 'being spared' rather than a reward for his righteousness. <em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em> cites Noah as an example of those to whom righteousness is imputed by faith; and in Romans, Paul explains that this is a parade example of <em>grace</em>. Clearly Paul has Noah in view as a worked example of a sinner being saved by grace through faith, by having righteousness imputed to him. Noah is not therefore presented as righteous, but as faithful; and thereby having righteousness imputed to him.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<em>Yahweh said to Noah, Come with all of your household into the ship- "</em>Come you (singular)... for you (you singular) have I seen righteous"- the focus is always upon God's individual relationship with Noah, as a result of which his family are saved. God saw Noah as righteous- but not his family? Noah and the seven had to leave behind their homes, land and families. They were promised just the bare necessities of life in the ark- just as we are assured of in Christ. <p style='margin-left:1em'>"Come you" is definitely alluded to in <em><a href='B:290 26:20-21'>Isa 26:20-21</a></em>. There seems a principle that God somehow removes or safeguards His people whilst He judges the earth (<em><a href='B:10 19:22'>Gen 19:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 8:22'>Exo 8:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 9:26'>Exo 9:26</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:7:3'>Rev 7:3</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>His entire family consisted of his three sons. He therefore had no daughters and it would seem that his sons had no children. This tiny family size must be significant- for in those long lived ages, most women would have likely had over 50 children. Again, it was the small, broken and despised who were chosen of God. It seems that Noah's daughters in law only started bearing after the flood. Or it could be that he had other children and grandchildren, who were judged wicked. There would've been a huge division within the family over whether to support the salvation project or not; of the kind that continues to this day.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For I have seen your righteousness before Me in this generation</em>- Heb. "you have I seen righteous". God 'saw' Noah as righteous- not that he was in himself, but God imputed righteousness to him, for Noah was saved by grace not his own righteousness, <em><a href='B:10 6:8'>Gen 6:8</a></em>. Righteousness was imputed to Noah on account of his faith (<em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em>). He was "moved with fear" because he really believed God's word of judgment. And therefore he prepared the ark, the works which are part and parcel of faith, and was counted righteous on account of his faith. The others were saved because they were "with him" (<em><a href='B:10 7:23'>Gen 7:23</a></em>) rather than because of their own righteousness; for Noah alone was seen righteous, not 'Noah and his family'.</p>


text:
<em>You shall take seven pairs of every clean animal with you, the male and his female. Of the animals that are not clean, take two, the male and his female</em>- Three pairs and one for sacrifice? Or, seven pairs, because the clean were to be for sacrifices on the ark during the year they were on board? Initially, Noah had been told to just take pairs of all animals. Now, he is told to take seven pairs of the clean animals. People were vegetarian before the flood (<em><a href='B:10 9:3'>Gen 9:3</a></em>), so the division of animals into clean and unclean was for the purpose of teaching the principles of acceptable sacrifice to God. This last minute push to obtain pairs of clean animals, just a week before the flood came (:4), would have involved frenetic activity on Noah's part. The parable of the marriage supper, along with other hints in Scripture, suggests a last minute desperate appeal to humanity on the eve of the Lord's return.


text:
<em>Also of the birds of the sky, seven and seven, male and female, to keep seed alive on the surface of all the earth- </em>Lit. the face of all the earth / land. The earth / land is often described as having this "face", or 'presence', as if it is somehow consciously alive and is "the presence" of God to us. Hence any defacement of the planet is an act done upon the face or presence of God. The text here suggests that birds are preservers and distributors of seed; at least, that was how it was in the environment of the <em>eretz</em> of those times.


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<em>Went by pairs to Noah into the ship, male and female, as God commanded Noah</em>- "To Noah" makes us note again the emphasis upon Noah personally as the agent of salvation. Perhaps at no other point in salvation history apart from the cross, has so much depended upon one man. Noah's family, clean and unclean animals, were all saved because of one man's faith and subsequent works. The salvation of "male and female" of course points ahead to the salvation of all types of people, male and female, in Christ (<em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>). We note again that some Noah had to gather in; others came to him of their own volition, in response to God's working directly upon them. And so it is in our latter day Gospel work.


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


text:
<em>In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep were burst open, and the sky’s windows were opened</em>- The different state of things before the flood perhaps meant there was a huge amount of water underground which now came to the surface through earthquakes and volcanoes. The opening of the sky's windows has been interpretted as meaning that a water canopy which then covered the land came crashing down to earth. But the opening of heaven's windows is used elsewhere in the Bible in a more figurative sense.


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


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


text:
<em>They, and every animal after its kind, all the livestock after their kind, every creeping thing that creeps on the earth after its kind, and every bird after its kind, every bird of every sort</em>- "After its kind" could refer to representatives of every genus rather than every species. But the more comfortable explanation is again that this refers to the animals known to <em>eretz</em> Israel. Apart from the size of the ark, the logistical issue of gathering literally all animals and birds and their appropriate food for a year... is considerable, if we insist upon a global flood.


text:
<em>They went to Noah into the ship, by pairs of all flesh with the breath of life in them</em>- He gathered them, but they came unto him, as in our witness to the world. Animals are shy; did Noah work for many years to understand animals so that they came to him (cp. our understanding of the audience we preach to)? Or was it that animals only came to fear humans after the flood (<em><a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a></em>) and therefore they came more naturally to Noah without their present shyness and nervousness of human beings? The record consistently defines the living creatures as those who had the breath of life in them, or as other verses say, within their nostrils. This may or may not be a point to remember in the abortion debate; for the unborn fetus is without the breath of life in its nostrils. That's why babies can be born underwater.


text:
<em>Those who went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God commanded him; and Yahweh shut him in- </em>For "shut him in", see on <em><a href='B:10 6:14'>Gen 6:14</a></em>. Note again the emphasis upon Noah- the animals came to him personally, <em>he</em> was shut in, and thereby his family and the animals were shut in too. As <em><a href='B:10 7:23'>Gen 7:23</a></em>. The entry of the animals is framed here as being on account of <em>Noah's </em>obedience. The same Hebrew word for "shut in" occurs in <em><a href='B:290 26:20-21'>Isa 26:20-21</a></em>: "Come my people, enter into your chambers (cp. the rooms / nests in the ark) and shut your doors about you; hide yourself as for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast. For behold, the LORD is coming out from his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity, and the earth will disclose the blood shed on it, and will no more cover its slain". This passage in Isaiah seems to be applying the language of the flood to the preservation of God's people in the last days. The mention of the blood shed upon earth recalls <em><a href='B:10 9:6'>Gen 9:6</a></em>. And inevitably we think of the significant New Testament teaching of how those who enter into Christ are "sealed" with the Holy Spirit (<em><a href='B:540 1:22'>2Co 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:13'>Eph 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:30'>Eph 4:30</a></em>).<p style='margin-left:1em'>"All flesh" is of course used of the universal appeal of the Gospel; indeed, "all flesh" is used of all those who hear the Gospel message and have the opportunity of salvation (<em><a href='B:290 40:5'>Isa 40:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 49:26'>Isa 49:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 66:23'>Isa 66:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 65:2'>Psa 65:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:360 2:28'>Joe 2:28</a></em>). </p>


text:
<em>The flood was forty days on the earth- </em>The idea is that the flooding was for forty days; the waters were on the earth just over a year<em>. </em><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The waters increased, and lifted up the ship, and it was lifted up above the earth</em>- This is the word for the lifting up of acceptable sacrifice to God, found throughout the Pentateuch. </p>


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


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


text:
<em>The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered</em>- The Hebrew idea is that the mountains were filled in, the whole <em>eretz</em> became even, the mountains brought down and the valleys lifted up by the water until an even surface was created, upon which Noah and the ark moved. The idea is very similar to the picture of the coming of the Lord Jesus over a similarly filled in, even area in Isaiah 40. Noah is definitely to be read as a type of the Lord Jesus. "The mountains" in view are those of the <em>eretz</em>, the land promised to Abraham.


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The waters receded from the earth in going and returning. After the end of one hundred and fifty days the waters decreased</em>- "In going and returning" is the language of the surges of huge tidal waves, caused by the underwater eruptions of the "fountains of the deep" being broken up (<em><a href='B:10 7:11'>Gen 7:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 8:2'>Gen 8:2</a></em>). Being in the ark must've been a very rocky ride; the boat would've been tossed and thrown most of the time. And so it is with our ride in Christ. But "going and returning" is also the language of the cherubum (<em><a href='B:330 1:14'>Eze 1:14</a></em>), forging another hint that the whole flood experience was in the hands of Angels. See on :1 <em>And God made a wind to pass over the earth.</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The 150 days, or five months, are a significant period in the series of latter day judgments which are to come upon the <em>eretz</em> (see on <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:9:5'>Rev 9:5</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:9:10'>Rev 9:10</a></em>). </p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He sent out a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from the surface of the ground</em>- The exact program of events wasn't clear to Noah, just as it will never be to us in the last days, within the ark of Christ. Therefore he tried these experiments with the birds "to see if" the time had come, and how the program was going. How long things shall continue for in our last days is open ended, or at least, we don't know any precise program. But at the end of the experience, Noah would have realized that he had been within the ark for exactly a year, and that every stage had been carefully planned and allowed by God. We too shall see the same, and only then will all Biblical prophecies, types and shadows fall perfectly into place in our understanding.</p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He stayed yet another seven days; and again he sent the dove out of the ship- </em>The Hebrew word translated "grieved" (see on <em><a href='B:70 10:15'>Jdg 10:15</a></em>) occurs about Noah in <em><a href='B:10 8:10'>Gen 8:10</a></em>: "And he stayed (s.w. to be grieved, hurt) yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark". This word is found translated in other places like this: "Be in anguish" (<em><a href='B:50 2:25'>Deu 2:25</a></em>); "wounded" (<em><a href='B:90 31:3'>1Sa 31:3</a></em>); "exceedingly grieved" (<em><a href='B:150 4:4'>Ezr 4:4</a></em>); "travaileth" (<em><a href='B:220 15:20'>Job 15:20</a></em>); "wounded" (<em><a href='B:130 10:3'>1Ch 10:3</a></em>); "sore pained within me" (<em><a href='B:230 55:4'>Psa 55:4</a></em>); "I am pained at my heart" (<em><a href='B:300 4:19'>Jer 4:19</a></em>); it is several times used of a woman "in pain" , "travailing" in expectancy of the birth (<em><a href='B:290 26:17-18'>Isa 26:17-18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 54:1'>Isa 54:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 66:7'>Isa 66:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 4:10'>Mic 4:10</a></em>). Why was Noah grieved and distressed, as he waited seven days before sending the dove out again? Surely for the plight of his world. He was hoping the dove would return with some sign of civilization, some hint of human survival. His grief was for the corpses floating, for the animals lost… for the world that once was. He had preached to them for 120 years, and they hadn’t listened. Yet he didn’t think Well that’s their problem, they didn’t want to hear when they could, it serves them right. And neither does it seem he was looking out of the ark window thinking My, I’m sure glad <em>we </em>were obedient. As the rain came down, it seems to me that the practical reality of the tragedy would have dawned upon Noah; as the waters rose, he would have pictured the folk he knew running to ever higher hills he would have seen the faces of local children, maybe those of the guys he bought wood from, faces of the women his wife had bartered with, memories of his own brothers and sisters, perhaps his other children. It seems to me that he spent all that time in the ark grieving, grieving, grieving for the tragedy of it all. He surely wasn’t smugly thinking Ha, serves them right, and praise God, I’m saved, and there’s a great future Kingdom for me in store!. I also muse- and no more than this- that perhaps he went on a bender on coming out of the ark because he just couldn’t handle the tragedy of it all. Walking around an empty earth knowing he was saved and the others hadn’t made it…</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This all has vital, biting relevance to us. For Peter takes Noah in the ark as a symbol of us all in Christ. Yes, he was there thanking God for His gracious salvation, looking forward to the new world to come, but distraught at the tragedy of those masses who hadn’t responded, and who had died the slow, desperate, struggling death of drowning. He sent out the dove to see if the waters were "abated" - but the Hebrew word is usually translated "curse"; he wanted to know if the curse was still evident; if the waters were cursed in the presence of the ground / earth. The same word is found in <em><a href='B:10 8:21'>Gen 8:21</a></em> "I will not again <em>curse</em> the ground". If our concern for this world is genuine, if our preaching is not just seeking to gain members, or prove ourselves right and others wrong, then we will grieve for this world; even though the exclusion of some from Gods salvation is in some way their fault. Those who reject our message we will grieve and bleed for; not just shrug our shoulders over. Lack of response should concern us, worry us, <em>drive us</em> to think of how we could be the more persuasive of men.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The dove came back to him at evening, and, behold, in her mouth was an olive leaf plucked off. So Noah knew that the waters were abated from the earth</em>- Noah was a "herald of righteousness" (<em><a href='B:680 2:5'>2Pe 2:5</a></em> Gk.). In the ancient world, heralds were associated with an olive branch or wand, e.g. Mercury the herald-god had an olive branch in his hand. Noah may therefore have understood from this that now he was indeed the herald of the new age of righteousness. But a herald worked to take messages between opposing parties and to reconcile them- the olive branch was thought to have power over warring snakes. Perhaps Noah was being reminded that his work wasn't over- it was for him to go forth from the ark and reconcile people to God. Instead he got drunk... </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel being the land of olives (<em><a href='B:50 8:8'>Deu 8:8</a></em>), this would be another indication that the flood was a local affair over the ‘land’ promised to Abraham. As olive trees don’t grow near the present Ararat in Armenia, this lends support to the Jewish tradition that the olive came from the mount of Olives, and the ‘ararat’ / ‘holy mount’ upon which the ark landed was Mount Zion.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Leaf" is also translated branch. A broken off olive branch is exactly the figure Paul uses to describe Israel in <em><a href='B:520 11:17-24'>Rom 11:17-24</a></em>. The whole story is a very detailed prefigurement of Israel’s return from Gentile dispersion and Divine judgment, not simply to God, but into the Christ ark. <em><a href='B:290 54:9'>Isa 54:9</a></em> encourages us to see things this way too, for the waters of the flood are there interpreted as God’s wrath with Israel, and their cessation speaks of His eternal acceptance of them at their return to Him.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Bring out with you every living thing that is with you of all flesh, including birds, livestock, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply on the earth- "</em>Bring out with you" is you singular. Again, Noah is seen as the Saviour, with all the others saved due to being with him. We can in a sense save others by our witness, even though the Lord is their Saviour in the ultimate sense.</p>


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh smelled the pleasant aroma- </em>Or "sweet savour". 'Sweet' translates <em>nychoah</em>, related to the word 'Noah'. Noah was his sacrifice. Our lives are sacrifices being offered up. Just as the Lord Jesus was an offering of a sweet-smelling savour (<em><a href='B:560 5:2'>Eph 5:2</a></em>). Noah was his sacrifice, as we are ours. We each have our unique smell to God. Again and again, Moses sought to refocus his people on the practical, the literal, the concrete, and away from the myths which surrounded them. And yet he does this by alluding to those myths, so as to alert Israel to the fact that the new, inspired record which he was writing was fully aware of the myths God's people were being assailed with. This would explain the similarity of expressions between some of the myths and the Genesis record- e.g. "The Lord smelled the pleasing odour" (<em><a href='B:10 8:21'>Gen 8:21</a></em>) is very similar to the Gilgamesh Epic, 9:159-160: "The gods smelled the odour, the sweet odour". The Biblical record is one of hard human reality, undiluted with the fantastic or mythical: "The central figures of the Bible saga are not, as in so many hero-tales, merged in or amalgamated with persons belonging to mere mythology; the data regarding their lives have not been interwoven with stories of the gods. Here all the glorification is dedicated solely to the God who brings about the events. The human being... is portrayed in all his untransfigured humanity" (Martin Buber, <em>Moses</em> (Oxford: Phaidon Press, 1947) p. 17). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said in His heart</em>- We may never know in this life God’s feelings in response to our sacrifices. We can touch the heart of God, we tiny mortals on earth… And God's word opens up to us the very inner thoughts of God Himself.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake, because the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I ever again strike everything living, as I have done- </em>see on <em><a href='B:10 8:10'>Gen 8:10</a></em>. <em>"</em>Not again curse" is alluded to in <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:21:1'>Rev 21:1</a></em>, there will be no more curse in God’s Kingdom. It seems Noah had the potential to enable the Kingdom there and then, as did so many- Solomon, the Jews returning from exile, Israel in the first century. Every time, human weakness and shortsightedness stopped it.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God saw that "the imagination of man's heart" was evil from his youth; not from his birth, showing that God is referring to the specific attitude of those times rather than to man's innate sinfulness. The implication is that God was especially saddened at the evil thinking of a reprobate, corrupted youth. And how much more today? God as it were reduced His expectations, cut us yet more slack, made even bigger concessions to humanity.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The essential struggle of God is brought out by the account of God’s ‘repenting’ that He had cursed the earth. According to one translation, <em><a href='B:10 8:21'>Gen 8:21</a></em> can read: “I will never again declare the earth to be cursed (as I have done hitherto) on account of humanity, because the imagination of the heart is evil from one’s youth”. The reference to cursing the earth surely alludes back to the curse of <em><a href='B:10 3:17'>Gen 3:17</a></em>. Could it be that God is saying that He ‘repented’ not only of the flood, but of the cursing of the earth in response to Adam’s sin? The final outworking of that repenting of course was through the work of the Lord Jesus, and the ultimate enablement of Paradise restored on this earth. It’s as if God is as it were coming to terms with the evilness of man; although He perceives that man is bent on sinning from his youth, by grace, He promises never to destroy mankind. In wrath, He remembered mercy. God has emotion and it’s hard to read this any other way than that He regretted how far He had punished humanity. This tension within God, between being immutable and yet being emotional, is impossible to ultimately explain.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>8:22 <em>While the earth remains, seed time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease</em>- The reference to the seasons, planting etc. suggest this is relevant to the earth / land of Israel and not world-wide (there is no Summer and Winter on the equator). There are six different seasons mentioned here. This would indicate a different climate at the time- although some cultures such as the Copts likewise split the year into six seasons rather than the four seasons common today in European countries.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, Be fruitful</em>- Remember that Noah had only produced three children in 600 years, and his sons had not had any children. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And multiply</em>- Clearly we are being invited to see this as a new creation, with the implication that they were to obey where Adam failed. The "earth" they were to multiply in was the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham, and so in chapter 10 we have a list of the nations within that area- as evidence of obedience to this commandment.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And replenish the earth</em>- This is the same word as in <em><a href='B:10 6:11'>Gen 6:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 6:13'>Gen 6:13</a></em>, where the earth was “filled” with violence. Is the implication that Noah’s family were to fill the world with righteousness in place of the evil that had filled it? In this case, the subsequent failure of the family with sexuality and alcohol is a sad response to such a fine calling.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Note the similarities with Adam in Eden- replenish the earth (9:1 = <em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>); have dominion over animals (9:2 = <em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>); commanded what to eat (9:3 = <em><a href='B:10 1:29'>Gen 1:29</a></em>); prohibition of some things which they were not to eat (9:4 = <em><a href='B:10 2:16-17'>Gen 2:16-17</a></em>). Adam's sin, resulting in cursing, is matched by Noah's sin and the pronouncing of cursings. Yet again, the great potential for the Kingdom of God was spoilt by human weakness. </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Every moving thing that lives will be food for you</em>- There was no distinction between clean and unclean animals, which could be eaten and which couldn’t. There are therefore no animals unclean of themselves; the Mosaic laws concerning them were therefore only to teach an object lesson, rather than being a reflection upon any intrinsic uncleanness of any specific animals.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>As the green herb, I have given everything to you</em>- This would imply that Noah's family didn't eat animals but only "the green herb" before the flood. The concept of clean and unclean animals which was known to them therefore referred only to sacrifice and not to diet.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But flesh with its life, its blood, you shall not eat</em>- Much meat could never have totally been made free of blood. Here therefore we have an example of where a commandment was given, but 'best effort' was looked for rather than complete technical obedience. Likewise the stipulation that only unblemished animals be offered; for most animals have some blemish if scrutinized closely. But as noted on :5, the "flesh" in view may specifically refer to human flesh.</p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whoever sheds man’s blood, his blood will be shed by man</em>- This is not a command to shed the blood of murderers. The Lord seems to allude to it when commenting that he who takes the sword shall perish with the sword (<em><a href='B:470 26:52'>Mat 26:52</a></em>). It appears to be more of a warning, an observation as to what happens to those who shed blood, even if they consider they are doing it in justified vengeance for the shedding of blood. We must give full weight to the incident in 2 Samuel 14, where we learn that there is a higher principle than revenging blood- that of grace and forgiveness. God now continues to explain why man's blood shouldn't be shed- because we are made in God's image. That reasoning is such that any shedding of blood, even in vengeance, ought to be avoided. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For God made man in His own image</em>- As <em><a href='B:660 3:9'>Jas 3:9</a></em>; the fact humans are made in God's image means we should perceive the value and meaning of persons, from not killing to holding the door open for people... Defacing God’s image earns death. In what ways can we destroy the image of God in others apart from by killing them? Any form of dehumanizing surely does the same. Because we are made in God's image, we should therefore not <em>kill</em> other humans (<em><a href='B:10 9:6'>Gen 9:6</a></em>). James says the same, in essence, in teaching that because we are in God's image, we shouldn't<em> curse </em>others. To curse a man is to kill him. That's the point of James' allusion to Genesis and to God as creator. Quite simply, respect for the person of others is inculcated by sustained reflection on the way that they too are created in God's image.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The command not to murder has its basis in the fact that human life is not for us to use as we will (<em><a href='B:20 20:13'>Exo 20:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 17:11'>Lev 17:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 9:6'>Gen 9:6</a></em>). It is God's life within those other people around us. Others, therefore, are not for us to use as we will. Gentleness and sensitivity to the life of others, in family life, the workplace, on the road... is therefore an outcome of our belief that the 'other' person likewise has been created by God and has life from Him. To drive in an unkind way, to act in a thoughtless way to others’ detriment, is therefore the same basic error as taking human life in murder. </p>


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And with every living creature that is with you: the birds, the livestock, and every animal of the earth with you, of all that go out of the ship, even every animal of the earth</em>- God is in covenant relationship with the animals. But such a covenant was obviously unilateral. Perhaps the information about the animals was added in order to underline how God's covenant with man was likewise unilateral; it was what God wanted to do for man, rather than a demand from man. This is grace. And although we have no contractural duty to respond, yet we do respond; we cannot be passive to such grace; see on :9.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Those within the ark represented those saved in Christ. It's difficult to work out the difference in symbology between the animals, and Noah and his family. But the animals also were finally included in the new covenant made after the ark had performed its saving purpose. So we are led to speculate that there is a class of people other than those secured "in Christ" who will somehow be finally saved, having been preserved from the latter day judgments which the flood waters represent. This same teaching is found in the way that the blood of the Passover lamb seems to have secured the salvation of the firstborn of both Israel and the animals who were brought (by others) within the blood covered houses (<em><a href='B:20 11:8'>Exo 11:8</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will establish My covenant with you: all flesh will not be cut off any more by the waters of the flood, neither will there ever again be a flood to destroy the earth</em>- "Ever again" or "any more" (AV) 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'. 2 Peter 3 alludes to the flood, but says that the agent that will be used to destroy the <em>eretz </em>or land of the last days will be fire. A similar level of destruction is coming, but by fire and not water.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations</em>- Covenants of those days had a token or material symbol associated with them. But they also featured requirements from both sides; as noted on :9, God's grace is such that the covenant He now made was simply a requirment on His side. The covenant was with the animals too- and clearly that too was a one-sided agreement. The token of the new covenant would be the blood of God's Son, just as the blood of the lamb was a "token" (<em><a href='B:20 12:13'>Exo 12:13</a></em>), perhaps memorialized in the communion bread and wine, just as circumcision was the token of the covenant with Abraham (<em><a href='B:10 17:11'>Gen 17:11</a></em> s.w.).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I set my rainbow in the cloud, and it will be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth</em>- The sign of the rainbow is described as God hanging up ('setting') His bow. To hang up your bow was an idiom for ceasing from conflict (<em><a href='B:420 3:9-11'>Hab 3:9-11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 7:13'>Psa 7:13</a></em>). It was as if Yahweh the warrior was laying aside His bow, ending His conflict with mankind. The contemporary flood myths articulate all this in terms of there being a dispute amongst the gods; some wanted to destroy mankind, others wanted to show mercy; some regretted the earlier judgments against mankind, others didn’t; some wanted to assure mankind that he wouldn’t be destroyed; others argued that he must face the consequences of his sin. Here the Biblical record is so amazingly different. All these emotions are portrayed as occuring within the one and only God. As humanly incomprehensible as it is, that an all powerful, all knowing Being could have such conflicting emotions, this is without doubt the God whom the Bible reveals to us. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Babylonian Epic Of Creation (6:82) claims that after Marduk's victory, he set his bow in the sky and it became a constellation. He also supposedly used his bow to shoot arrows at the clouds which caused the deluge. "So, too, the pagan Arabs related of one of their gods that after discharging arrows from his bow, he set his bow in the cloud". These myths are alluded to and corrected by the statement that God's bow is simply the rainbow, a purely natural phenomenon which is merely an optical feature and certainly not a literal bow of any god. Yahweh's bow, the rainbow, is a symbol of His grace and love towards His creatures. The later Old Testament repeatedly uses the idea of the true God shooting His arrows as a figure of His judgment of His enemies and salvation of His people (<em><a href='B:420 3:9'>Hab 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:420 3:11'>Hab 3:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 9:14'>Zec 9:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 38:2'>Psa 38:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 64:8'>Psa 64:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 77:17'>Psa 77:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 144:6'>Psa 144:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 6:4'>Job 6:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:310 2:4'>Lam 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:310 3:12'>Lam 3:12</a></em>). The whole mythical, pagan idea of a god having a literal bow and arrows is thereby deconstructed. The question arises, however, as to why Moses is alluding to Babylonian myths which were current only centuries after his time. My response is threefold. Firstly, God could have inspired Moses to speak in terms which would later take on relevance to the myths which God foresaw would arise. Secondly, the Babylonian myths may well have developed from myths which were current in Moses' time. A third possibility is that the Pentateuch was re-written under Divine inspiration whilst Judah were in captivity in Babylon, and the historical accounts presented in such a way as to have relevance to the Marduk worship and other Babylonian mythology which surrounded God's people in Babylonian captivity.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Rainbows being experienced worldwide doesn't mean that the flood was therefore global. Moses under inspiration wrote for the Israelites, to enable them to make sense of their world, and he explained to them that they were to understand that the world wouldn't be destroyed by water again. However 2 Peter 3 seems to say that the heavens and earth of Peter's time would be destroyed not by water but by fire, after the pattern of what God did at Noah's time. This passage has some relevance to AD70- which was a destruction of the Jewish system in the land of Israel, not worldwide. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There's another way to read <em><a href='B:10 9:13-17'>Gen 9:13-17</a></em> which I offer not in any dogmatism but for reflection. It may not mean that God intends us to look at rainbows and remember His covenant; it may be that God sealed the covenant He made at that time by bringing a cloud over the earth and displaying in it a bow or arrow (the Heb. translated "bow" also means an arrow and is thus translated in places). God set or "hung up" (the Hebrew is translated that way elsewhere) His bow- as if to say, 'My bow and arrows are now hung up. I'm through with judgment by this flood. It's over. I've hung up My bow / arrows'. YHWH shooting arrows is a figure for His judgment in later Scripture. So it's a bit of an assumption that God's talking about rainbows here. A Divine covenant was typically sealed by a one-time token, e.g. His covenant with Abraham by the token of passing between the animal pieces. The token of a covenant was therefore a one-time act, not something like rainbows which are ongoing. The covenant was between God and Noah and also all animal flesh on the earth at that time. The token of that covenant was therefore relevant to Noah not humanity generally. So it would make sense if there was some theophany to Noah involving awesome clouds and a special display of God's now hung up bow / arrow over it. God set His bow in that cloud, the record states. But rainbows don't exist at any location in the clouds; they are an optical phenomenon in the eye of the observer. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God did this so as to "remember" His covenant; but "remember" carries the idea of God marking it, this is what He did to mark the covenant He had just made as a one time demonstration to Noah. Surely it can't mean that whenever God sends rain, He sees the rainbow and remembers in the sense of "Ah yes, now I remember, I'm not supposed to use rain to kill people". People still die by flooding today and I guess some of them drown within sight of rainbows... and the survivors likely watch rainbows as they mourn their dead. The literalistic readings of the rainbow seem to create more questions than they solve. They also depend upon the assumption that there were no rainbows before the flood, and this was a special creation; but rainbows are observed in mist (e.g. over waterfalls or wave spray) as well as rain clouds so I somewhat doubt there were no rainbows seen before the flood. It's also an assumption that there was no rain before the flood- <em><a href='B:10 2:5'>Gen 2:5</a></em> simply states that before the creation of Adam there was no rain, possibly implying that the created plants didn't grow until Adam was created to tend them.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It will happen, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow will be seen in the cloud</em>- The Hebrew doesn't have to mean 'whenever'. As suggested on :13, this could have been a one time event. Perhaps it was some foreshadowing of the bringing of a cloud at the crucifixion? </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea of the rainbow being a ‘reminder’ to God not to destroy the earth again with a flood is rather hard to understand when applied to God. But if this is a reminder to the Angels, who brought the flood in the first place, this makes more sense (<em><a href='B:10 9:16'>Gen 9:16</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh, and the waters will no more become a flood to destroy all flesh- </em>"To destroy" is Heb. 'to cut off'. Having crossed the Red Sea, God sealed His covenant with Israel at Sinai. After emerging from the ark, God made a covenant with Noah. And circumcision was the entry point of covenant relationship with God. The record of these Old Testament occurrences also brings out the converse- what happened to all those who were not in covenant with God, who had not received the typical 'baptism'. The unbaptized Egyptians were "cut off"" (<em><a href='B:20 9:15'>Exo 9:15</a></em>); "all flesh" that was not baptized into the Christ-ark was "cut off" (<em><a href='B:10 9:15'>Gen 9:15</a></em> AV). "The uncircumcised man child... that soul shall be cut off" (<em><a href='B:10 17:14'>Gen 17:14</a></em>). The New Testament matches this by the oft repeated teaching that outside of Christ, there can be no salvation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The rainbow will be in the cloud. I will look at it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth</em>- The rainbow is to remind men of the essential salvation and patience of God. And yet He describes it as reminding<em> Him</em> of His promise of salvation- as if He might forget. This is the kind of language of limitation which is so common in the Bible. It could be explicable by referring it to Angels; or it could be that God presents Himself in human terms, without strict attention to who He actually is. For by nature He does not "forget" or need reminding. This would mean that those who may misunderstand God in some theological areas can still have a legitimate relationship with Him; just as God presented Himself here as 'needing a reminder'.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God set the rainbow in the sky so that when <em>He </em>looks upon it, He will remember His covenant with Noah. The pronouns seem wrong; we would expect to read that the rainbow is so that when<em> Noah</em> looked upon it, he would remember... but no. God condescends to man to such an extent that He invites Noah to understand that when <em>he</em> remembered the covenant with Him, God does likewise. &nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said to Noah, This is the token of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth</em>- I have suggested above that the bow was displayed at just one time, or just in the experience of Noah and his sons, as a token of the covenant God had made with them. The covenant was between God and "all flesh that is on the earth / <em>eretz</em>", at that time. God is not in covenant relationship with literally all people upon the planet. This leads us to again conclude that the idea is not that whenever rainbows appear anywhere on earth, this is a reminder that God is in covenant relationship with all people on earth. Rather was the bow (which may not have been a rainbow as we now understand them) revealed in some kind of special theophany to assure Noah and his family that there would never again be a flood.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Noah who went out from the ship were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham is the father of Canaan</em>- This may be in order to emphasize that Canaan was born after the exit from the ark; and therefore the incident involving him and Noah's drunkenness would have occurred quite some years afterwards.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These three were the sons of Noah, and from these, the whole earth was populated</em>- This makes more sense when understood as referring to the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham. Genesis 10 provides the details; all the listed descendants of Noah refer to peoples dwelling within the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Noah began to be a farmer, and planted a vineyard</em>- It could be argued that <em><a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a></em> was commanding Noah to cease being a crop farmer and instead dominate and eat animals. One disobedience, or taking of a lower spiritual level, often leads to greater temptation in other areas. And this is what happened with Noah. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Gilgamesh Epic specifically records that Utnapistim gave the workmen wine to drink whilst they built the ark (Tablet 9, lines 72-73). The Biblical account appears to consciously contradict this by stating that Noah was the first to make wine- and he did this <em>after</em> the flood. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He drank of the wine and got drunk. He was uncovered within his tent</em>- See on <em><a href='B:10 8:10'>Gen 8:10</a></em>. There's a juxtaposition here between God's wonderful covenant being followed by Noah getting drunk in response to it. Despite having been given a wonderful, one sided covenant of Divine grace. We too find it hard to cope with the huge import of God’s grace. It’s not something we merely accept with a smile, thinking “Oh how sweet”. The enormity of it is riveting and very demanding. And Noah couldn’t handle it. Surely Noah knew all about alcohol, for his generation were partying right up until the flood came. If they had developed iron smelting technology by Genesis 5, they surely knew about alcohol. It is stressed that only Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives entered and left the ark. By the time Noah gets drunk, Canaan had been born to Ham and was at least a young adult. So we cannot think that Noah got drunk from ignorance as to the effect of wine, nor that it happened immediately after leaving the ark. Noah maybe had weaknesses which aren't recorded in the record of his earlier life. Peter reasons that God saved Noah by the flood (<em><a href='B:670 3:20-21'>1Pe 3:20-21</a></em>); God saved Lot by destroying Sodom and Noah by destroying his surrounding world, because He knows how to deliver the godly from temptations (<em><a href='B:680 2:5-9'>2Pe 2:5-9</a></em>). It could be that had God not done this, they too would've been caught up in the evil around them, so powerful was it. Hence <em><a href='B:290 54:9'>Isa 54:9</a></em> speaks of the flood as "the waters of Noah". It was Noah's flood, the flood required for him, as well as to judge the world. HE was saved by grace rather than his good works (<em><a href='B:10 6:8'>Gen 6:8</a></em>). The Mesopotamian myths speak of how the hero of the flood (cp. Noah in the Biblical account) was raised to divine, immortal status. <em><a href='B:10 9:29'>Gen 9:29</a></em> comments simply upon Noah: "And he died". In the myth of Utnapishtim, the one who survives the flood &nbsp;is turned into a hero and becomes a god. But of course Moses’ inspired record is different. The flood story ends with Noah dying- not becoming a god. And Noah not only remains human, but he remains <em>very</em> human- because he goes out and gets blind drunk after he comes out of the ark. Moses’ point is surely to show that real human lives really do intersect with Almighty God’s work, words and actions. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside-</em> The sin of Ham in relation to Noah's drunkenness included the fact that he told his brothers about Noah's shame (<em><a href='B:10 9:22'>Gen 9:22</a></em>). This incident seems to be alluded to by Paul when he says that it is a shame to speak of what sinners do in secret (<em><a href='B:560 5:12'>Eph 5:12</a></em>). A large amount of the communication which would be called 'gossip' includes the communication of sinful things which would be better not entering the minds of saints in any case- one tends to gossip about a neighbour's adultery rather than his lost cat. The sin of Ham is presented as telling his brothers about their father's sin. The word "outside" gives the impression of seeing something in privacy, and then going outside and telling it to others.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it on both their shoulders, went in backwards, and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were backwards, and they didn’t see their father’s nakedness- </em>"Covered" is a related word to the ‘covering’ of the ark (<em><a href='B:10 8:13'>Gen 8:13</a></em>). As they had been covered by God and thus saved, so they sought to cover the sin of another. Our experience of covering in Christ should be similar, not gossiping of others’ sin but seeking to cover it (s.w. <em><a href='B:240 17:9'>Pro 17:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 10:12'>Pro 10:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 11:13'>Pro 11:13</a></em>). There is a direct allusion to this incident in <em><a href='B:240 12:16'>Pro 12:16</a></em>: “A prudent man covers (s.w.) shame”. What they did to Noah is what we should do in response to our covering / atonement in Christ. Covering others’ sin isn’t the same as turning a blind eye to it; it involves conscious forgiveness, but then the covering of it in the sense that God also covers sin and doesn’t mention it against us ever again.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Their faces were backward" uses the same word as in <em><a href='B:20 33:23'>Exo 33:23</a></em>, where God hides His face from Moses and only His "back" is seen. The verbal similarities between the two incidents are pointed. Perhaps Moses in recording this incident is suggesting that he felt like drunken Noah, and God showed the same grace to him as Noah's sons showed to their drunken father by not looking upon his sin and nakedness. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his youngest son had done to him</em>- There is a clear similarity with Lot, who got so blind drunk that he didn't realize what was happening whilst his daughters had sexually abused him. And yet Lot, like Noah, is still presented as "righteous" overall. The similarities may suggest that there was some kind of sexual abuse of Noah by his grandson Canaan. To uncover or 'see (a relative's) nakedness' is an idiom used for sexual relations throughout Leviticus 18. The fact Ham and Japheth <em>covered</em> his nakedness may mean that they did <em>not</em> 'uncover his nakedness' in the sense the idiom is used in Leviticus 18; they didn't participate.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, Canaan is cursed</em>- As suggested on :24, this could be because Canaan had sexually abused him. But another approach is possible. Noah thrice rails against Canaan (:26,27). Why, seeing that the shame had been done to him by Ham, Canaan's father? This seems a classic example of transference- people often focus their anger not against the one who has hurt them, but against that person's relative, family or cause. We should deal with persons directly, perceiving the value and meaning of the human person; and not deflect the relationship onto others as Noah appears to have done. The curses placed by Noah have no fulfilment (contrary to many racist and misguided attempts to force such a fulfilment). The story ends with a huge spiritual anticlimax, although later reference to Noah shows that he was judged faithful overall. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He will be servant of servants to his brothers</em>- If this is addressed to Canaan, then we can assume that Ham had had other children by this stage, placing the incident some time after the exit from the ark. But as noted above, Noah appears to be talking to Ham, when he is referring to Canaan; he was making the son guilty for the father's sin, and vice versa.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, Blessed be Yahweh, the God of Shem. Let Canaan be his servant</em>- According to :25, Canaan was to be the servant of his brothers. But here he is to be servant to Shem. Again we see a confusion between Ham and his son Canaan. It could simply be because Noah was drunk and confused when he uttered these words; or he could be practicing some kind of guilt by association, making the son suffer for the father's sins, or vice versa. The Hebrew could mean 'May Shem be blessed by Yahweh, his God'. We wonder why Shem is singled out for the highest and first blessing; for Japheth is to be enlarged, but to still dwell in the tents of Shem (:27). Perhaps Noah was elevating Shem to the status of firstborn which Ham had previously enjoyed. Or maybe Shem did some specific act of kindness in trying to shield Noah's shame.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>May God enlarge Japheth. Let him dwell in the tents of Shem. Let Canaan be his servant</em>- "Japheth" means 'enlarged', so there is a play on words here. Noah wishes that Japheth experiences what his name meant. But he is still to dwell in the tents of Shem, who was to be blessed above all. To 'dwell in the tent' of someone meant to be subservient to them (<em><a href='B:230 120:5'>Psa 120:5</a></em>). So clearly Noah is establishing a hierarchy here amongst his sons. There is nothing in the record which suggests that Shem did more than Japheth for Noah. But he is given a great blessing here; and again, Canaan was to be servant to Japheth as well as to Shem. The descendants of Japheth and Shem are listed in chapter 10, and there is no particular evidence that these blessings and cursings were actually fulfilled. They were uttered as Noah awoke from his drunken stupour. Likewise not all the blessings uttered by Jacob came particularly true for all his sons. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Noah lived three hundred fifty years after the flood</em>- This meant he died just around the time Abraham was born. We are invited to see an unbroken line of the faithful continuing.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years, then he died</em>- The Mesopotamian myths speak of how the hero of the flood (cp. Noah in the Biblical account) was raised to divine, immortal status. <em><a href='B:10 9:29'>Gen 9:29</a></em> comments simply upon Noah: "And he died".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now this is the history of the generations of the sons of Noah and of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Sons were born to them after the flood</em>- Thoughtful readers of Genesis must have wondered at the rubric "Now these are the generations of...". This phrase, the <em>toledoth </em>(Hebrew for "generations") formula, is used to introduce both genealogies and also narratives. Why not say "Now this is the story / account / history of Joseph"? Why describe a narrative as a genealogy? Why preface genealogies and narrative histories as if they are one and the same? I suggest that the inspired writer of the Bible's opening book wished to establish the point that history gives birth to the future, history is pregnant, and not dry, dead and finished. And God's history especially demonstrates that the "generations" somehow repeat themselves over history, in that situations and character types recur over time in a Divinely planned manner.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It has been observed that in none of the flood myths is there anything like the table of nations of Genesis 10, which seeks to explain how the area affected by the flood was subsequently repopulated. However, the 70 peoples mentioned in Genesis 10 are clearly meant to be understood as representative of the wholeness of peoples. The point is being made that all tribal groups have one common origin, either in Adam or in one of Noah’s sons. Remember that Moses was writing against a background of tribalism, where groups were persuaded that their group alone was the master race, and all foreigners were to be despised. The value of persons inspired by the Genesis record rose far above this petty tribalism. And for all our apparent sophistication, it’s evident that our world is just as much full of tribalism as it ever was. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The surrounding myths all emphasize how depleted humanity after the flood started to re-grow in size by miraculous means- the Atrahasis Epic claims that magic incantations of the god Ea over 14 lumps of clay gave birth to many new humans after the flood; the Greek flood tradition asserts that Deucalion threw stones which turned into men. The Biblical record states simply and realistically how the population re-grew through natural procreation.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Genesis 10 lists 70 nations- see on <em><a href='B:20 24:9-11'>Exo 24:9-11</a></em>. Luke records that the Lord sent out 72 preachers (<em><a href='B:490 10:1'>Luk 10:1</a></em>). The Jews understood that there were 72 nations in the world, based on the LXX of Genesis 10. Surely Luke’s point is that they went only to the Jews, thus highlighting the gap between the disciples’ understanding at the time, and the Lord’s further reaching intention of a mission to the Gentiles.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>After the flood, we come to the record of Babel. This is prefaced by some genealogies. The record speaks as if Shem, Ham and Japheth were the only people living on ‘earth’. Once we take this to mean ‘the land’, things are much easier. These three men were ancestors of the Middle Eastern races (as provable within the pages of the Bible itself), but not of any others. The idea that the black peoples descended from Ham / Canaan and were to be servants is sadly a 19th century piece of racism, that has far too much acceptance in our community. The tension between the children of&nbsp; Shem and Canaan has been worked out between the Jews and Canaanites, not white and black. The Canaanites which we read of in the Bible as dwelling in the land were quite simply the descendants of Canaan / Ham. Interestingly, we read of men like Magog, Gomer, Meshech, Tarshish, Asshur, Elam, Aram… all of which occur in prophecies like Ezekiel 38, as the latter day enemies of Israel. The origin of these peoples is not in Eurasia; they are the ‘people of the land’, the neighbours and relatives of Israel. The peoples of the land spoke one language in the sense that they all had the same intentions- to build a tower, and live together in one place, in Babylon / Babel. Previously we have been informed that the sons of Noah were divided “in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families” (<em><a href='B:10 10:5'>Gen 10:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 10:31'>Gen 10:31</a></em>). So when in chapter 11 we are told that they had “one language” this must refer to their unity of intent rather than them all using the same lexical items. They were scattered from Babylon / Babel into all parts of the land (i.e. that promised to Abraham). The descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth weren’t literally scattered into the whole planet. If the flood was local, then there would have been plenty of other people alive in other parts of the planet. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras</em>- These and other names here occur in the list of nations in Ezekiel 38 who will invade Israel in the latter days, and we see that they are therefore all within the territory of the<em> eretz</em> promised to Abraham. And that is precisely the situation we see developing there today. The idea that "Japheth" refers to western Europe is mere fancy; the context here clearly explains that these are the nations living in the <em>eretz</em>. "Madai" refers to the Medes. "Tiras" is Tyre; and clearly Meshech refers to an area within the <em>eretz</em> and not to Moscow; and likewise with Tubal.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that out of Noah's three sons, fewest descendants are listed for Japheth. And there is no suggestion in this genealogy that they lived "in the tents of Shem", as Noah had predicted in his half drunken cursing of Ham and blessing of Japheth. This would suggest that his cursings were just that, the cursings of a man awaking with a hangover... and are not to be taken as actual prophecies of the future relationships between the sons.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah</em>- Ashkenaz was one of the nations which overthrew Babylon (<em><a href='B:300 51:27'>Jer 51:27</a></em>). Again, we're dealing with a people within the <em>eretz</em> and not outside of it. I would argue that the Bible has very little to specifically say about the peoples beyond the <em>eretz</em>. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim</em>- Tarshish is a relative of Togarmah (:3), Meshech and Tubal (:2). This confirms my suggestion on Ezekiel 38 that Tarshish is with the other invaders and not against them. Tarshish may be another name for Tyre. The Tel Amarna tablets mention some of these names as peoples in the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of these were the islands of the nations divided in their lands, everyone after his language, after their families, in their nations</em>- The same idea of nations, languages and families is found in <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:5:9'>Rev 5:9</a></em> and <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:7:9'>Rev 7:9</a></em>; the converts from them may refer therefore to latter day converts made within the <em>eretz</em> from all the nations and families found there. "The islands" is an idiom and not to be taken literally. Some interpret it as meaning a people who could be reached by sea, or "coastlands". But not all the nations listed inhabited coastlands, and so I don't find this satisfactory. "Islands" is literally "spots", we might better understand it as meaning simply "locations". The same Hebrew word is translated "country" in&nbsp; <em><a href='B:300 47:4'>Jer 47:4</a></em>, and is parallel with "places" in <em><a href='B:430 2:11'>Zep 2:11</a></em>. <em><a href='B:290 11:11'>Isa 11:11</a></em> lists a number of nations and summarizes them as being "the isles". And <em><a href='B:290 20:6'>Isa 20:6</a></em> apparently speaks of the inhabitants of Jerusalem as "the inhabitants of this isle", meaning 'this place'. "The isles" are "the ends of the land", the areas on the borders of the <em>eretz</em>, in <em><a href='B:290 41:5'>Isa 41:5</a></em>. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It's possible that :5 refers to all the descendants of Noah; that they were the sole origin of the nations in the <em>eretz</em>. But it could also be that :5 refers specifically to how Japheth was indeed "enlarged" and spread abroad as defined here.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Ham: Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan</em>- The Canaanites were therefore under Noah's curse to be subservient to Shem. But as discussed on Genesis 9, it's hard to know whether to take Noah's cursings as any more than the cursings of a man awaking from a drunken stupor. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Pan-Arabism will in the end come to its full term (however short-lived), in the final invasion of Israel. The Hebrew word translated “Libya” is also translated “Phut” or “Put”, which was another name for Libya in Bible times. “Mizraim” likewise is the Biblical name for Egypt. Significantly, Phut, Mizraim and Canaan were brothers (<em><a href='B:10 10:6'>Gen 10:6</a></em>). There is therefore a strong and valid idea of Arab brotherhood between the Palestinian Arabs (i.e. the Arabs living in Canaan or the land of Israel) and the Arabs of Libya, Egypt and the other countries in the surrounding Arab world. The Babylonian invasion of Judah was a type of the invasion of Israel by latter day ‘Babylon’, which will bring on the return of Christ. But this invasion (as at the time of the Assyrian invasion of Israel) was really by a confederacy of nations- including the Ethiopians, Lydians, Egyptians and Libyans (<em><a href='B:300 46:8-9'>Jer 46:8-9</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:410 3:9'>Nah 3:9</a></em>). And history will repeat itself- in that these nations along with Babylon will invade Israel in the last days. But where history shall stop, the red line of human time come to a terminus, will be in the simple fact that this time, the Lord Jesus shall return to earth to establish God’s Kingdom here. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabteca. The sons of Raamah: Sheba and Dedan</em>- Sheba and Dedan are found in Ezekiel 38 as amongst the enemies of Israel in the last days; see on <em><a href='B:330 38:13'>Eze 38:13</a></em>. The impression is given that all the nations surrounding Israel in the <em>eretz</em>, descendants of all three sons of Noah, will invade her in the last days.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Cush became the father of Nimrod. He began to be a mighty one in the land</em>- Nimrod founded Babel or Babylon (:10). The "top" or<em> rosh</em> of the Babel tower was to reach to heaven; as in <em><a href='B:330 38:2'>Eze 38:2</a></em>, the <em>rosh</em> refers to a person who was being elevated, and we assume this person was Nimrod. Ham and his descendants were not therefore black Africans, as proposed by 19th century racist theologians. The connection is clearly with the "mighty ones" of <em><a href='B:10 6:4'>Gen 6:4</a></em>, for whose sake the earth was destroyed by the flood. Again, the potential for restoring Eden was messed up by human dysfunction. The term is used of the 'mighty ones' of Canaan who were to be subdued (<em><a href='B:60 6:2'>Jos 6:2</a></em>; Jdg . 5:13,23). Israel in the wilderness listening to Moses' teaching would have learnt that there had been 'mighty ones in the land', the very land they were now approaching, who likewise would ultimately come to nothing.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He was a mighty hunter before Yahweh. Therefore it is said, Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before Yahweh</em>- Nimrod "the mighty hunter against the Lord" (Heb.) uses a word related to 'Gibbor', the title of Christ used in <em><a href='B:290 9:6'>Isa 9:6</a></em>.&nbsp;Nimrod appears to be a prototype anti-God and anti-Christ, and for this he was well known even then.&nbsp; <em><a href='B:10 10:10-11'>Gen 10:10-11</a></em> shows his characteristic of building cities in the Babylon/Assyria area.&nbsp;Seeing that "the beginning of his kingdom was Babel" (<em><a href='B:10 10:10'>Gen 10:10</a></em>), it is not unreasonable to assume that when "a man said to his neighbour, Go to, let us make brick" to build the tower of Babel, this is in fact referring to Nimrod (<em><a href='B:10 11:3'>Gen 11:3</a></em> A.V. mg.).&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar- </em>Nimrod was therefore the instigator of the Babel building we read of in chapter 11. Perhaps the allusion is to how God created "in the beginning" (s.w.), as if Nimrod tried to make a new creation of his own device. We can therefore assume that idea of Babel, of building a ziggurat to reach heaven, began with Nimrod. In Isaiah 14, another king of Babylon says the same: "Thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:&nbsp; I will sit also in the mount of the congregation (i.e. the temple mount), in the sides of the north (Jerusalem, <em><a href='B:230 48:2'>Psa 48:2</a></em>)... yet thou shalt be brought down... that (his children) do not possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities" (<em><a href='B:290 14:13-15'>Isa 14:13-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 14:21'>Isa 14:21</a></em>).&nbsp;This last phrase is definitely alluding to the record of Nimrod's city building program as detailed in <em><a href='B:10 10:9-11'>Gen 10:9-11</a></em>. This "king of Babylon" of Isaiah 14 can refer with equal relevance to either Nebuchadnezzar or Sennacherib,, both of whose invasions of Israel are typical of that which is to occur in the last days.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again we note that all these places were within the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham (e.g. Calneh is a place in Assyria, see <em><a href='B:290 10:9'>Isa 10:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 6:2'>Amo 6:2</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Out of that land he went into Assyria, and built Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, Calah</em>- The going out of the land of Shinar (:10) presumably refers to how Nimrod's intention to build Babel was thwarted, and from there he went away from the area (he was scattered away from it, <em><a href='B:10 11:8'>Gen 11:8</a></em>) and built Nineveh, as a kind of replacement Babel. The AV reads "Out of that land went forth Asshur". The reference could therefore be to the son of Shem who had this same name (:22). In this case the point would be that the descendants of Shem and Ham committed apostacy together, lending weight to my suggestion on chapter 9 that Noah's cursing of Ham was but the ravings of an angry man awaking with a hangover.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And Resen between Nineveh and Calah (the same is the great city)</em>- There is nothing much known about Resen or Calah; yet one or both of them merits the title "the great city". Perhaps this title was because, as noted on :11, Nimrod had been seeking to rebuild Babel there. The same Hebrew term "great city" is used of the cities of Canaan which the Israelites who first heard this Mosaic history were intended to conquer (<em><a href='B:40 13:28'>Num 13:28</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Mizraim- </em>This is the usual word for "Egypt". The <em>eretz</em> extended to the river of Egypt, and so we can assume that this person lived in Egypt east of the Nile, rather than referring to "Egypt" as it is now defined.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Became the father of Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim</em>- Anamim may be related to the "anakim", the giant people who inhabited Canaan. Again we can discern how Moses was producing this material with the primary intention of explaining to Israel the origin of the peoples they were to encounter in Canaan. These people were mere men, descendants from the same Noah whom they too were descended from; and whatever their size or physical features, they were not to be unduly feared. We note the absence of Divine names in nearly all the descendants of Noah here listed; in contrast to the way that they feature in the names of those before the flood. The impression we get is that Noah's descendants failed to keep the faith, until it had totally died out and God called Abram and revealed Himself to him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Pathrusim, Casluhim (which the Philistines descended from), and Caphtorim</em>- As noted on :13, one primary intention of this genealogy was to assure Israel that the enemies they were encountering in the <em>eretz</em>, such as the Philistines, were mere men; there was nothing superhuman about them. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Canaan became the father of Sidon (his firstborn), Heth</em>- Sidon is known as a town in northern Palestine. Constantly, we encounter evidence that this genealogy describes the peoples of the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham. Heth likewise lived in the land of Canaan (<em><a href='B:10 25:3'>Gen 25:3</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The Jebusite, the Amorite, the Girgashite</em>- The Jebusites inhabited Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:100 24:18'>2Sa 24:18</a></em>), and so often the Hivites, Jebusites and Amorites are spoken of as the inhabitants of the land of Canaan. There is no way that Canaan therefore refers to Africa and negroid peoples. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The Hivite, the Arkite, the Sinite</em>- These were the tribes through whom the Israelites would've travelled on their wilderness journeys; the Sinites lives around mount Sinai. Moses is providing historical and geographical context for the Israelites.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The Arvadite, the Zemarite, and the Hamathite. Afterward the families of the Canaanites were spread abroad</em>- The same word is used for how the builders of Babel feared being "spread abroad" (<em><a href='B:10 11:8'>Gen 11:8</a></em>), and yet they were "spread abroad" after the confusion of languages (<em><a href='B:10 11:9'>Gen 11:9</a></em>). Again this is evidence that the genealogy of chapter 10 is descriptive of what came to pass after the Babel incident in chapter 11. We read there of how the situation in chapter 10 came about; see on :20. The same word is frequently translated "scattered", and usually refers to Divine judgment. So we could read this as meaning that the Canaanites were scattered, spread abroad, after Babel, in judgment for wanting to resist that judgment; and for wanting to build the blasphemous ziggurat, a massive temple system intending to place themselves as God Himself. There is reason to think that in the last days a similar structure will be built by the same ethnic groups in the same land... and likewise judged.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If we include Canaan himself, we have from :15-18 a description of 12 tribes of Canaan. They were a fake, imitation Israel; and were to be superseded by the 12 tribes of Israel. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as you go toward Gerar, to Gaza; as you go toward Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, to Lasha</em>- This note is included to demonstrate how 'their' land was to be later promised to Abraham. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their languages, in their lands, in their nations</em>- As noted on :18, we are reading here of a situation which came about as a result of the judgment on Babel. For here we read of division according to their languages; and this was achieved through the judgment upon the Babel builders in chapter 11. We can conclude that the builders of Babel were all the peoples listed in chapter 10, who as a result of Babel were divided according to different languages. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To Shem, the father of all the children of Eber-</em> "Eber" is understood as the root of the word "Hebrew". The idea can be 'one who crosses over', which is one of the basic characteristics of all God's people.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The elder brother of Japheth, to him also were children born- </em>Shem, Ham and Japheth are described as all being born in the same year; perhaps Shem was the eldest because he came out first. Or maybe the curse of Noah upon Ham and Canaan was a way of giving the right of the firstborn to Shem, although he may not have been the firstborn at birth. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Shem: Elam, Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram</em>- Wherever these peoples later lived, they were at this time all within the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Aram: Uz, Hul, Gether, and Mash</em>- "Aram" is the word usually translated "Syria". Job lived in the land of Uz. "Mash" is "Meshech" in <em><a href='B:130 1:17'>1Ch 1:17</a></em>; the Meshech of Ezekiel 38 is to be interpretted as some people within the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Arpachshad became the father of Shelah. Shelah became the father of Eber</em>- "Shelah" like most of the names in this genealogy has a rather negative spiritual meaning; in this case, "missile". The impression given is that spirituality died out over these generations, until God started again with the call of Abram.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To Eber were born two sons. The name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided. His brother’s name was Joktan</em>- This "division" refers not to plate tectonics, but to the division of the earth according to language which we will read of in chapter 11. Several times here in chapter 10, we find reference to the division which is described in chapter 11. The division of the <em>eretz</em> at Babel is therefore presented here as occurring four generations after the flood; although the Biblical genealogies frequently skip generations, and in this case, they must be compared with the information provided in 1 Chronicles.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Joktan became the father of Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah</em>- More sons of Joktan are recorded than for any other in this genealogy. Yet his name means "made little"; perhaps we are to understand that the one who was somehow made little was the one who became great, in terms of descendants. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah</em>- "Hadoram" meaning "high place", we again get the impression of unspirituality amongst these peoples. I have mentioned that this genealogy is explaining how indeed the descendants of Noah were scattered throughout the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham after Babel; where they later may have migrated to isn't in view here. But it is also noteworthy that the children of Joktan would appear to be located in the Arabian peninsular and what is now Yemen. The southern borders of the <em>eretz</em> are hard to define; perhaps we are to include these areas within it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Obal, Abimael, Sheba</em>- Most commentaries focus upon where these tribes ended up living later. But let's remember that we are here reading of how the descendants of Noah were scattered throughout the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham after the events of Babel. Where they may have migrated to afterwards is not what is in view here. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Ophir, Havilah, and Jobab. All these were the sons of Joktan</em>- There is a "Havilah" in :7, which may suggest that the lines of Ham and Joktan intermarried. This again would be evidence that the curses of Noah didn't come into effect; for he presupposed that the lines of descent from his sons would be distinct, especially between Ham and the others. According to LXX notes, this "Jobab" is the Job of the book of Job. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Their dwelling was from Mesha, as you go toward Sephar, the mountain of the east</em>- This could as well be translated "the mountain of ancient time". Perhaps the contrast is with Mount Zion; this was perhaps a centre of idolatry.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their languages, in their lands, after their nations</em>- As noted on :18, the point is being made that the splitting up of the families was on the basis of language; and chapter 11 will explain how that came about. Chapter 11 is not therefore strictly chronological, but as often in the Hebrew Bible, a step backwards to explain how a situation just described has come about. The way that language differences were eclipsed within the true Israel by the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost is another case of where the Genesis curses for disobedience are mitigated for God's people.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations. Of these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood</em>- As noted on :18, we have here a description of the scattered abroad ("divided") descendants of Noah in the <em>eretz</em>, but now in chapter 11 we will read how that division or scattering abroad came about- through the division of languages at Babel.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The whole earth was of one language and of one speech</em>- "Language" could possibly refer to one language root. I have suggested that the Genesis history concerns the <em>eretz </em>promised to Abraham, and the peoples living upon it. This is not to say that there were not other peoples living elsewhere on the globe, with their languages. But those in the<em> eretz</em> had one language root; and this was miraculously broken up into various dialects to the point of being confusing. The Hebrew for "speech" here is not the same word used for "speech" later on in this record - this word can more suggests a purpose/desire, often a wrong one.&nbsp;The implication is that this one desire was to build the tower of Babel;&nbsp; the confounding of languages affecting all inhabitants of the earth shows that all the families of the earth were either in the Babel region or represented there.&nbsp;Truly it was a tower "which the children of men builded" (<em><a href='B:10 11:5'>Gen 11:5</a></em>), bound together in unity by a common allegiance to this renowned king of Babylon.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened, as they travelled east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they lived there- </em>Moses' words in Genesis deconstruct later Babylonian myths. Perhaps the clearest case of this is in the record of Babel. The Babylonian myths boasted of the building of the city of Babylon and its tower / ziggurat. The tower of Babel was built in a plain (<em><a href='B:10 11:2'>Gen 11:2</a></em>); and both Strabo and Herodotus mention that Babylon was built in a wide plain. The record of the tower being built with bricks is so similar to the Babylonian <em>Epic Of Creation</em>, Tablet 6, lines 58-61, which held that "For a year (the gods) made bricks" to build the ziggurat of Babylon. Their myths claimed that after the deluge, humanity came to Babylon and the Anunnaki deities, who had supported Marduk in his battle, built the city. But <em><a href='B:10 11:5'>Gen 11:5</a></em> labours that it was "the sons of men" who built Babel. Cassuto describes the Genesis record as "a kind of satire on what appeared to be a thing of beauty and glory in the eyes of the Babylonians" (Umberto Cassuto,<em> A Commentary On The Book Of Genesis</em> (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992) Vol. 2 p. 227). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The 'coming down' of Yahweh to destroy man's evil intentions at Babel, points forward to His future intervention to judge the wickedness of men.&nbsp;&nbsp; The record of this in Genesis 11 is set against the background of Genesis 10. "As <em>they</em> journeyed from the east...<em>they</em> found a plain..." (<em><a href='B:10 11:2'>Gen 11:2</a></em>) is in the context of the record of the growth and rapid expansion of the tribes of the <em>eretz</em> in Genesis 10. We recall that Adam was banished eastwards from Eden; this impression of eastward movement may suggest they were getting further and further from the sanctuary in Eden, and also moving eastward from Ararat ('holy mount'). I have suggested that the ark rested on mount Zion; eastward from there would lead to Babylon, or Babel.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Travelled" means specifically to take up tent pegs, and the word is used multiple times later in the Pentateuch for the travellings of the Israelites in the wilderness. And it was at exactly that period when Moses was composing the Pentateuch, with the nomadic Israelites as the primary audience. The warning was not to commit idolatry as these earlier rebels had done; and to accept that keeping on a journey was part of God's plan, rather than seeking to remain in one place. And in essence, that lesson needs to be learned by us today.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They halted their migration in a plain, the Hebrew suggesting a flat area bounded by rivers- which would fit Babylon. They had been commanded to spread over the land and subdue it; but like Adam with the same commandment, they decided not to. The descendants of Noah, which after a few generations would have numbered maybe 30,000 people, wanted to resist this; just as the early Christians resisted the command to take the Gospel into all the earth, despite the gift of languages giving them the opportunity to overcome language barriers. We see in these observations the power of conservatism within human nature; the desire for stability, the old and familiar, rather than the new. The Lord commented upon this (<em><a href='B:490 5:39'>Luk 5:39</a></em>). No matter how liberal and open minded we may consider ourselves to be, there is an almost overpowering inertia within us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>A man said to his neighbour-</em> The origin of the sin punished at Babel was a man suggesting something to his neighbour. The record of the lies of Cain and the sins of the people at the time of the flood and later at Babel all clearly locate human beings as responsible for the very sins which the pagan myths blamed upon the gods, with the implication in the Gilgamesh Epic that man was created an inevitable sinner by nature and therefore not fully culpable for his sin. Such ideas have in their essence re-appeared in mistaken Christian theologies of later millennia. Sin and death were blamed upon the gods. Thus Gilgamesh was told by Siduri: “When the gods created mankind, they allotted death to mankind, but life they retained in their keeping” (Tablet 10, col. 3, 3-5). In these kinds of pagan ideas we see the essence of common ideas about Satan; the blame for sin and the human condition that arises from it is blamed upon some superhuman being.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Come- </em>Three times in this record (<em><a href='B:10 11:3-4'>Gen 11:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 11:7'>Gen 11:7</a></em>) we read the phrase "Come" or "Go to" (AV) in the contexts of the men 'going to' in the building, and of God 'going to' in His dramatic intervention. It cannot be coincidence that this rare idiom occurs twice close together in <em><a href='B:660 4:13'>Jas 4:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 5:1'>Jas 5:1</a></em>.&nbsp;The context there is of warning believers not to build their own 'Babels' of wealth and monuments to human achievement, seeing that they would be suddenly destroyed by the Lord's coming.&nbsp;&nbsp; This in itself points to a latter-day application of this Genesis record-&nbsp; indicating that weak believers will get caught up in the latter day Nimrod's unity movement, and will benefit from it materially?&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Let’s make bricks, and burn them thoroughly. They had brick for stone, and they used tar for mortar- </em>The record of the tower being built with bricks is so similar to the Babylonian <em>Epic Of Creation</em>, Tablet 6, lines 58-61, which held that "For a year (the gods) made bricks" to build the ziggurat of Babylon. Their myths claimed that after the deluge, humanity came to Babylon and the Anunnaki deities, who had supported Marduk in his battle, built the city. But <em><a href='B:10 11:5'>Gen 11:5</a></em> labours that it was "the sons of men" who built Babel. Cassuto describes the Genesis record as "a kind of satire on what appeared to be a thing of beauty and glory in the eyes of the Babylonians". </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The building materials here listed are appropriate to Babylon. I suggested on <em><a href='B:10 10:9-10'>Gen 10:9-10</a></em> that it was Nimrod who began the building project, and who was the <em>rosh </em>or head of the tower which was to be exalted to heaven. There is in the Babylon area a ruined tower which the Arabs call 'the tower of Nimrod'.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Let us make brick" is literally 'let us make ourselves Laban'.&nbsp; 'Laban' meaning 'white' came to be associated with 'brick' because the bricks were presumably made from white clay.&nbsp;This created the picture of a dazzling white tower, gloriously reflecting the desert sun - which suggests that the tower was a piece of religious symbolism, perhaps a mock temple. This impression receives Biblical confirmation in Zechariah 5.&nbsp;This chapter describes the corruptions of the Jewish and Christian apostasies;&nbsp;chapter 4 speaks of the building of the true temple in Jerusalem, whilst chapter 5 matches this with a description of a false temple being built "in the land of Shinar" (<em><a href='B:450 5:11'>Zec 5:11</a></em>).&nbsp;'Shinar' being used rather than 'Babylon' must be in order to take us back to the tower/temple which men built "in the land of Shinar" in <em><a href='B:10 11:2'>Gen 11:2</a></em>.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The religious associations of the tower are strengthened by the similarity of this tower built by the first king of Babylon on a plain and the statue built by Nebuchadnezzar on the plain of Dura, also in Babylon.&nbsp;&nbsp; It may be that the locations are identical.&nbsp;And there is a continuity of theme to be found in Arab leaders (kings of Babylon) showing a distinct liking for large monuments and religious imagery expressed in big building projects.&nbsp;Saddam Hussein, claiming to be the latter day Nebuchadnezzar, tried to rebuild Babylon and fill the area with quasi-religious towers and obelisks glorifying himself.&nbsp;"Let us make ourselves Laban" (v. 3) continues the Arab connections, seeing that Laban's persecution of Jacob typifies that of Israel by the Arabs, especially in the last days.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are other references to the persecution of Israel in the Babel record - the using of bricks and mortar to build a huge piece of religious symbolism recalls the work of Israel in Egypt (the same Hebrew word for 'bricks' occurs in the Exodus record).&nbsp;&nbsp;"Slime had they for mortar" (<em><a href='B:10 11:3'>Gen 11:3</a></em>) also contains echoes of Israel in Egypt.&nbsp;&nbsp;"Slime" is the same word as "mortar" in <em><a href='B:20 1:14'>Exo 1:14</a></em>, and "mortar" in <em><a href='B:10 11:3'>Gen 11:3</a></em> is the word translated "pitch" concerning how Moses' bulrush basket was made (<em><a href='B:20 2:3'>Exo 2:3</a></em>).&nbsp;This conjures up the picture of Amram bringing home some mortar from the building site in order to make that ark.&nbsp;These echoes of Israel under persecution are hard to make sense of until it is recognized that the context of this Babel passage is the account of Arab growth in Genesis 10, and that Babel was built under Arab auspices.&nbsp;&nbsp; Bearing in mind the certain Arab domination of Israel in the last days, it is surely justifiable to see in this record a hint of a latter day Arab-led coalition, which will perhaps express its grandeur in physical terms by the building of a structure.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This colossus being built of baked clay and mortar and being effectively destroyed by the Lord's 'coming down' inevitably connects with the feet of the statue which Daniel interpreted, also seen in Babylon. The feet were made of "miry clay", "mixed" (Heb. 'Arab').&nbsp; <em><a href='B:290 41:25'>Isa 41:25</a></em> also springs to mind, speaking of the second coming, "He shall come... he shall come upon princes as upon mortar, and as the potter treadeth clay". It has been suggested that the image of Daniel 2 can be interpreted in a primarily Arab context, and we have shown that the Babel-builders are also primarily Arab.&nbsp;&nbsp; "<em>They </em>journeyed from the east... <em>they</em> said... <em>they</em> builded" in Genesis 11 refers to the people of the<em> eretz </em>listed in Genesis 10.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They said, Come, let’s build ourselves a city, and a tower- </em>The phrase "city and tower" is so often found in Babylonian writings with reference to Babylon; but the phrase is used of Babel in <em><a href='B:10 11:4'>Gen 11:4</a></em>. The temple of Marduk in Babylon had a sanctuary, the Esagila- "the house whose head is in heaven" and a tower called Etemenanki, "the house of the foundation of heaven and earth". Marduk supposedly lived on the seventh storey. The Babylonian inscriptions speak of the ziggurat tower as having its top in Heaven. The Genesis record deconstructs all this. The tower of Babel was built by sinful <em>men</em> and not gods; the one true God came <em>down</em> to view the tower- its top did <em>not</em> reach to Heaven, and there is a powerful word play on the word Babylon, meaning 'the gate of Heaven' in their language, and yet 'Babel', the equivalent Hebrew word, means 'confusion'. What the Babylonians thought was so great was in God's eyes and those of His people the Hebrews simply confusion and failure. The Genesis record goes on to show how that it was Abraham who had a great name made for himself (<em><a href='B:10 12:2'>Gen 12:2</a></em>), whereas the Babel builders failed in their desire to make a permanent name for themselves. God's intention that mankind should spread out and fill the earth after the flood did eventually triumph over the builders of Babel-Babylon who tried to thwart it. <em><a href='B:430 3:9-11'>Zep 3:9-11</a></em> allude to the Babel record- at the time of Judah's restoration from Babylon, it was God's intention to undo the effects of Babel and "change the speech of the peoples to a pure (united) speech, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord and serve Him with one accord. From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia my suppliants, the daughter of my dispersed ones, shall bring my offering". Those dispersed would then gather as one, i.e. Babel would be reversed.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Our Lord appears to refer to the temple as "a tower" in <em><a href='B:470 21:33'>Mat 21:33</a></em>, supporting the previous suggestion that there was a religious aspect to this tower.&nbsp;It is hard to avoid emphasizing that in our last days Arab leaders are eager to rebuild Babylon and other historic cities, seeing them as a token of their unity and common connection with a glorious Babylon of old which subdued Israel.&nbsp;The original Babel was built with "slime" (<em><a href='B:10 11:3'>Gen 11:3</a></em>);&nbsp; the Hebrew seems to refer to bitumen, literally meaning 'that which is brought up,' and today it is Arab oil money which is financing such building schemes.&nbsp; </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>Whose top reaches to the sky- </em>This is a poor translation - the A.V. putting "may reach" in italics indicates that these words are not in the original.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Hebrew for "top" is <em>rosh</em>, familiar to students of <em><a href='B:330 38:2'>Eze 38:2</a></em>, which correctly translates it as "chief prince".&nbsp;The chief leader of this tower was to reach unto and into heaven, and I suggested on <em><a href='B:10 10:9-10'>Gen 10:9-10</a></em> that Nimrod was this individual.&nbsp;Every Bible-minded student will race to Isaiah 14, where another king of Babylon says the same: "Thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:&nbsp; I will sit also in the mount of the congregation (i.e. the temple mount), in the sides of the north (Jerusalem, <em><a href='B:230 48:2'>Psa 48:2</a></em>)... yet thou shalt be brought down... that (his children) do not possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities", as Nimrod had done (<em><a href='B:290 14:13-15'>Isa 14:13-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 14:21'>Isa 14:21</a></em>). The connection with Isaiah 14 confirms that this tower had religious symbolism, and that with the image of Daniel 2 suggests that the chief prince (<em>rosh</em>) of the image is based on Nimrod, the first king of Babylon.&nbsp;Daniel, of course, also made it clear that the head of the image was the king of Babylon, who was then Nebuchadnezzar.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>When we read that the summit of Babel was to touch the heavens (<em><a href='B:10 11:4'>Gen 11:4</a></em>), we find that the Hebrew phrase refers usually to persons, elevating their head. There are many uninspired parallel accounts of the building of Babel in contemporary literature- the Enuma Elish speaks of how the builders “raised high the head of Esagila toward the Heaven”. Clearly the tower was seen as headed up by a person, just as was the image of Daniel 2 and also that built by Nebuchadnezzar. These all indicate that the Lord Jesus will return to destroy a human system headed up by a specific, antiChrist individual.&nbsp;The Canaanite tribes were noted for the very high walls of their cities - "unto heaven" (<em><a href='B:10 11:4'>Gen 11:4</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:50 1:28'>Deu 1:28</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp;This shows a continuity of theme between Babel and the tribes of Canaan.&nbsp;Significantly, God decided that nothing would be "restrained" from these people if their tower were completed - using the same Hebrew word translated "walled up" in <em><a href='B:50 1:28'>Deu 1:28</a></em> concerning the cities of Canaan.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The whole prophetic meta narrative of the Bible is in many ways a tale of two cities- Babylon and Jerusalem. There are times when Babylon masquerades as Zion- a false city of God with a false Messiah leading her. Babylon / Babel was a city built to reach unto Heaven, in contrast to the true city of God which comes down from Heaven (<em><a href='B:10 11:4'>Gen 11:4</a></em> cp. <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:21:2'>Rev 21:2</a></em>). And there are times when Zion in her apostacy has appeared as Babylon. But in the final conflict of the last days, these two cities will be literally pitted against each other. Zion will briefly succumb under the might and pride of Babylon, to rise again in eternal glory. It was in Babylon where Nimrod first built the tower of Babel, the first organized rebellion against God; and it was there that God first entered into open judgment of flesh and humanity <em>en masse</em>. And it is here likewise that His purpose with sin and His true people will likewise be fulfilled. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And let’s make ourselves a name</em>-&nbsp; The new religious system was to replace God's Name with their own. The image of Daniel 2 is fundamentally concerning the domination of Israel (the earth / land), and we have connected that image with the tower of Babel. The building of the tower is also linked to the persecution of Israel through various allusions to Exodus.&nbsp;The motive for building Babel (i.e. dominating Israel in the typology), is to stop the builders being scattered and to make them a common name (<em><a href='B:10 11:4'>Gen 11:4</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp;Prophecies like Psalms 83, as well as an awareness of current Arab politics, indicate that the motive for the final Arab invasion of Israel will be in order to unite the naturally disparate Arab peoples. But it is twice emphasized that the Lord's 'coming down' resulted in their being "scattered abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth" (<em><a href='B:10 11:8-9'>Gen 11:8-9</a></em>), using the very language which they used in v. 4 - "lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth." This clearly connects with the little stone destroying the desolating image and scattering the remains of it worldwide.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Lest we be scattered abroad on the surface of the whole earth</em>- Their conscious intention was to disobey the command to Noah's descendants to spread throughout the <em>eretz </em>&nbsp;and subdue it. The memory of the Flood would still have been reasonably fresh with the generation of Babel.&nbsp;&nbsp; After the Flood the nations were "divided in the earth" (<em><a href='B:10 10:25'>Gen 10:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 10:32'>Gen 10:32</a></em>); so perhaps the Canaanites building the city and tower so that they would not "be scattered abroad upon the earth" was a conscious effort to resist the judgments brought about by the Flood and its effects.&nbsp; We have shown that the Flood particularly represents the judgments of the last days, and in the typology of Genesis 11 it is these which the builders of Babel consciously try to avoid.&nbsp; This raises the question of how they will be so convinced that these judgments really are imminent. A display of the cherubim over Jerusalem (or a similar "sign of the son of man in heaven" ), or, of course, the actual second coming of the Lord, seem the only feasible explanations of their convictions.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh came down to see the city and the tower</em>- As if He had to search and come to have a closer look; this ‘language of limitation’ may refer to the Angels rather than God personally. "The Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the children of men builded" – surely this language of limitation must be concerning the Angels, seeing that God is aware of all things. The Angelic response was "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>). This recalls&nbsp; the Angels' words of <em><a href='B:10 1:26'>Gen 1:26</a></em> "Let us make man in our image"- see notes there.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Which the children of men built</em>- See on <em><a href='B:10 11:2'>Gen 11:2</a></em> above.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said, Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is what they begin to do. Now nothing will be withheld from them, which they intend to do</em>- The intentions of the people were clearly far more than simply building a tower. That was but a beginning- towards a fake kingdom of God on earth. The Hebrew for "begin" here is also translated "to profane", again showing the distinctly religious aspect of their actions in building the tower. But God wants to save; and so He didn't allow such a system to fully develop. But it was not that God was as it were on the back foot; He didn't want to allow the earth to reach a point where He would have to mass destroy as He had done at the flood. As ever, His judgments were to save, ultimately, rather than to punish for its own sake.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>With the world supporting them, and with a unity of mind never before experienced, the latter day Babel-builders will be able to gleefully relish the prospect of completely destroying the Jews and building their own religious system. <em><a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a></em> describes this period as "a time of trouble (for Israel) such as never was since there was a nation". "Since there was a nation" may well refer to the time of Babel, when the nations became more clearly defined. If this is indeed a Babel allusion, then the suggested connection between the building of Babel and the persecution of Israel is indeed confirmed. Yet Babel appears to be a symbol of apostate Israel in <em><a href='B:290 24:1'>Isa 24:1</a></em>: "The Lord maketh the earth (land) empty, and maketh it waste... and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof". The judgments to come upon the Babel builders will also come upon the faithless Israel of the last days.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Come, let us go down- </em>The same kind of language found in <em><a href='B:10 1:26'>Gen 1:26</a></em>; see notes there. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech</em>- The languages of the peoples in the <em>eretz </em>were and are confused, words from one language are found in the others, but with different meanings. Arabic and Hebrew would be the classic example. And it was this closeness yet distance which created the interpersonal problems with which we are now familiar, and which led to the dispersal of the peoples from Babel. But comparing, say, Chinese with an Amazonian language doesn't yield that same sense. Again, it is the situation within the<em> eretz</em> which is always in view here. In God's bigger purpose, the misunderstandings and divisions between persons were used to set the scene for Abraham's calling. And He works similarly today.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is a definite similarity between the account of God's intervention at Babel and that of His 'coming down' to Sodom. "The Lord came down to see the city and the tower (and 'noticed' how evil their aims were)... Let us go down..." (<em><a href='B:10 11:5-7'>Gen 11:5-7</a></em>). This is matched by “I will go down now, and see whether they (Sodom) have done altogether according to the cry of it... and there came two angels to Sodom" (<em><a href='B:10 18:21'>Gen 18:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 19:1'>Gen 19:1</a></em>).&nbsp;We have our Lord's authority for seeing this 'coming down' of the Lord to Sodom as typical of the second coming; the designed similarity with His 'coming down' to Babel indicates that we can read that incident likewise.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So Yahweh scattered them abroad from there on the surface of all the earth. They stopped building the city</em>- As noted on :4, the scattering abroad was God's intention, so that the <em>eretz</em> would be subdued. They had built Babel specifically so that they would not be scattered. So here we see God using judgment and division between persons in order to achieve His purpose. And likewise the endless divisions amongst God's children, with each making their own missionary efforts, has in a strange way resulted in the wider spread of the Gospel.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>How God 'came down' to destroy their plans is revealing as to His methods in the last days.&nbsp;There is no indication in Genesis 11 that the tower was actually destroyed, indeed, "Therefore <em>is</em> the name of it called Babel" (<em><a href='B:10 11:9'>Gen 11:9</a></em>) implies that at least part of the building was still standing when the record was written.&nbsp;&nbsp; It was the very action of confounding their language that resulted in their scattering, "<em>so</em> (i.e. because of the confounding of their language) the Lord scattered them abroad" (<em><a href='B:10 11:7-8'>Gen 11:7-8</a></em>).&nbsp;"They left off" building (<em><a href='B:10 11:8'>Gen 11:8</a></em>) uses a Hebrew word meaning strictly 'to grow flabby', implying a gradual cessation rather than a momentous destruction.&nbsp;Likewise the persecutors of angel-protected Lot in Sodom (a certain type of the last days) "wearied themselves" in their efforts as a result of the Lord's 'coming down'.&nbsp;One of the 'plagues' that God threatens the Arab invaders of Israel with is that "a great tumult from the Lord shall be among them;&nbsp; and they shall lay hold every one on the hand of his neighbour, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbour" (<em><a href='B:450 14:12-13'>Zec 14:12-13</a></em>).&nbsp; This is how previous invasions had been overcome (<em><a href='B:70 7:22'>Jdg 7:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 20:23'>2Ch 20:23</a></em>). Psalms 83 perfectly describes the Arab unity as they attack Jerusalem in the last days (vs. 3-5, 12), but concludes with the Psalmist praying that God would destroy them as He did Oreb and Zeeb (v. 11) - who were defeated as a result of God making their troops turn on each other (<em><a href='B:70 7:22-25'>Jdg 7:22-25</a></em>).&nbsp; It will largely be through this means that the image will be broken up and scattered worldwide, as the Babel builders were.&nbsp;&nbsp; In its continuous historic fulfilment, the different parts of the image subdued each other;&nbsp;for them to stand together in the last days shows that a unity must be placed upon them by their head and also the feet upon which they stand; only for this unity to be destroyed by the Lord's coming.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Therefore its name was called Babel, because there Yahweh confused the language of all the earth. From there, Yahweh scattered them abroad on the surface of all the earth</em>- The stress that "there" the confusion occurred makes us wonder how exactly it occurred. The act of confusion occurred at a specific point in space and time, and yet affected all the descendants of Noah; who by that time might have been around 30,000. Perhaps all of them listed in Genesis 10 were present at Babel, which would mean that a fair "city" already existed there. They would have scattered from each other due to their misunderstandings and arguments- and yet this was God's scattering of them. His judgments work in accord with human freewill. Thus God threw Pharaoh into the Red Sea; but he himself charged in there of his own free volition.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is the history of the generations of Shem. Shem was one hundred years old and became the father of Arpachshad two years after the flood- </em>The genealogies of Genesis 11 reveal how some human lives repeat according to the same outline schema. See on :13,14. Abraham and Shem both had sons at 100 years old. And it is the very nature of Christian fellowship that God has arranged that our human lives likewise have elements of amazing similarity of pattern. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Shem lived five hundred years after he became the father of Arpachshad, and became the father of sons and daughters</em>- It should be noted that the Septuagint gives different ages and inserts other generations in genealogies such as this one. Yet the Septuagint is usually the version quoted by the inspired New Testament writers, including for passages where the Masoretic Text reads quite differently. This has large implications for the theory that Adam was created 4000 BC, and the six thousand year plan theory. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Arpachshad lived thirty-five years and became the father of Shelah</em>- As noted on :11, the LXX differs here, adding in a generation, of Cainan. And this version is quoted in <em><a href='B:490 3:36'>Luk 3:36</a></em>. And according to the LXX genealogies, Adam was not born 4000 years BC. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Arpachshad lived four hundred and three years after he became the father of Shelah, and became the father of sons and daughters</em>- The genealogies of Genesis 11 reveal how some human lives repeat according to the same outline schema. See on :10,14. Both Arphachsad and Shelad each lived 403 years after the births of the eldest sons.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Shelah lived thirty years, and became the father of Eber</em>- Shelah, Peleg and Serug were each 30 when their first sons were born. See on :13.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And Shelah lived four hundred and three years after he became the father of Eber, and became the father of sons and daughters</em>- We note the decreasing lifespans as the generations proceed after the flood. We are left with the impression of everything going downhill, morally and physically- until the Lord starts again with humanity, through calling Abram.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Eber lived thirty-four years, and became the father of Peleg</em>- Eber is mentioned four times here in :14-17, matching the special emphasis given to him in the genealogy of chapter 10. This was surely because he was the one whose name carried over as "Hebrew". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Eber lived four hundred and thirty years after he became the father of Peleg, and became the father of sons and daughters</em>- Peleg was so named because around his birth, the <em>eretz</em> was divided; a reference to the division at Babel. See on <em><a href='B:10 10:25'>Gen 10:25</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Peleg lived thirty years, and became the father of Reu</em>- As noted on :10,13, the genealogies of Genesis 11 reveal how some human lives repeat according to the same outline schema. Peleg, Serug (:22) and Shelah (:14) were each 30 when their first sons were born. We too can find uncanny similarities between our lives and those of others in the faith; or between our lives and Biblical characters. The same Divine hand is at work.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Peleg lived two hundred and nine years after he became the father of Reu, and became the father of sons and daughters</em>- The mention of "daughters" here, when this isn't always noted in the genealogy, perhaps suggests that they were significant to the early audience of the Pentateuch. But seeing that significance is now lost, we have no more details.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Reu lived thirty-two years, and became the father of Serug</em>- The common approach of seeking to extract meaning from the Hebrew names is in my judgment mistaken. They yield nothing- "Reu" means "friend" and "Serug" means "tendril"- apparently. And who knows what the names originally meant.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Reu lived two hundred and seven years after he became the father of Serug, and became the father of sons and daughters</em>- The exact periods given suggest that Moses had access to some oral tradition, which under inspiration he now sets in stone, as it were.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Serug lived thirty years, and became the father of Nahor</em>- For the significance of having a child at 30, see on :18.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Serug lived two hundred years after he became the father of Nahor, and became the father of sons and daughters</em>- As noted on :20, there is generally no significance in the meaning of the names. But as we get closer to Abraham, we note that "Nahor", "Terah" and "Haran" all have associations with idolatry. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Nahor lived twenty-nine years, and became the father of Terah</em>- As noted on :23, the meanings of Abraham's immediate ancestors all have associations with idolatry, confirming the note in <em><a href='B:60 24:2'>Jos 24:2</a></em> that Abram and his ancestors were idolaters. Out of that background, God chose a man who had the potential to be different. Another reading of "Terah" is that it means "One who tarries / remains", which would fit with his remaining in Haran and not going further towards Canaan.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Nahor lived one hundred and nineteen years after he became the father of Terah, and became the father of sons and daughters</em>- Nahor therefore died at 148, the shortest liver among the post-flood patriarchs. We wonder why exactly that was... seeing that his grandson Abram was to be the one chosen. It perhaps made Abram reflect upon the brevity of life and the failure of idolatry to offer real salvation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Terah lived seventy years, and became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran</em>- Abram is mentioned first, although Haran was the firstborn (:29). This is a common theme in Genesis- that the younger and weaker is elevated by God's grace to the place of the firstborn. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now this is the history of the generations of Terah. Terah became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Haran became the father of Lot</em>- This information is given twice (:26), to set the scene for the momentous event that was to happen- just one man was going to be chosen out of this family, and through his agreement in faith, God was to set up a line leading to salvation of all peoples. We note that there is no hint of an unbroken line of spirituality extending down the generations from Noah to Abram. Quite the opposite. We get the impression of a slide into disbelief and apostacy; and instead of destroying the <em>eretz</em> again, God by grace chooses a singular individual and invites him to be the father of a faithful tribe, which shall expand to fill there <em>eretz</em> and indeed the whole planet, on account of Abram and his seed.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his birth, in Ur of the Chaldees</em>- As noted on :25, these early deaths in Abram's family experience may have all been part of the scene setting required to make Abram open to the idea of new life and realistic salvation. "Ur of the Chaldees" has been excavated, and archaeologists present it as perhaps the most developed and sophisticated city on the globe, and certainly in the area. Every indication is that Abram was from a wealthy family, living in luxury. But that was no barrier in itself to receiving the call. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abram and Nahor took wives; the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor’s wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, who was also the father of Iscah</em>- Polygamy was widespread, especially amongst the wealthy. That Abram had apparently only one wife would have been noteworthy. This is not to say that he didn't have others; the record zooms in upon Abram and Sarai. Likewise Isaac is presented as Abraham's only child, when we know from Genesis 25 that Abraham had a number of children by concubines; and Ishmael had already been born to him. "Iscah" is understood by some as another name for Sarah, seeing that she and Abram had the same fathers (<em><a href='B:10 20:12'>Gen 20:12</a></em>). The question remains as to why she is given a different name here; and yet if she isn't Sarah, then we wonder why one woman should be singled out for mention, when hardly any other women apart from Sarah are mentioned in the genealogies. Such behaviour was condemned under the law of Moses; but we are presented with a man who was in an ongoing situation which broke the law, who attained a righteousness greater than the law. Never was there any hint that Abram should have ended his marriage to Sarah because she was his half sister; and this may have significance for those who consider that marital failure must be put right by separation from current partners.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Sarai was barren; she had no child</em>- This must have been another factor in Abram's background which prepared him for the call he was to receive. His hopes would have been dashed; but in the promises he received, there was to be hope of a huge family and a "seed". But as with us, the promises of God in the Gospel are only attractive if firstly we have been through experiences which make them attractive. Seeing he married his half sister (<em><a href='B:10 20:12'>Gen 20:12</a></em>), the lack of a child is not surprising. But through all the miscarriages and broken hopes, they were being prepared as fertile ground upon which the seed of the Divine calling would fall.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Terah took Abram his son, Lot the son of Haran, his son’s son, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram’s wife. They went from Ur of the Chaldees- </em>The fact has to be faced that Abram was called to leave his country and kindred (his fellow countrymen), but when he left Ur his countrymen came with him. And additionally, "<em>Terah took</em> Abram... to go into the land of Canaan". Abram did not respond <em>immediately</em> and <em>completely</em> to God's command. The call of Abram is an essay in partial response. Yet we know he had faith. Terah was an idolater (<em><a href='B:60 24:2'>Jos 24:2</a></em>); the command to leave was given to Abram, not Terah. Because God was going to promise Abram a massive new family stemming from <em>him</em>, he therefore had to come out from his own natural family. He was going to be promised many descendants- therefore he had to separate himself from his "father's house" or posterity. He was to be promised a land for eternal inheritance- therefore he had to leave his own native land. And in this life, Abram's seed must separate themselves from their present, worldly inheritance if they are to receive the promised blessings. It was therefore imperative that to receive the promises, Abram must separate from his natural family and land inheritance. There seems little doubt, in the light of this, that it was God's intention for Abram to leave Ur <em>and</em> his natural family, just taking his wife and their children with them. Yet Abram did not do this. And yet he had faith! &nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:650 11:8'>Heb 11:8</a></em> (Gk.) implies that <em>as soon as</em> God called Abram, he got up and left Ur. But a closer examination of the record indicates that this wasn't absolutely the case. It is stressed that both Abram and Sarai left Ur because "Terah <em>took</em> Abram his son... and Sarai his daughter in law" (<em><a href='B:10 11:31'>Gen 11:31</a></em>). Abram had been called to leave Ur and go into Canaan. But instead he followed his father to Haran, and lived there (for some years, it seems) until his father died, and then he responded to his earlier call to journey towards Canaan. The Genesis record certainly reads as if Abram was dominated by his father and family, and this militated against an immediate response to the call he received to leave Ur and journey to Canaan. At best his father's decision enabled him to obey the command to leave Ur without having to break with his family. And yet, according to <em><a href='B:650 11:8'>Heb 11:8</a></em>, Abram immediately responded, as an act of faith.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham believed God, and "when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed" (<em><a href='B:650 11:8'>Heb 11:8</a></em>). Therefore when his father announced that they were emigrating to Canaan, Abram would have realized that this was the call from God to get up and leave. Unlike the rest of Terah's unrecorded family, who would have mocked such a crazy plan, Abram willingly submitted. But how was he to leave his kindred and father's house? For they were coming with him! Indeed, Terah "took Abram". Thus Abram had faith in God's promise, yet may have balked at the command to leave his country and family. Providentially arranged circumstances then resulted in his aging father taking him, implying some degree of compulsion, and leading him out of his native country. Whilst not fully understanding how he could leave his father's household whilst they looked set to be accompanying him on this journey to a strange land, he went ahead in faith. It is emphasized that <em>God</em> " brought out" (s.w. to lead, pluck or pull out) Abram from Ur (<em><a href='B:160 9:7'>Neh 9:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 15:6-7'>Gen 15:6-7</a></em>). The calling came through Abram's hearing of the word of promise, and providentially arranged circumstances encouraging his faithful response to it.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham's attachment to his father and father's house is even indicated in his name, Ab-ram- meaning "my father is exalted" (Gerhard von Rad, <em>Genesis</em> (London: S.C.M., 1963) p. 152). In that family, Abram's father named his son like this because he wanted his son to exalt him- not break away from him, as God required of Abram. Abraham's connection with his father is shown in the various possible meanings of the name Abram. If 'Abram' were used as a Western Semitic word, it would mean "he is exalted through his relationship to his father"; 'Abram' in Akkadian would mean "he loved the father" (Umberto Cassuto,<em> A Commentary On The Book Of Genesis</em> (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992) Vol. 2 p. 267). Yet Abraham gave up all this for the sake of God's promises to him; he lost it all in order to gain the new family which God offered him in return, just as all his seed must do. And later Scripture seems to refer to these meanings of the word 'Abram'- for <em><a href='B:290 41:8'>Isa 41:8</a></em> and <em><a href='B:140 20:7'>2Ch 20:7</a></em> speak of him as "the friend (lover) of God". He had once 'loved' his father's house, but in response to the promises he left them, and loved God; and thus God loved him, and Abram became Abraham, the 'exalted father'. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are marked similarities between the record of the exodus from Ur, and that of the call of Abram to leave Haran:&nbsp; </p><table><tr><td></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:10 11:31'>Gen 11:31</a></em>&nbsp;</td><td><em><a href='B:10 12:5'>Gen 12:5</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Terah took&nbsp;&nbsp; </td><td>Abram took </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sarai...Abram's wife </td><td>Sarai his wife </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Lot the son of Haran&nbsp; </td><td>Lot his brother's son </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>They went forth from Ur </td><td>They went forth (from Haran) </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>To go into the land of Canaan </td><td>To go into the land of Canaan </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>They came unto Haran </td><td>Into the land of Canaan they came. </td><td></td></tr></table><p style='margin-left:1em'>These similarities may mean that the same processes occurred in each move- a word of promise made, Abram struggling to show his abundant faith in that promise and call, and the providence of God acting to make his expression of faith possible. There may also be the hint that when Abram left Haran, he still had the same fundamental problem as when leaving Ur- he had still not fully left his kindred and father's house.&nbsp; It has been pointed out that around the time Terah and Abraham left Ur, the city was threatened by and then destroyed by the Elamites. It could well be that the motive for leaving Ur in the first place was therefore mixed- it was fleeing from a material threat more than plain obedience to a Divine command. This would explain why the family settled in relatively nearby Haran, and remained there for so long. See on <em><a href='B:10 20:13'>Gen 20:13</a></em>. It's a very strange 'co-incidence' (if that's indeed what it is) that Noah, Peleg and Nahor all died in the same year- when Abraham was about 50 years old, living in Ur. Whilst we have no evidence that these men were all living together, it's not impossible that they were. Perhaps they died in some calamity in Ur. So it could well be that the motive for leaving Ur in the first place was therefore mixed- it was fleeing from a material threat more than plain obedience to a Divine command. This would explain why the family settled in relatively nearby Haran, and remained there for so long. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To go into the land of Canaan. They came to Haran and lived there- </em>Terah and his family departed "to go into the land of Canaan" (<em><a href='B:10 11:31'>Gen 11:31</a></em> AV). These are the same Hebrew words as in the command to Abram: "Get thee out of thy country" (<em><a href='B:10 12:1'>Gen 12:1</a></em>). We can therefore conclude that Abram received this call to quit his country, but didn't obey it, until some unrecorded situation led his father to announce the family's emigration to Canaan. Abram was therefore very slow to obey the call. Note too that the command to Abram had been to leave his land and also his "kindred and... father's house". This he didn't do- for he left Ur with his father and brothers, i.e. his kindred. His brother Haran died, and his father then died in Haran, where they temporarily lived on the way to Canaan. We see here how God seeks to almost make us obedient. And <em><a href='B:10 15:7'>Gen 15:7</a></em> records that it was God who brought Abram out of Ur- even though Abraham failed to rise up and be obedient in his own strength, God manipulated family circumstances to make him obedient to the call; and in essence He does this for us too.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The days of Terah were two hundred five years. Terah died in Haran- </em>Abram evidently found it so hard to sever the family ties, and move straight on from Haran. The call of Abram required breaking with family. Perhaps Terah was too old and ill to move on further (he died at 205, a great age by post-flood standards), and Abram found it hard to leave his old and ill father in a strange city. Or perhaps Terah's strong influence on Abram meant that he found it just too hard to go against him. How he must have wrestled with the pain of leaving his family and father! Yet he believed God's promises, and he knew that these things were necessary if he was to attain the promised land. Many a convert to Abraham's seed in these last days has been through the same process. The call to "come out" of mystical Babylon is surely rooted in the call for Abram to "come out" from Ur and Haran. Whilst this evidently occurs at the time of baptism, when these same Abrahamic promises are made to us personally, our whole lives are a process of 'coming out' from the world. As we do so, our appreciation of God's promises is progressively expanded, as God works with our faith.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now Yahweh had said to Abram, Get you out of your country, and from your relatives, and from your father’s house- </em>Abram was told “Get&nbsp; out...” of Ur; and obediently “they <em>went forth </em>to go <em>into</em> the land of Canaan: and <em>into</em> the land of Canaan they came” (<em><a href='B:10 12:1'>Gen 12:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 12:5'>Gen 12:5</a></em> AV). Holiness means a separation <em>from</em> and also <em>unto</em>. This must be the pattern of our lives, until finally at the Lord’s return&nbsp; we are again called to <em>go out</em> to meet the bridegroom; and we will <em>go in</em> with Him to the marriage (<em><a href='B:470 25:6'>Mat 25:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:10'>Mat 25:10</a></em>). The New Testament preachers urged men to turn “<em>from</em> darkness <em>to</em> light, and <em>from</em> the power of satan <em>to</em> God” (<em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em>); <em>from</em> wickedness <em>to</em> God, <em>to</em> the Lord (<em><a href='B:510 3:26'>Act 3:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:19'>Act 15:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:20'>Act 26:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 9:35'>Act 9:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 11:21'>Act 11:21</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The impression can be given that Abraham was a giant of faith, and as “father of the faithful”, thereby requires colossal responses of faith from us who are his seed. But the reality was that Abraham didn’t respond as he might have done, just as we don’t; and God by His grace led Abraham to respond simply because He wished to save Him. God told Abram to leave Ur, his family and relatives (<em><a href='B:10 12:1'>Gen 12:1</a></em>). The requirements were to leave Ur and to leave his relatives- and neither of these requirements were fulfilled much by Abraham, but rather by God working to enable them to be met. That this call refers to Ur not Haran is made clear in <em><a href='B:510 7:2-4'>Act 7:2-4</a></em>: “The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran, and said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee. Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land”. The impression is given of immediate, obedient response. But in fact it was his own father Terah who took him and the rest of the family out of Ur. He didn’t break with his family- he went with them. Presumably he didn’t obey the call to leave them as an individual; so God arranged that Abraham at least obeyed the requirement to leave Ur, and later worked to ensure he left his family. It was God who caused him to wander from his father’s house (<em><a href='B:10 20:13'>Gen 20:13</a></em>)- not his own strength of obedience to the call to individuate before God. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Immediately Terah died, Abram may have felt he had truly left his "kindred" and eagerly moved on towards the promised land of Canaan (so <em><a href='B:10 11:32'>Gen 11:32</a></em> to <em><a href='B:10 12:4'>Gen 12:4</a></em> implies). It is likely that many of Abram's "kindred" would have come along with Terah, responding themselves to the call of Abram. Presumably they settled in Haran after Terah's death. It is even possible that the family were from this city originally, seeing that Abraham's brother was called Haran. We saw earlier that just before leaving Haran, Abram was further told to separate from his "father's house" too, i.e. <em>all</em> of his father's household. This must have included Lot.&nbsp; Abram could understand separation from his idolatrous father and the rest of the family retinue; yet Lot was "a righteous man" ; Abram evidently rated Lot's spirituality (<em><a href='B:10 18:23'>Gen 18:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 18:32'>Gen 18:32</a></em>). Again, Abram was in a quandary. He had left all but one of his father's house in Haran. Was he really intended to separate from his father's house to the extent of leaving Lot too?&nbsp; It is likely that Abram often agonized about Lot. There he was in Canaan, knowing that his seed would inherit this land, which was then full of Canaanites (the record twice emphasizes, in <em><a href='B:10 12:6'>Gen 12:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 13:7'>Gen 13:7</a></em>). But Lot, part of his kindred and father's house, was still with him. We saw that the Hebrew for "kindred" implies one born in ones own country. A closely related word is found in <em><a href='B:10 11:28'>Gen 11:28</a></em>, describing how Haran, Lot's father, "died in the <em>land of his nativity</em>, in Ur". If Lot's father lived and died in Ur, it is fair to assume that Lot was born in Ur. So Abram knew he must separate from Lot, his "kindred"- but how? What reason could he give Lot? Yet he had faith in what God had told him; therefore he <em>wanted</em> to leave Lot, but just found it hard to do. And so God made a way. &nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In the near East, each family had their own gods. When a man became head of the family, he had the right to choose his own god; there was no requirement that he maintained the same god as the previous head of the family. The choice of a god was confirmed by a covenant; the Amorites and Arameans therefore called their family god "The Lord of the house", and the sons of the family often were named with "theophoric names", reflecting the name of the family's god (W.F. Albright, <em>From the Stone Age to Christianity</em> (New York: 1957), p. 246; Angel Gonzales, <em>Abraham: Father of Believers</em> (New York: Herder and Herder, 1967) p. 19). Against this background, therefore, it was a radical thing for Yahweh to appear to Abraham and order him to do something as radical as break from his family (<em><a href='B:10 12:1'>Gen 12:1</a></em>). It was God who chose Abraham, not Abraham who chose Yahweh, contrary to the accepted norm of the man choosing a family god when his father or previous head of the family died. The surrounding nations or tribes were comprised of various families each with their own god; nations had no one fixed god. When we repeatedly read of how Yahweh was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and that Yahweh is the God of all the families and tribes of Israel, we are therefore encountering a new paradigm. There were to be no other gods in Israel apart from Yahweh. He was to be the sole national God; the unity of Yahweh, and His being the sole national God of Israel, was therefore a new concept in the near East. And we can better understand the way that both the Lord Jesus and Paul saw in the unity of God a call to unity amongst His people; for this had been the intention from the start. The unity of God isn't so much a numerical statement as a call to profound unity. But it could only become real for Abraham, as it can for us today, if we leave, come out from, the culture and worldviews which surround us. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Yahweh's call of Abraham to be His, taking the initiative which Divine grace does when calling someone, was therefore radical. The Biblical record states simply that Yahweh spoke and Abraham believed with no proof or prior relationship. The rabbinic midrash and the Koran embellish upon this silence with various tales of Yahweh's prior relationship with Abraham- perhaps psychologically motivated in the desire to make Abraham's faith and obedience the more understandable and normal. Whether or not there was any previous encounter between Yahweh and Abraham is beside the point- the Biblical record invites us to see God as taking the initiative, and Abraham faithfully responding. This is characteristic of God's call; Saul out looking for lost cattle, the disciples mending their nets- are suddenly called, and some respond well and others like Saul for ever try to slip out of it. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>All this would've made life difficult for Abraham, as it does for us. The Midrash at Bereshit Rabbah 38:13 tells tales of Terah accusing his son Abraham before the gods for having destroyed idols, and Abraham being thrown into a fiery furnace for rejection of his father and his father's gods. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To the land that I will show you</em>- Abraham was progressively set up by God so that his spiritual growth would be an upward spiral. Initially, he was told to walk / go to a land which God would shew him (<em><a href='B:10 12:1'>Gen 12:1</a></em>); when he got there, he was told to "arise", and "walk" through that land of Canaan (<em><a href='B:10 13:17'>Gen 13:17</a></em>). And Abraham, albeit in a faltering kind of way, did just this. But this was to prepare him for the test of <em><a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a></em> in the command to offer Isaac. His obedience this time isn't at all faltering. He "arises" and 'goes' (s.w. "walk") "unto the place of which God had told him" to offer Isaac (<em><a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a></em>). This is exactly what he had been called to do right back in Ur- to arise and walk / go to a land / place which God would show him (<em><a href='B:10 12:1'>Gen 12:1</a></em>). And so our obedience in one challenge of God leads us to obedience in others. One experience is designed to lead us to another. Nothing- absolutely nothing- in our lives is senseless chance. All- and this takes some believing- is part of a higher plan for our spiritual good, in our latter end. Time and again we see this in Abraham's life. He was taught that he really could be a blessing to others by the circumstances which God arranged relating to Lot being blessed / saved for his sake. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will make of you a great nation- </em>The first promise to Abraham was actually conditional- if he did these things, then "I will make of you a great nation". If he left his natural kindred, then God would give him a huge new family. But he hardly fulfilled those conditions, and yet still the promises were ultimately fulfilled to him. And he is set up as the "father of the faithful". We all know that really our faith is pathetically weak, and this recognition can cause some to stumble altogether.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will bless you and make your name great. You will be a blessing</em>- <em>Whoever</em> drinks of the water of life will have <em>within</em> them a spring that also gives eternal life (<em><a href='B:500 4:15'>Joh 4:15</a></em>). The purpose of a spring is to give water to men. Experiencing the Lord's words and salvation <em>inevitably</em> leads to us doing likewise to others, springing from somewhere deep within. This was in fact one of the first things God promised Abraham when He first instituted the new covenant: "I will bless thee (i.e. with forgiveness and salvation in the Kingdom)... and <em>thou</em> shalt be a blessing" , in that we his seed in Christ would bring this same blessing to men of all nations by our witness (<em><a href='B:10 12:2-3'>Gen 12:2-3</a></em> AV). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The making of his name great was initially fulfilled in the change to Abraham, meaning 'father of a multitude'. But the only ultimately great name is that of Yahweh; the same words are used about His Name being made great (<em><a href='B:100 7:26'>2Sa 7:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 17:24'>1Ch 17:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 34:3'>Psa 34:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:30'>Psa 69:30</a></em>). Abram's name was to be made great on account of his identification with his seed who would carry Yahweh Name. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is no record of God authenticating His claims to Abram through miracles, fulfilled prophecies etc. Rather Abram is presented as a random Middle Eastern guy who heard the essence of the Gospel and believed it, and then acted upon that faith. Simple as that. Later, Abraham is commended for believing "against hope", when there was no visible reason to hope (<em><a href='B:520 4:18'>Rom 4:18</a></em>). Faith is not therefore based upon empirical evidence, as <em><a href='B:650 11:1-3'>Heb 11:1-3</a></em> clearly state. This is the mystery of faith, and an essay in the power of the Gospel of itself to elicit faith in its own message. That may at first blush sound circular reasoning; but the fact so many have believed a message which had no external authentication is proof enough- that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing on account of the word of God" (<em><a href='B:520 10:17'>Rom 10:17</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you- </em>People from all families would be blessed in Abraham- because they 'blessed' Abraham. God's salvation program began with 'blessing' Adam (<em><a href='B:10 1:22'>Gen 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 5:2'>Gen 5:2</a></em>); when that intention didn't work because of human sin, Noah was then chosen, saved and blessed (<em><a href='B:10 9:1'>Gen 9:1</a></em>). That pathway too had come to a dead end with the apostacy of his descendants. And now God seeks to bless Abram, and all those who identified with him. In the first instance, the "families of the <em>eretz</em>" were those listed in Genesis 10. Whoever blessed Abram as he travelled around that territory would be blessed, and any who cursed him would be cursed. He need not fear that the inhabitants of that land would persecute him as a foreigner. And yet he and his descendants did so often fear that this would happen at the hands of the local inhabitants, and chapter 12 goes on to give an example of where he failed to believe this simple promise. He is hardly portrayed as brimming with faith and obedience, but rather one who clung on to God's clinging on of him. And this is really the lead characteristic of all who would later be his spiritual descendants. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Abraham family should have focused upon the wonder of being blessed by God. But as we see in Genesis 27 and elsewhere, they placed too great a value upon human blessings. And this speaks directly to us too. To be humanly blessed appears of critical importance; but if we believe we have the Divine, Abrahamic blessing, then such blessings ought to be irrelevant.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are examples of those who blessed the Abraham family being blessed; thus Laban blessed them (<em><a href='B:10 24:31'>Gen 24:31</a></em>), and was in turn blessed (<em><a href='B:10 30:27'>Gen 30:27</a></em>). But there are hardly any specific examples of those who cursed them being cursed. As ever, God's focus was upon the positive rather than the negative. "Blessing" in the Old Testament context largely referred to material blessings; but the language is taken over in the New Testament and applied to all the spiritual blessings we have in Abraham's seed, the Lord Jesus. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All of the families of the earth will be blessed in you</em>- This is an evident allusion back to the cursing of the <em>adamah</em> / earth in Eden (<em><a href='B:10 3:17'>Gen 3:17</a></em>). The implication was that the promised seed of the woman, who was to be the way of escape from that curse, was to somehow be "in Abraham". Although there's no mention yet of a specific son or seed, it seems to me that God was setting Abraham up to meditate upon the promise of the earth being blessed "in him", and figure out that this must mean that he was to have a descendant or son who would be the Saviour. Perhaps the subsequent specific promises about this were as it were God's reward for Abraham following through with where God was leading him. <em><a href='B:10 28:14'>Gen 28:14</a></em> makes explicit that the blessing of the <em>adamah</em> was to be "in your seed". I firmly believe, indeed have experienced, the way in which God prompts our minds to think of something, to work something through, and then reveals this specifically, or confirms our understanding, directly from His word. In our day and context, it would seem that daily reading of God's word is what's required in order to 'allow' as it were this process to happen. This, surely, is how God seeks to work out the same process with us as He did with Abraham. Even if at the time of reading we feel we 'get nothing out of that chapter', there will be prompts to thought and later reflection which are all in God's longer term educational purpose with us. <em><a href='B:650 11:33'>Heb 11:33</a></em> says that the likes of Abraham obtained promises by their faith. Yet the Old Testament record clearly enough states that the promises were just given to them by God; they weren't requested by the patriarchs. Indeed, David was surprised at the promises God chose to make to him. Conclusion? God read their unspoken, unprayed for desires for Messiah and His Kingdom as requests for the promises- and responded.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham was only explicitly promised the land of Canaan, not the entire planet. Perhaps in speaking of Abraham as “heir of the world” (<em><a href='B:520 4:13'>Rom 4:13</a></em>) Paul is interpreting the promises that his seed would comprise “many nations” and that he would bring blessing on “all the peoples of the earth” (<em><a href='B:10 12:2-3'>Gen 12:2-3</a></em> etc.). In this sense, they would become his, and he would thereby inherit them. Thus <em><a href='B:290 55:3-5'>Isa 55:3-5</a></em> likewise implies that Abraham’s promised inheritance was therefore not only the land of Canaan but by implication, the whole planet.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Grammatically, <em><a href='B:10 12:3'>Gen 12:3</a></em> can be read as passive ("be blessed", as AV, RV) or reflexive "bless themselves" (as RSV), i.e. implying those blessed have to do something to appropriate the blessing. In this we see how God will play His part, but we must play our part. And yet the covenant in Genesis 15 was one way, unconditional, from God to us. It's as if <em>His</em> part in our salvation is so much greater than our response. Yet there is still an obvious element of choice which we have to make. The way <em><a href='B:10 12:1-3'>Gen 12:1-3</a></em> is structured implies that Abraham receives an unconditional blessing, yet he therefore is to go forth and "be a blessing". And it's the same for us- and note how the "blessing" is interpreted as forgiveness in <em><a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a></em>. We are to forgive and generally bless others, in all forms of gracious generosity, as God has blessed us.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God promises to bless <em>them</em> (plural) who bless Abraham, and curse <em>him</em> (singular) who curse Abraham (<em><a href='B:10 12:3'>Gen 12:3</a></em>). In other words, the blessings are to come specifically and individually to many people; whereas those who curse Abraham and his seed are just treated as one homogenous mass.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:10 12:3'>Gen 12:3</a></em> LXX speaks of how all the tribes of the land of Israel will be blessed (i.e. forgiven) due to Abraham's seed, the Lord Jesus. This has yet to be fulfilled- but it will be if the tribes of the land (i.e. the native Arab peoples living between the Nile and Euphrates) repent and accept Messiah's forgiveness. The picture of Christ's Millennial rule in <em><a href='B:230 72:8-9'>Psa 72:8-9</a></em> is similar: " He shall have dominion from sea (the Mediterranean?) to sea (the Persian Gulf?) from the river unto the ends of the earth (land). They that dwell in the wilderness (the Arab peoples) shall bow&nbsp; before him" .</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>All nations of the land were to be blessed because of Abraham and his seed, his one special seed (Jesus) and also his natural descendants. His children were intended to be a blessing to the other nations who lived around them, especially in that they were intended to bring them to Abraham’s God and Abraham’s faith. Now this is not to say that ultimately, Abraham and his seed will not bring blessing on literally the whole planet. <em><a href='B:520 4:13'>Rom 4:13</a></em> interprets the promise of the land of Canaan as meaning ‘the whole world’. But this was by later development, and on account of the universal blessing achieved by the sacrifice of Abraham’s greatest seed, the Lord Jesus. In the first instance, the blessing was to be upon all the families who lived on the ‘earth’ / land (12:3). There is a paradox here. For those already living in the land promised to Abraham, their land would be taken from them but they would be blessed. God was telling Abraham: ‘You will possess the land and all nations of that land will be blessed’. They were to give up their physical inheritance to receive a spiritual one- this was the ideal. Paul applies this idea to us when he says that if Gentiles have received the spiritual blessings of Abraham’s seed, ought they not to give their physical blessings to that same physical seed of Abraham? This is how and why he tells Gentile converts in Rome to send donations to the poor Jewish brethren in Jerusalem: “For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things… I shall come in the fullness of the <em>blessing</em> of the gospel of Christ” (<em><a href='B:520 15:27-29'>Rom 15:27-29</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So Abram went, as Yahweh had spoken to him. Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed out of Haran- </em>The comment "So Abram departed (Heb. 'went'- s.w. <em><a href='B:10 11:31'>Gen 11:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 12:1'>Gen 12:1</a></em>), as the Lord had spoken unto him" (<em><a href='B:10 12:4'>Gen 12:4</a></em> AV) is surely the beginning of the wonderful theme of righteousness being imputed to Abraham! For he did not break with his relatives as asked, and he "went" from Ur because his father decided to emigrate. <em><a href='B:650 11:8'>Heb 11:8</a></em> records things from a positive perspective too, as if there was instant obedience from Abraham: "By faith Abraham when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went". Truly, the Biblical record imputes righteousness to Abraham, and thus sets a pattern for all of us, the equally faltering and stumbling children of Abraham. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abram took Sarai his wife, Lot his brother’s son- </em>Abram and Sarai would have effectively adopted the orphaned Lot. The experience of adopting would have been part of God's preparation of the psychological background, so that they would have appreciated all the more the idea of a son, seed and dynasty of their very own.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All their substance that they had gathered, and the souls whom they had gotten in Haran, and they went to go into the land of Canaan. Into the land of Canaan they came- </em>Abram's leaving of Haran was still a great act of faith; he had "gathered" much in the years of staying in Haran. According to Jewish tradition, Abraham stayed 23 years in Haran. All he had to go on was a word from the Lord which he'd received some years ago whilst living in Ur. There's no reason to think that Angels regularly appeared to him and kept urging him to leave, or that he could read the Lord's word in written form as we can. Presumably that one word which he received worked in his conscience, until he said to the family "Right, we're quitting this nice life for a wilderness journey to some place I don't know". We can underestimate the power of "just" one word from the Lord. We're so familiar with possessing His entire word in written form that we can forget the need to be obedient to just one of those words, to the extent of losing all we once held dear... In this I find Abraham a wonderful example. He must, presumably, have wondered whether he really had heard right, whether the whole thing wasn't just a weird dream- just as we may wonder whether really we are supposed to take God's word as it is and allow it to radically upset our settled, mediocre lives. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We read of all the substance that Abram had <em>gathered</em>&nbsp; in Haran; the Hebrew for "gathered" implies an element of hoarding and materialism. It only occurs in passages concerning the patriarchs, as if to show that this was one of their characteristics. <em><a href='B:10 31:18'>Gen 31:18</a></em> comments on Jacob using his own wit and cunning to accumulate material wealth: "He carried away all his cattle, and all his goods which he had <em>gotten</em>, the cattle of his getting, which he had <em>gotten</em>". The humanness of all this is strongly hinted at in <em><a href='B:10 30:43'>Gen 30:43</a></em>: "The <em>man</em>&nbsp;increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, and maidservants, and menservants, and camels and asses". This list is identical to that in <em><a href='B:10 24:35'>Gen 24:35</a></em> concerning Abraham. Jacob and Sons left Canaan with "their cattle, and their goods, which they had <em>gotten</em>" (<em><a href='B:10 46:6'>Gen 46:6</a></em>). Esau too piled up his possessions; <em><a href='B:10 36:6'>Gen 36:6</a></em> speaks of his sons, daughters, servants, cattle, beasts, "and all his substance which he had <em>got</em>&nbsp; in the land of Canaan". The way this Hebrew word for materialistic accumulation is used only about the Abraham family ought to be seen by us as a flashing light, pointing us to a definite characteristic in all of them. Against this background we can better appreciate Abraham's faith that he did now possess the land.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>According to Jewish tradition, Abraham stayed 23 years in Haran. All he had to go on was a word from the Lord which he'd received some years ago whilst living in Ur. There's no reason to think that Angels regularly appeared to him and kept urging him to leave, or that he could read the Lord's word in written form as we can. Presumably that one word which he received worked in his conscience, until he said to the family "Right, we're quitting this nice life for a wilderness journey to some place I don't know". We can underestimate the power of "just" one word from the Lord. We're so familiar with possessing His entire word in written form that we can forget the need to be obedient to just one of those words, to the extent of losing all we once held dear... In this I find Abraham a wonderful example. He must, presumably, have wondered whether he really had heard right, whether the whole thing wasn't just a weird dream- just as we may wonder whether <em>really</em> we are supposed to take God's word as it is and allow it to radically upset our settled, mediocre lives. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abram passed through the land to the place of Shechem, to the oak of Moreh- </em>God's promise to Abraham was made more specifically at "the oak of Moreh" (<em><a href='B:10 12:6'>Gen 12:6</a></em>)- evidently a Canaanite shrine; and it's emphasized that "the Canaanite was then in the land". It's as if God's invitation to Abraham to have a unique relationship with Him was made amidst the calls and presence of many other gods, and in the thick of the Gentile world. Providence arranged that Abram travelled throughout the <em>eretz</em>; just as our experiences in this life give us peeks into the various aspects of our eternal inheritance. See on :9.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The Canaanite was then in the land- </em>Moses’ books were helping the wilderness generation to see where they were coming from historically. Passages like <em><a href='B:10 12:6'>Gen 12:6</a></em> now take on special relevance: "The Canaanites were then in the land". Moses was saying this as his people were about to enter a Canaan likewise occupied by Canaanites; the idea would have been <em>'Then</em> the Canaanites were there, just as they are <em>now</em>, and God shall be with us Abram's seed likewise<em>'.</em> He was bidding the people see their connection with their father Abraham, who then lived with Canaanites also in the same land. See on <em><a href='B:10 13:3'>Gen 13:3</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh appeared to Abram and said, I will give this land to your seed</em>- Abraham was told to leave Ur and all he had there, and journey to a land he would be shown. Trying to keep up a sense of eagerness and hope for the new life, he made tremendous sacrifices, and journeyed to Canaan. When he finally got there, he didn’t realize he’d arrived. Then the Lord appeared to him and said that to <em>his seed</em> He would give this land (<em><a href='B:10 12:1'>Gen 12:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 12:7'>Gen 12:7</a></em>). To the human mind, this would have been a huge blow. He had given up all in the hope of a new life and inheritance, and now he is told that someone called his “seed” would inherit it. His response was to build an altar and worship, realizing he had served for nothing personally in this life, but with his mind filled with the glory and Kingdom of Christ, his future seed. God was so delighted with this attitude that later promises included Abraham personally, showing that because of his part in Christ, the seed, he would in fact personally have an inheritance too.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He built an altar there to Yahweh, who appeared to him- </em>There may be an intended contrast between Abraham <em>building</em> an altar in recognition of the promises, at the same time as he <em>pitched</em> his tent (12:8)- as if to highlight the temporal nature of our present material situation in contrast to the permanence of the things we stand related to in God's promises. The building of altars was perhaps a public confession of faith; the surrounding peoples had their altars, but Abram and his family built altars to Yahweh, and left them behind them as a witness to their faith in the promises received and the relationship offered. Baptism would be one equivalent of this in our days- a public confession of faith in the same promises.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Commonly enough, the New Testament speaks of baptism as a calling upon the Name of the Lord. This must be understood against its Hebrew background- <em>qara' beshem Yahweh</em>, which originally referred to approaching God in sacrifice (<em><a href='B:10 12:7-8'>Gen 12:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 116:4'>Psa 116:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 116:17'>Psa 116:17</a></em>). God placed His Name upon places in order to make them suitable places for sacrifice to be offered to Him (<em><a href='B:50 12:4-7'>Deu 12:4-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:21'>Deu 12:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 7:12'>Jer 7:12</a></em>). Baptism was thus seen as a sacrificial commitment to Yahweh in solemn covenant. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham only left Haran after his father died, suggesting Terah didn’t want to travel further, and so Abraham didn’t do so. He simply didn’t leave his father’s house / family. And when he does leave, he takes his family with him- Lot, Lot’s family and Sarah, his half sister (<em><a href='B:10 12:5'>Gen 12:5</a></em>). And yet God continues working with Abraham; after he leaves Haran, God appears and tells him that He wishes to give “thee”, ‘you’ singular, the land (<em><a href='B:10 12:7'>Gen 12:7</a></em>). In other words, the fulfilment of the promises was to Abraham personally, and that is why he was required to individuate from his unbelieving family in order to receive them. And because God simply wanted to fulfil the promises to Abraham, He arranged Abraham’s separation from his family in order to fulfil those preconditions. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He left from there to the mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, having Bethel on the west, and Ai on the east. There he built an altar to Yahweh and called on the name of Yahweh</em>- The weaknesses of the patriarchs provides great inspiration to our feeble faith when we consider how they are held up in such exalted terms. The geographical record of Abraham's entry to Canaan describes him as appearing at certain key points in the land. Those same areas became the key points in the conquest of the land in Joshua's time- it was as if Abraham was seen as the example for all Israel. Thus the people in their weakness pitched "between Bethel and Ai, to the west of Ai" (<em><a href='B:60 8:9'>Jos 8:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 8:14'>Jos 8:14</a></em>)- the very expressions found about Abraham in <em><a href='B:10 12:8'>Gen 12:8</a></em>. The contrast between tent and altar is purposeful; the things of the Kingdom are permanent and set in stone, whereas our present life is temporary. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abram travelled, going on further toward the south</em>- As noted on :6, this was all part of God's purpose, of getting Abram to travel around in the <em>eretz</em> which he should eternally inherit, to perceive the length and breadth of what God had promised him. And the famine meant that Abram would have had to keep moving his flocks.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There was a famine in the land. Abram went down into Egypt to live as a foreigner there, for the famine was severe in the land</em>- "Severe" is Heb. 'heavy'. God's grace shines through again and again. Abraham went down into Egypt because of how "grievous" or 'heavy' the famine was; and comes up out of Egypt, thanks to betraying his wife, "heavy" (same Hebrew word) with riches (<em><a href='B:10 12:10'>Gen 12:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 13:2'>Gen 13:2</a></em>). Everything he did was blessed, despite his weakness. The land he had been promised was not immediately flowing with milk and honey- on first arrival, it was parched. We likewise don't experience the full Kingdom blessings now. The Abram family several times went down into Egypt because of famine; and the more spiritually perceptive realized that they would always come up out of it, after hard experiences there. "To live as a foreigner there" may imply that he lived as a foreigner in Canaan, and now in Egypt, there too he was a foreigner. The constant insecurity in Abram's life (despite his wealth) was to make him yearn the more for the eternal permanence of possession which was intrinsic to the gospel preached to him (<em><a href='B:550 3:8'>Gal 3:8</a></em>). And it's the same for us. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened, when he had come near to enter Egypt, that he said to Sarai his wife, See now, I know that you are a beautiful woman to look at</em>- "His wife" emphasizes that this is how God saw their relationship; even though He considered that marriage to a half sister was an abomination. But He accepted people where they were at, as we should. Abram's fear may have been because the middle aged Sarah was not only beautiful, but had lighter skin than the Egyptians, and was thereby attractive to them.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It will happen, when the Egyptians will see you, that they will say, ‘This is his wife’; they will kill me, but they will save you alive</em>- The fear of premature death was a reflection of his lack of deep faith in the promise just earlier recorded; that those who cursed him would be cursed, and he would be blessed, and ultimately given the land. At every turn, Abram is presented as of generally weak faith, although he did believe the overall representation of God to him, and that faith rose to a pinnacle in his willingness to offer Isaac, and his simple belief that really, his seed would become as many as the stars. But at this stage, his faith was weak when tested. And yet God still worked with him, as He does with us, and as we should with those whose faith is yet weak.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Please say that you are my sister</em>- Throughout the records of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his children there is continual repetition in the manner in which the record is written. This repetition is of both experiences (e.g. lying concerning their wives: <em><a href='B:10 20:3'>Gen 20:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 20:13'>Gen 20:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 26:7'>Gen 26:7</a></em>) and of the language used to describe those experiences. The impression is that they didn't learn from history, just as we often do not- despite the wealth of Biblical history which we now have behind us.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>That it may be well with me for your sake, and that my soul may live because of you-</em> Straight after receiving the promises, Abraham goes down to Egypt (an act with spiritually negative overtones), and lies about his wife. Not only does he show a strange lack of protection for her, but his actions reflect a weakened faith in God's promises to him. For if Abraham was to have died at the hands of jealous Egyptians at that stage, how would the promises to him be fulfilled? In urging Sarah to deny she was his wife, Abraham comments to her in <em><a href='B:10 12:13'>Gen 12:13</a></em>: "My soul shall live because of you". <em><a href='B:230 33:18-19'>Psa 33:18-19</a></em> appears to comment upon this: "Behold, the eye of Jehovah (Angelic language- and Abraham dealt with Angels) is upon them that fear him, Upon them that hope in his lovingkindness; to deliver their soul from death, And to keep them alive in famine (Abraham told the lie he did about Sarah because he trusted in Egypt to keep him alive in famine). Our soul hath waited for Jehovah: He is our help and our shield"- and it is God, not Sarah, who is described as Abraham's shield (same Hebrew word) in <em><a href='B:10 15:1'>Gen 15:1</a></em>. Again, his faith is presented as weak; and yet he is set up as our example of faith.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened that when Abram had come into Egypt, the Egyptians saw that the woman was very beautiful</em>- Fears about possible futures are the very essence of lack of faith. In Abram's case, his fears were not baseless. But he went ahead, because he was not sure that he could remain in Canaan in time of famine. He probably could have personally survived, but his flocks wouldn't have done; and he couldn't bear to think of parting with all that wealth.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The princes of Pharaoh saw her, and praised her to Pharaoh; and the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house</em>- As so often in the record of Abraham's family, the surrounding world are presented as having more integrity than they did. Pharaoh's princes didn't rape her, they just commended her to their master. And she was taken into his house, but Pharaoh didn't sleep with her- presumably, new wives had to undergo a period of purification first, as the Mosaic law would also stipulate in some cases. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He dealt well with Abram for her sake. He had sheep, cattle, male donkeys, male servants, female servants, female donkeys, and camels</em>- See on <em><a href='B:10 14:22'>Gen 14:22</a></em>. As noted on :15, the Pharaoh appears of absolute integrity. He gave what was effectively a bride price to Abram, without having actually slept with Sarai. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram’s wife</em>- As noted on :13, situations and circumstances repeat over the course of Divine history. It is the same heavenly hand at work, and the intention is that we should learn from the history. For a later Pharaoh was also to be plagued because of the presence of the Abraham family amongst them; but the lesson was not learnt.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Pharaoh called Abram and said, What is this that you have done to me?- </em>The very words of God to Adam (<em><a href='B:10 3:13'>Gen 3:13</a></em>). It was really God speaking through Pharaoh to Abram, just as He speaks to us through circumstances and unbelievers. The very same words are repeated to Abram later, by Abimelech, in the same context of lying about Sarah (<em><a href='B:10 26:10'>Gen 26:10</a></em>). As noted on :17, circumstances and phrases recur in our lives, as the same Divine hand is at work to educate us.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Why didn’t you tell me that she was your wife?</em>- Both Pharaoh and Abram knew the answer: 'Because I was afraid'. And they are the very words on the lips of the condemned man in <em><a href='B:470 25:25'>Mat 25:25</a></em>, just as they were on the lips of Adam in his condemnation (<em><a href='B:10 3:10'>Gen 3:10</a></em>). But despite still not learning from the situation, Abram is still set up as our example of faith.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Why did you say, ‘She is my sister’, so that I took her to be my wife? Now therefore, see your wife, take her, and go your way</em>- Again we see the integrity of the Pharaoh, in that he had apparently taken her to be his wife, but had not slept with her. "See your wife" implies 'perceive, recognize her as being your wife'. It was a stinging rebuke. Abram is not presented as a good husband in this respect. "Take her" may well refer to taking a woman as a wife; Abram is being told to go on his way openly committed to his wife. And yet he fails in this again, as does his son Isaac. I noted on :18 that the Pharaoh is effectively speaking on God's behalf here; but Abram didn't hearken to that voice.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Pharaoh commanded men concerning him, and they brought him on the way with his wife and all that he had</em>- To bring someone on their way meant being generous to them and providing them with what they needed for their journey. This was again repeated (see on :17) by Abimelech (<em><a href='B:10 20:14'>Gen 20:14</a></em>). To be generous to those who have wronged us leaves us with the upper hand; it is the intention behind the Lord's teaching that if a man takes your jacket, then offer him your undergarment. The spirit of demanding restitution and prosecution to that end is the very opposite of this. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abram went up out of Egypt: he, his wife, all that he had, and Lot with him, into the South</em>- As noted on chapter 12, the record stresses that Sarah was "his wife", despite the fact God viewed marriage to a half sister as "abomination". We note that Abram left Egypt not because the famine had finished, but because the Pharaoh had rebuked him. This confirms our suggestion on chapter 12, that Abram didn't need to go into Egypt; he went because the famine would've meant a diminution of his wealth if his cattle died. He placed himself in the way of temptation because of a desire to cling on to the material "blessings" of wealth. He was "very rich" (:2), but the desire to maintain wealth levels is as tempting as the desire to attain them in the first place.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abram was very rich in livestock, in silver, and in gold- </em>Abraham tells Sarah to say she is his sister, not his wife, and (by implication) let the Egyptians sleep with her rather than kill him.&nbsp; And straight after this, God blesses Abraham with riches (<em><a href='B:10 12:11'>Gen 12:11</a></em> to <em><a href='B:10 13:2'>Gen 13:2</a></em>). This happened also with Isaac; God's blessing materially isn't always related to our righteousness. By contrast, Pharaoh was attracted to her, and took her into his house. But he didn't sleep with her, and was willing to allow a period of time to elapse before marrying her, in order not to insult her dignity (cp. <em><a href='B:50 21:13'>Deu 21:13</a></em>). God's grace shines through again and again. Abraham went down into Egypt because of how "grievous" or 'heavy' the famine was; and comes up out of Egypt, thanks to betraying his wife, "heavy" (same Hebrew word) with riches (<em><a href='B:10 12:10'>Gen 12:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 13:2'>Gen 13:2</a></em>). Everything he did was blessed, despite his weakness. Perhaps this was to elicit within him the understanding that "blessing" was not commensurate to spirituality, whilst we understand "blessing" in material terms. The "blessing" he really needed was something else...</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He went on his journeys from the South even to Bethel, to the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Ai</em>- The reference to Abram pitching his tent between Bethel (‘the house of God’) and Hai (‘the house of ruin’) could imply that he was caught between the two- his faith was not firmly decided (<em><a href='B:10 13:3'>Gen 13:3</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The repeated references to the “journeys” of the people in the wilderness had as their basis the description of Abraham taking his journey through the desert to the promised land (<em><a href='B:10 13:3'>Gen 13:3</a></em>); the very same two Hebrew words recur in the command to Israel to now ‘take their journey’ (<em><a href='B:50 10:11'>Deu 10:11</a></em>), following in the steps of their father Abraham. See on <em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To the place of the altar, which he had made there at the first. There Abram called on the name of Yahweh</em>- This is the first we hear of Abram relating to God as Yahweh. Whatever his 'calling on the name' involved beyond sacrifice, he clearly made a special commitment to Yahweh at that time and place. And it was in response to grace; for he realized he had done wrong in going into Egypt to preserve his wealth, in lying about his wife... and out of it all, he had not been punished, rather both God and Pharaoh had blessed him with wealth. And it was that which led him now to offer his animal wealth to God, and to devote himself further to Him. If God had punished him, the same response would not have been forthcoming. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Lot also, who went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents</em>- It is stressed in the record that "Lot went with him" out of Haran (<em><a href='B:10 12:4'>Gen 12:4</a></em>), and that in Abram's subsequent passing through the land of Canaan, "Lot... went with Abram" (<em><a href='B:10 13:5'>Gen 13:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 13:1'>Gen 13:1</a></em>). But Abram had been asked to leave his relatives. Abraham didn’t separate from Lot of his own volition- he invites Lot to separate himself from him, rather than Abraham telling Lot that he was separating from him (<em><a href='B:10 13:9'>Gen 13:9</a></em>). Abraham’s subsequent concern for Lot, rescuing him from captivity and then begging God to save Lot from Sodom, show how Abraham certainly considered Lot his beloved family member. “We be brethren” was his position. “Lot separated from him” (<em><a href='B:10 13:14'>Gen 13:14</a></em>) rather than Abraham separating from Lot, as was required by God’s command to Abraham. As soon as Lot separates from Abraham, God repeats the promise to Abraham- that “thy seed”, you singular, will inherit the land. To receive a new land and a new family, Abraham had to separate from his natural, earthly land and family. The fulfilment of the promises was conditional upon Abraham’s individuation from his family, his separation from them and unto God- and God worked to enable this precondition to be fulfilled despite Abraham’s weakness in separating from his own land and family. It was God who brought Abraham out of Ur (<em><a href='B:10 15:7'>Gen 15:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:160 9:7'>Neh 9:7</a></em>)- not Abraham’s obedience to the call to leave Ur. We see a similar grace in how Lot was told to leave Sodom, but he dithered in doing so; God “sent Lot out of Sodom” (<em><a href='B:10 19:29'>Gen 19:29</a></em>), and eventually took his hand and dragged him out of the city, “the Lord being merciful to him” (<em><a href='B:10 19:16'>Gen 19:16</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The land was not able to bear them, that they might live together: for their substance was great, so that they could not live together</em>- Wealth nearly always leads to division. The same words and situation recur when we read that Jacob and Esau could not live together because of their wealth (<em><a href='B:10 36:7'>Gen 36:7</a></em>). The ideal is that brethren dwell together (same Hebrew words) in unity (<em><a href='B:230 133:1'>Psa 133:1</a></em>). But that is only possible with the presence of the Spirit. The extent of their wealth is emphasized. The multiplication of their flocks is the more remarkable when we realize that there had been a major famine in the land (<em><a href='B:10 12:10'>Gen 12:10</a></em>). And the more they needed pastureland, the more conflict there would be with the local inhabitants.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There was a strife between the herdsmen of Abram’s livestock and the herdsmen of Lot’s livestock</em>- Immediately Terah died, Abram may have felt he had truly left his "kindred" and eagerly moved on towards the promised land of Canaan (so <em><a href='B:10 11:32'>Gen 11:32</a></em> to <em><a href='B:10 12:4'>Gen 12:4</a></em> implies). It is likely that many of Abram's "kindred" would have come along with Terah, responding themselves to the call of Abram. Presumably they settled in Haran after Terah's death. It is even possible that the family were from this city originally, seeing that Abraham's brother was called Haran. We saw on <em><a href='B:10 12:1'>Gen 12:1</a></em> that just before leaving Haran, Abram was further told to separate from his "father's house" too, i.e. <em>all</em> of his father's household. This must have included Lot.&nbsp; Abram could understand separation from his idolatrous father and the rest of the family retinue; yet Lot was "a righteous man"; Abram evidently rated Lot's spirituality (<em><a href='B:10 18:23'>Gen 18:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 18:32'>Gen 18:32</a></em>). Again, Abram was in a quandary. He had left all but one of his father's house in Haran. Was he really intended to separate from his father's house to the extent of leaving Lot too?&nbsp; It is likely that Abram often agonized about Lot. There he was in Canaan, knowing that his seed would inherit this land, which was then full of Canaanites (the record twice emphasizes, in <em><a href='B:10 12:6'>Gen 12:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 13:7'>Gen 13:7</a></em>). But Lot, part of his kindred and father's house, was still with him. We saw that the Hebrew for "kindred" implies one born in ones’ own country. A closely related word is found in <em><a href='B:10 11:28'>Gen 11:28</a></em>, describing how Haran, Lot's father, "died in the <em>land of his nativity</em>, in Ur". If Lot's father lived and died in Ur, it is fair to assume that Lot was born in Ur. So Abram knew he must separate from Lot, his "kindred" - but how? What reason could he give Lot? Yet he had faith in what God had told him; therefore he <em>wanted</em> to leave Lot, but just found it hard to do. And so God made a way.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Because the promises were to be made to Abram and not Lot, this separation was indeed necessary (although nothing should be inferred from this regarding Lot's spirituality or standing with God). It is stressed in the record that "Lot went with him" out of Haran (<em><a href='B:10 12:4'>Gen 12:4</a></em>), and that in Abram's subsequent passing through the land of Canaan, "Lot... went with Abram" (<em><a href='B:10 13:5'>Gen 13:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 13:1'>Gen 13:1</a></em>). Having been through so much together (they were together in the Egypt crisis, <em><a href='B:10 13:1'>Gen 13:1</a></em>), it is unlikely that they would suffer from a personality clash. Yet the great wealth of them both resulted in "strife between the herdmen of Abram's cattle, and the herdmen of Lot's cattle" (<em><a href='B:10 13:7'>Gen 13:7</a></em>). Abram reasoned that it would be a shame to let this incident between their employees drive a wedge between them personally; "for we be brethren" (note Abram's intense awareness that they were of the same household), and close spiritual friends too, it may be inferred (<em><a href='B:10 19:8'>Gen 19:8</a></em>). Abram's subsequent concern for Lot indicates that they did not fall out personally over the problem.&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And the Canaanite and the Perizzite lived in the land at that time</em>- Moses’ books were helping the wilderness generation to see where they were coming from historically. Passages like this and <em><a href='B:10 12:6'>Gen 12:6</a></em> now take on special relevance: "The Canaanites were then in the land". Moses was saying this as his people were about to enter a Canaan likewise occupied by Canaanites; the idea would have been <em>'Then</em> the Canaanites were there, just as they are <em>now</em>, and God shall be with us Abram's seed likewise<em>'.</em> He was bidding the people see their connection with their father Abraham, who then lived with Canaanites also in the same land. See on <em><a href='B:10 13:3'>Gen 13:3</a></em>. We wonder why the Perizzites are mentioned specifically. It could be that they lived in the highlands and the "Canaanites" in the lowlands; or perhaps there were Perizzites in the particular locality where Abram was, and "Canaanite" was a more generic term.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abram said to Lot, Please, let there be no strife between me and you, and between my herdsmen and your herdsmen; for we are relatives</em>- Abram must surely have recalled how he had been called to separate from his relatives, and had not done so. God had seen Abram's devotion to Him at the time of :4, and responded by empowering him to be the more obedient- by making Lot separate from him. "For we are relatives" or "brethren" (AV) is a fundamental truth- brethren should not have "strife" between them, because of their relationship within the family of God. There may have to be separation, of a kind, between them. But their essential brotherhood should never lead to strife. In <em><a href='B:10 26:20-22'>Gen 26:20-22</a></em> we read of how there was "strife" between Isaac and the local Canaanites; and each time, Isaac moved on, rather than engage in strife. When Jacob entered into "strife" with Laban regarding the stolen idols, he was only saved from it by Divine grace (<em><a href='B:10 31:36'>Gen 31:36</a></em> s.w.).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Isn’t the whole land before you? Please separate yourself from me- </em>Abram would have noticed Lot's desire to settle down in the cities of the plain. Now he saw that providence was giving him the means he needed to separate from his father's house completely. He knew that if Lot chose, of his own volition, to separate from him, then there would no longer be the emotional agony of him separating from Lot. Yet a third time the record emphasizes their separation, and implies that as soon as this occurred, the full Abrahamic land covenant was made, featuring Abram's eternal inheritance of the land: "The Lord said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him... all the land which thou seest, to <em>thee</em> will I give it, and to <em>thy</em> seed for ever" (<em><a href='B:10 13:14-15'>Gen 13:14-15</a></em> AV). Again we see God's patience in the development of Abram's faith, and God's incremental response at each point of that development.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham gives Lot the choice as to what land he would like to live in. Lot was the orphaned nephew of Abraham- such magnanimity would've been unheard of in those societies, for the elder to give the junior dependent such a choice. The elder in the relationship would've chosen the best for himself, and that was that. It seems to me that Abraham's unusual attitude in this matter was a direct outcome of his faith in the promise that the whole land really would one day be given to <em>him</em>. If we have the faith of Abraham... we won't fight for our corner in this world. It'll be <em>so</em> much easier to 'let go' as Abraham did, and take an attitude to material wealth and possessions which is radically counter-cultural in <em>our</em> societies. The way that Lot lifted up his eyes and looked around the land is matched by the way in which God then bids Abraham to likewise lift up his eyes and view the very same territory which Lot had just chosen (<em><a href='B:10 13:10'>Gen 13:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 13:14'>Gen 13:14</a></em>)- and was told that the land which Lot had chosen, along with all other land, would be Abraham's eternally. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If you go to the left hand, then I will go to the right. Or if you go to the right hand, then I will go to the left- </em>We think of the Lord's depiction of the final judgment as a separation between right and left. It was as if Lot had the choice to decide, through his decisions about material things in this life. Although he failed, placing himself on the left hand side, as it were; he still repented and will be saved. Just as Peter denied the Lord and was condemned, in a preview of judgment day; and yet repented and was saved.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Lot lifted up his eyes- </em>The Hebrew phrase "to lift up the eyes" is used very extensively about the Abraham family. Most Bible characters have the term used at most once or twice about them; but the Genesis record emphasizes this characteristic of this family. It's as if we're being bidden to really visualize them as a family, and to enable this we're even given an insight into their body language. Consider the emphasis on the way this family had of lifting up their eyes:</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Lot lifted up his eyes (<em><a href='B:10 13:10'>Gen 13:10</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham lifted up his eyes (<em><a href='B:10 13:14'>Gen 13:14</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham lifted up his eyes and noticed the Angels (<em><a href='B:10 18:2'>Gen 18:2</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place of sacrifice (<em><a href='B:10 22:4'>Gen 22:4</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the ram caught (<em><a href='B:10 22:13'>Gen 22:13</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Isaac lifted up his eyes and saw camels coming on which Rebekah was riding (<em><a href='B:10 24:63'>Gen 24:63</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Rebekah, as part of a marriage made in Heaven, lifted up <em>her</em> eyes and saw Isaac at the same moment (<em><a href='B:10 24:64'>Gen 24:64</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jacob lifted up his eyes and saw the vision of the speckled cattle (twice recorded- <em><a href='B:10 31:10'>Gen 31:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 31:12'>Gen 31:12</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jacob lifted up his eyes and saw Esau coming (<em><a href='B:10 33:1'>Gen 33:1</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Esau lifted up his eyes and saw Jacob's family (<em><a href='B:10 33:5'>Gen 33:5</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jacob's sons lifted up their eyes and saw the traders coming (<em><a href='B:10 37:25'>Gen 37:25</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Joseph lifted up his eyes and saw Benjamin (<em><a href='B:10 43:29'>Gen 43:29</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Of course the classic epitome of this feature is when Abraham lifts up his eyes to Heaven and is asked to count the stars, and there and then believes God's word of promise that "so shall thy seed be". Yet <em>we</em>, as Abraham's family, his children by faith, are likewise asked (with the same Hebrew words) to lift up <em>our</em> eyes to Heaven and consider the stars, and take strength from the fact that their creator is our God (<em><a href='B:290 40:26'>Isa 40:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 51:6'>Isa 51:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 60:4'>Isa 60:4</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And saw all the plain of the Jordan, that it was well-watered everywhere- </em>During the famine, when the land was not well-watered, Abram and Lot had made the mistake of going down into Egypt (<em><a href='B:10 12:11'>Gen 12:11</a></em>). They returned from Egypt not because the famine lifted, but because they repented for Abram's materialism and dishonesty. But Lot had failed to learn the lesson; well-watered areas attracted him, and he noted that the land looked like Egypt.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Before Yahweh destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, like the garden of Yahweh-</em> Sarah murmured that it was impossible for her to have "pleasure" in childbearing (<em><a href='B:10 18:12'>Gen 18:12</a></em>). She uses the word <em>ednah</em>, related to the word <em>Eden</em>. Yet in the events of Genesis 19, she sees how the land around Sodom that was once "like the garden of Eden" (<em><a href='B:10 13:10'>Gen 13:10</a></em>) is made barren and sowed with salt so that nothing could grow there (<em><a href='B:10 19:25'>Gen 19:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 29:23'>Deu 29:23</a></em>). She was being taught that God can give and take away fertility on a huge scale, just as that land had only recently been dry in the famine (<em><a href='B:10 12:11'>Gen 12:11</a></em>), but was at this time well watered.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Like the land of Egypt, as you go to Zoar</em>- We suffer from the 'little of both' syndrome. Like Lot, we perceive that what we want is both like the garden of God (Eden) and also like Egypt; there is a tremendous dualism in our spiritual vision. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So Lot chose the Plain of the Jordan for himself. Lot travelled east, and they separated themselves the one from the other- </em>"For himself" surely hints at selfishness. His travelling east connects with the descendants of Noah travelling east from Ararat and building Babel (<em><a href='B:10 11:2'>Gen 11:2</a></em>), as well as the rejected Cain and Adam travelling east away from the sanctuary in Eden (<em><a href='B:10 3:24'>Gen 3:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 4:16'>Gen 4:16</a></em>). As with Abram, we find the record emphasizing his weakness; but he is declared "righteous" ultimately (<em><a href='B:680 2:7'>2Pe 2:7</a></em>). That surely was an example of righteousness being imputed, just as it was to Abraham. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abram lived in the land of Canaan, and Lot lived in the cities of the plain, and moved his tent as far as Sodom- </em>We can trace Lot's slide towards the world. He began seeking better pastureland in the valley; he then "lived in the cities of the plain", then camped in his tent near Sodom; and finally moved into Sodom, put his tent in the loft, and became a judge within the city (<em><a href='B:10 19:9'>Gen 19:9</a></em>). Whereas our pattern is to be Abram, who remained on the less fertile areas, and received the promise of eternal inheritance.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and sinners against Yahweh</em>- Sodom being a type of latter day events, it is not surprising that Scripture provides a wealth of detail concerning Sodom. "Before the Lord" (AV) recalls the earth being "corrupt before God" prior to the flood (<em><a href='B:10 6:11'>Gen 6:11</a></em>), another clear type of the last days. Indeed their sin being "before the Lord" may hint that Lot (or Abraham?) had preached God's requirements to them, and therefore they were consciously disobeying Him. Thus <em><a href='B:520 3:19'>Rom 3:19</a></em> speaks of the world becoming "guilty before God" by reason of their having the opportunity to know God's word (cp. <em><a href='B:520 2:12-13'>Rom 2:12-13</a></em>).&nbsp;And yet sin is still sin, whether or not there is knowledge of God's word. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Abram, after Lot was separated from him- </em>This separation had been required when God first entered relationship with Abram. Now Abram had been led to obedience to it, the promises were enlarged. This suggests that there are certain waymarks of spiritual attainment which the Father sets, and then increments His relationship with us once we reach them.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now, lift up your eyes- </em>See on :10. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward</em>- He would have looked out over the areas just chosen by Lot; not only those areas, but wherever he surveyed, was to be given to him eternally. "The place" where Abram was could refer to an altar built there; it was in response to his devotion to Yahweh that he was given the promise.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For all the land which you see, I will give to you, and to your offspring forever- </em>This was alluding to what He had initially told Abram back in Ur: "Get thee out... unto a land that I will <em>shew</em> (s.w. "see" in 13:15) you" (<em><a href='B:10 12:1'>Gen 12:1</a></em>). It was as if God was saying: 'Well Abraham, this is it. This is the land I told you about'- and yet the best of it has now been given to Lot! The whole thing could have seemed some kind of cruel, just as many of our life experiences do. Abraham had given up all, made a long and dangerous journey, to receive a land from God- and when he arrives there, the best of it is given to his younger relative. But God's purpose was to focus Abraham's faith upon the fact that he would <em>eternally</em> inherit this land. And so it is with many of the twists and turns of our lives which can appear nothing but cruel fate to the unbelieving observer.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "offspring" or "seed" (AV) was singular (<em><a href='B:550 3:16'>Gal 3:16</a></em>). Sarah was still barren, and so this would have been enigmatic for Abram; it was perhaps through the enigmatic nature of the promise that Abram was led toward some conception of the Messiah, the same individual promised to Eve. Abram had children by concubines, according to Genesis 25; and Lot may have been counted as his adopted son. He would have wondered whether the promise referred to any of those options. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Forever" introduces the idea of personal immortality. But it was promised here to only two persons- Abram and his "seed". This is how <em><a href='B:550 3:16'>Gal 3:16</a></em> reasons; and it is only by association with that "seed" through baptism into Him that these promises become true for us (<em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>&nbsp;I will make your offspring as the dust of the earth, so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then your seed may also be numbered</em>- This had an initial fulfilment in Solomon being "King over a people like the dust of the earth" (<em><a href='B:140 1:9'>2Ch 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 4:20'>1Ki 4:20</a></em>).&nbsp; But the "offspring" was singular and not plural (<em><a href='B:550 3:16'>Gal 3:16</a></em>). That individual was to be "made" innumerable. And that 'making' is through God's calling of individuals worldwide to be part of the offspring, who is Christ. The innumerable seed must be compared with the other strand of Biblical evidence that "few are chosen". Relative to the wonder of salvation, and Abram standing there as just one man, indeed they are "many", but "few" compared to the global population.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Arise, walk through the land in its length and in its breadth; for I will give it to you- </em>God never let go of Abraham, even when Abraham didn't readily obey what God required of him. But Abraham didn't willingly "walk through the land"- because perhaps he doubted that he would be given it, or feared the local tribes. It's like saying to a child: 'Come and look at this! I am going to give it to you!', and the child doesn't even want to look. In this context we read of how Abraham "<em>dwelt </em>in the plain of Mamre"- that's stressed twice (<em><a href='B:10 13:18'>Gen 13:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 14:13'>Gen 14:13</a></em>). Instead of travelling around in his land to see it, he tried to settle down. But God brought circumstances into his life which made him travel around the length and breadth of Canaan- thus Abraham had to pursue Lot's captors "unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus" before he recovered Lot (<em><a href='B:10 14:15'>Gen 14:15</a></em>). Hobah is in the far north east of Canaan- Abraham had to go all the way there from Mamre in the centre of Canaan. For unknown reasons, Abraham also lived in Beersheba for a while (<em><a href='B:10 22:19'>Gen 22:19</a></em>); he had a meeting with the local rulers at Shaveh, near Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:10 14:17'>Gen 14:17</a></em>); and at the time of <em><a href='B:10 16:14'>Gen 16:14</a></em> Abraham was near Kadesh Barnea, in the very South of Canaan on the Egyptian border. One wonders whether the attraction of Egypt had led him there once more- in which case it was his own weakness which was used by God to ensure that he travelled to the very south of Canaan. Maybe the record includes all these geographical markers in order to demonstrate how Abraham did indeed travel around Canaan through providentially arranged circumstances, although not it seems as an act of direct obedience to the Divine command to do so.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The hope of a literal bodily reward has been understood by God’s people from earliest times. Abraham was promised that he, personally, would inherit the land of Canaan forever, as surely as he had walked up and down in it. His faith in those promises would have necessitated his belief that his body would somehow, at a future date, be revived and made immortal, so that this would be possible.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham was progressively set up by God so that his spiritual growth would be an upward spiral. Initially, he was told to walk / go to a land which God would shew him (<em><a href='B:10 12:1'>Gen 12:1</a></em>); when he got there, he was told to "arise", and "walk" through that land of Canaan (<em><a href='B:10 13:17'>Gen 13:17</a></em>). And Abraham, albeit in a faltering kind of way, did just this. But this was to prepare him for the test of <em><a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a></em> in the command to offer Isaac. His obedience this time isn't at all faltering. He "arises" and 'goes' (s.w. "walk") "unto the place of which God had told him" to offer Isaac (<em><a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a></em>). This is exactly what he had been called to do right back in Ur- to arise and walk / go to a land / place which God would show him (<em><a href='B:10 12:1'>Gen 12:1</a></em>). And so our obedience in one challenge of God leads us to obedience in others. One experience is designed to lead us to another. Nothing- absolutely nothing- in our lives is senseless chance. All- and this takes some believing- is part of a higher plan for our spiritual good, in our latter end. Time and again we see this in Abraham's life.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abram moved his tent, and came and lived by the oaks of Mamre, which are in Hebron, and built an altar there to Yahweh</em>- This was Abram's response to the command to walk up and down in the land. And it was negative. He tried to set up camp in one place, in fact in a centre of pagan worship ("the oaks"). But more positively, he built an altar to Yahweh there, a public statement of his faith. And that altar and his own "tent" are well contrasted. Just as the early church resisted the command to go out and spread the Gospel, and the descendants of Noah wanted to build Babel lest they have to obey the command to go out into the <em>eretz</em> and subdue it... so Abram tried to remain sedentary. And this is human nature; to prefer the fixed, the old and familiar, rather than the leadership of the Spirit. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened in the days of Amraphel, king of Shinar, Arioch, king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, and Tidal, king of Goiim</em>- This chapter gives the impression that the local tribes within the <em>eretz</em> were divided into two groups which battled each other. The salvation of Lot out of this could look forward to a latter day deliverance of a weak but counted-righteous remnant in the last days, symbolized by Lot. For his final exit from Sodom is a type of the deliverance of the faithful remnant in the <em>eretz</em> of the last days (<em><a href='B:490 17:32'>Luk 17:32</a></em>). Perhaps we are to see the <em>eretz</em> divided into two such groups of its non-Jewish inhabitants, perhaps split between shia and Sunni Islam. See on :7. "Tidal king of Goiim" refers to the Kurds, who may well have a major part to play in the latter day outworking of these things. "Ellasar" was not far from Ur of the Chaldees, and he may well have known Abram and Lot.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>That they made war with Bera, king of Sodom, and with Birsha, king of Gomorrah, Shinab, king of Admah, and Shemeber, king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar)</em>- The tribes in Palestine / Canaan, which was the area intended for initial Israelite settlement, are presented here as not invincible, and easily dominated by others. And even their dominators could be overcome by just one man, Abraham, with God behind him. This was all encouragement for the Israelites as they approached Canaan. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All these joined together in the valley of Siddim (the same is the Salt Sea)</em>- The various clarifications that "the same is..." were for the benefit of the Israelites as they journeyed through these areas. The encouragement was that they too could easily be granted victory, and nothing between them and the promised Kingdom of God was really as invincible as it seemed.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year, they rebelled</em>- Chedorlaomer was the leader of the group; as "king of Elam" he might point forward to some leader arising from latter day Elam, which is Iran. And yet the apparent leader of the group was the king of Shinar or Babylon, who is mentioned at the head of the list in :1.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer came, and the kings who were with him, and struck the Rephaim in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzim in Ham, and the Emim in Shaveh Kiriathaim</em>- Moses was writing for the Israelites about to enter Canaan; and they were afraid of the Rephaim (giants) in Canaan. They are here being encouraged that those peoples had been dominated by others in time past- even without the help and promise of Yahweh behind them.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And the Horites in their Mount Seir, to Elparan, which is by the wilderness</em>- The very peoples through whom the Israelites were passing as they heard Genesis presented to them- had been overcome. They were not as invincible as they might appear. "Their Mount Seir" could suggest that the descendants of Esau received their inheritance; as Israel would if they remained faithful. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They returned, and came to En Mishpat (the same is Kadesh), and struck all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites, that lived in Hazazon Tamar</em>- Kadesh was well known to the primary audience of Genesis, i.e. Israel in the wilderness. All up, the northern confederacy of four kings (for they came upon Sodom from the north) dominated seven other tribes. This is the kind of situation depicted in the various descriptions of the latter day beast dominating the <em>eretz</em> with various numbers of horns and heads subsumed beneath it. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar) went out; and they set the battle in array against them in the valley of Siddim</em>- The four king confederacy names the kings; the Canaanite kings are not named. Perhaps this was to encourage the Israelites who first heard this history to see that "the king of" whatever Canaanite town was in their path was likewise able to be overcome. If specific names had been given, they may have been tempted to think that this was a historical victory against a particular individual; whereas the principle God wished to explain was of a more generic nature.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Against Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim, and Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar; four kings against the five</em>- The five kings and their armies could not repel the four king confederacy who overthrew Sodom. But Abraham, just one man with Yahweh behind him, could do so- and even take their prey out of their hands. This was to encourage the later seed of Abraham, who were the primary audience for the book of Genesis, that they too could easily achieve victory against these very same peoples and in the very same areas.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now the valley of Siddim was full of tar pits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and they fell there- </em>These pits for bitumen they had dug themselves, and now they fell into them and died there, exactly as stated in <em><a href='B:230 9:15'>Psa 9:15</a></em>.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And those who remained fled to the hills</em>- Lot later fled to those same hills (<em><a href='B:10 19:17'>Gen 19:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 19:30'>Gen 19:30</a></em>). Perhaps he was amongst those who even now fled to the hills. He ought to have learned the lesson, rather than let history repeat itself. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Surely Abraham is our real example; who in the years of his pilgrimage chose the barren uplands, despising worldly advantage, and who could look at Sodom's burning with no feeling of desire or sense of loss. Abraham dwelt on the mountains, from where he could look down upon Sodom; if Lot had been in these mountains, he would not have suffered when Sodom was invaded this first time; it took the final coming of the Lord to make him flee to the mountains (<em><a href='B:10 19:10'>Gen 19:10</a></em>), i.e. to the area which Abraham had chosen at the first. If we can only see the world for what it is, then the equivalent of Lot's experiences will be unnecessary for us. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their food, and went their way</em>- Lot had gone to Sodom for materialistic reasons; and now he lost all that he had, even his own food, to teach him the wrongness of his decision that day when he looked toward Sodom and chose the well-watered lands in that direction. But still Lot remained in Sodom, and nearly lost his life and his salvation in its final destruction; he failed to learn the lesson. Just as so many believers are taught powerful lessons about the idiocy of being materialistic; and yet return to the same bondage.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They took Lot, Abram’s brother’s son, who lived in Sodom, and his goods, and departed</em>- Lot suffered in the condemnation of Sodom when the neighbouring kings invaded- he was in the same situation as those who were warned to come out of Babylon lest they be consumed in her plagues. So he went through a condemnation process in this life- but later learnt his lesson and will be saved in the end. "Who lived in Sodom" could be read as a critical note; for Lot should not have ideally been there. We wonder why they bothered taking Lot with them, rather than killing him. I suggested on :2 that "Ellasar" was not far from Ur of the Chaldees, and that king may well have known Abram and Lot. Perhaps Lot agreed to join them, or mercy was shown to him because he was from their tribal area to the East, and he wasn't a local. But the fact he was taken with them rather than just ignored would suggest that he may have agreed to join in with them in confederacy. Again, we would see here a weakness in Lot.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>One who had escaped came and told Abram, the Hebrew. Now he lived by the oaks of Mamre, the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner; and these were allies of Abram</em>- One can't help but notice that God stressed to the later children of Abraham that since they had a covenant with Him, they were not to make covenants with the people who lived around them in the land- time and again God references His covenant with His people, and in that context tells them not to make covenants with the peoples of the land (<em><a href='B:20 34:10-12'>Exo 34:10-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:15'>Exo 34:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:27'>Exo 34:27</a></em>; Dt. 7:29; Jdg . 2:1,2,20). Yet Abraham made covenants with those very people (<em><a href='B:10 21:27'>Gen 21:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 21:32'>Gen 21:32</a></em>)- perhaps indicating his lack of appreciation of his covenant relationship with Yahweh? However, "allies of Abram", <em>baalim beriyth</em>, can be translated 'lords of covenant', i.e. masters or possessors of a covenant with Abram; "literally: They being possessors of the covenant of Abram". This could mean that already, Abram had begun to share his covenant with God with others.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When Abram heard that his relative was taken captive- </em>Even though Abram had been told to separate from his relatives, including Lot, and despite Lots' evident spiritual weakness, having made the wrong decision to move into Sodom... Abram still came to his help, and remembered his brotherly connection with him.&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He led out his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued as far as Dan</em>- The significance of 318 is unclear. But if read literally, it's clear that Abram was a not insignificant chieftain, having such a personal army comprised of those born within his family encampment. His encampment would therefore likely have numbered at least 2000, if there were 318 "trained men" born within the household. According to Genesis 25, he had concubines, and we wonder as to how many of these were therefore his blood relatives. However, he also describes Eliezer his manager as the "one born in my house" (<em><a href='B:10 15:3'>Gen 15:3</a></em>), with some translations suggesting "the <em>only</em> one born in my household"; and the numerical value of Eliezer is 318. In this case "men" here in :14 and "servants" in :15 would be intensive plurals referring to the great man and servant in Abraham's household, Eliezer. He was accompanied by Aner, Eshcol and Mamre, his immediate neighbours, and their men (:24), but a case could be made that Abraham and Eliezer alone were capable of putting thousands to flight. This interpretation would explain why Eliezer is called "Eliezer of Damascus" and yet also one born within Abram's household (<em><a href='B:10 15:2-3'>Gen 15:2-3</a></em>). He was perhaps called "of Damascus" in memory of his heroic almost singlehanded victory at Damascus (:15). Abram's virtually singlehanded victory is alluded to in the covenant which he now receives; for during the covenant making process, Abram singlehandedly drove away the birds of prey, representing the Canaanite tribes he feared would now take vengeance upon him for his victory at Damascus (<em><a href='B:10 15:11'>Gen 15:11</a></em>). The Hebrew there implies that Abram alone drove them away.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The uninspired first century <em>Epistle of Barnabas </em>9:8 claims: "(The Scripture) saith, "And Abraham circumcised ten, and eight, and three hundred men of his household." What, then, was the knowledge given to him in this? Learn the eighteen first, and then the three hundred. The ten and the eight are thus denoted - Ten by I, and Eight by H. You have (the initials of the, name of) Jesus. And because the cross was to express the grace (of our redemption) by the letter T, he says also, "Three Hundred." He signifies, therefore, Jesus by two letters, and the cross by one". </p>


