sbranyan.com blog

Genesis 6:9-9:29 PowerPoint Slides

I suspect the flood is one of the best known Bible narratives. Most people are familiar with the story of Noah and the animals going two by two into the Ark. However, there are several important divine truths found in these chapters: there is the matter of the building of the ark itself, the cataclysmic flood, establishment of the seasons, the promise of God to never again destroy all of mankind off the face of the earth with water, a divine institution of government including capital punishment, the promise of God to Noah sealed in a covenant with the sign of the bow, and the blessing and cursing of Noah’s sons. More than a familiar Bible story, the narrative contains some deep theology and is either directly or indirectly alluded to many times in the rest of scripture.

Several words play an important part of this narrative. See the slide on word occurrences. Verse eight of chapter six holds the first mention of “grace,” and verse 18 the first mention of “covenant” in the Bible which is repeated 7 times in chapter 9. So the covenant theme is particularly important. Repetitions of several phrases from the creation account are repeated here as it deals with the recreation after the flood.  

The Toledoth of Noah, Genesis 6:9-10

This is the third section of the “generations of … ” and it extends through chapter nine. There is a great deal of emphasis on the moral status of Noah found here. Three things are said about him: “Noah was a righteous man; he was blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.” In all of scripture, there are only three times where this expression someone “walked with God” occurs. ¹ Noah stands in contrast to his generation.

The mention of Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, are important as the narrative shows. Other famous three sons in Genesis are: Terah’s sons Abram, Nahor and Haran (Genesis 11:26). The chosen line extends through Shem and Abra(ha)m.

God’s Instructions to Noah, Genesis 6:11-22

The condition of the earth is described as “being ruined,” “spoiled,” or “corrupt” in verses 11-12. ²  God announces, therefore, that he will “ruin,” or “destroy” all flesh. ³ The word-play signals God’s patience has come to an end. ⁴ There is an appropriate justice about to be meted out. Flesh has ruined the earth. He will ruin all flesh (verse 13).

Noah’s part is to construct an ark in verses 14-16.  ⁵ The ark is to be built of “gopher wood,” probably the evergreen cypress, and pitch.

The “cubit” was a measurement using the forearm, and most scholars feel this was around 18-inches. However, estimates have ranged from the ark being 450 feet long to 600 feet. Whatever its dimensions, it was adequate for the task.

The purpose of the ark becomes plain in verses 17-22. The flood will be God’s judgment upon the earth and everything will be destroyed. The ark, however, is the means by which God will preserve the lives of the eight persons of Noah’s family as well as the representatives of the animal kingdom for re-population of the earth after the flood.

God will establish his covenant with Noah. This is the first use of the word “covenant” in the Bible, and the covenant theme is the important theme which emerges out of this narrative in chapter nine. Verse 22 emphatically states Noah’s compliance with God’s word, “And Noah did according to all which God commanded him, so he did.”

The Seven Days of Preparation, Genesis 7:1-10

God took seven days to create in the first creation. Here the theme of seven days is again used as Noah prepares to enter the ark with his family and all the other pairs of creation. Again, the Bible emphasizes God finds Noah alone righteous before him, and the passage repeats why, “And Noah did according to all which Yahveh had commanded” (verse 5).

The Bible account of the flood is unique from all other flood accounts in that it fixes a chronology for the flood in history. ⁶  Noah was 600 years old when the flood came (verse 6). Throughout the account there are time references. See the slide on the Chronology of the Flood.

Extra pairs (seven again) of clean animals are taken in the ark. The distinguishing of clean and unclean animals again anticipates the laws given in Leviticus. The reason for the extra pairs of clean animals becomes obvious after the flood. Noah uses them for a whole burnt offering (8:20).

The Flood, Genesis 7:11-8:14

The chronology of the section is strikingly precise. From the opening up of the heavens and the fountains of the deep until the earth is completely dry again, the Flood lasts one year and ten days. See the Chronology of the Flood slide.

The language the Bible uses in describing the extent of the flood is remarkable. I translate literally, “And the waters prevailed exceedingly greatly over the earth, and they covered all the high mountains which were under all the heavens” (7:19). The words describe a universal flood as to its extent. Geologists are continually amazed at finding great fissures in the ocean depths or previously unknown rivers beneath Antarctica, and yet the Bible describes all the forces of the heavens and deeps as contributing to the flood waters.

The effect of the Flood is stated in 7:22-23, “All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.” (AV). The word translated “destroyed” in the Authorized Version means to “wipe out” or “annihilate.” ⁷  

The biblical theme of the remnant is introduced for the first time in 7:23, “And Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.” It is interesting that from the earliest chapters of Genesis one sees God working with a remnant in human history. ⁸ It is a theme we will return to again and again.

God “remembered” Noah after one hundred and fifty days of swelling flood waters (8:1). This is a figurative expression again akin to the anthropopathisms in chapter 6. When “God” or “the Lord remembers” most often it means God turns his attention to his people after a period of seeming inactivity. ⁹ It signals God is about to perform something. In this case, he sends the wind and he holds back the rains and fountains of the deep to begin the process of drying the waters from the earth, a process which according to the time references here takes about another 6-1/2 months.

The Whole Burnt Offering and Promise of God, Genesis 8:15-22

At Yahveh’s direction, Noah and his family come out of the ark. The animals which entered the ark in pairs, now emerge as families (8:19).

The purpose for the extra pairs of clean animals is now seen in verse 20. The Hebrew word for the offering is ‘olah. This is the whole burnt offering described later by Moses in Pentateuch. Since no portion of the sacrifice was kept by the worshipper, the whole burnt offering symbolized entire devotion to God. God’s pleasure ¹⁰ with Noah’s sacrifice here should be seen as a renewal and sanctification of his entire re-creation of the earth. The earth which had become corrupt with sin and wickedness was now purified. Yahveh then vows to himself ¹¹ to never again destroy all flesh or flood the entire earth on account of man.

The times and seasons mentioned in verse 22 stand as a witness to God’s promise. However, there is also an indication here that the earth’s very existence is maintained only for a definite period of time–”during all the days of the earth.” There is the future dissolution of the earth and the creation of the New Heavens and New Earth (2 Pet. 3:10-13).

The Post-Flood Law of Government, Genesis 9:1-7 

Verses 1-7 are bracketed by the command to be fruitful and increase, an echo of the creation account. However, there are two notable differences: there is no mandate to master and rule the earth, and there is the addition of meat to the green plants Yahveh provides for man’s food.

The prohibition again eating meat with its life-blood recognizes the sanctity of life–not like Cain’s disregard of life in spilling the blood of his brother Abel. “From every man’s brother” in verse 5 reminds us of the murder. Now, as in the case with Cain, the entire human race is related. Again, this time as descendants from Noah, we are our brother’s preserver.

This prohibition too is an anticipation of Leviticus 17:10ff. and the law of atonement. Man’s rights over animals are limited since they are God’s creation. The prohibition prepares the way for the theology of sacrifice and its blood-bought redemption which is a gift from God, not man’s to him. ((See Kidner, Genesis in the Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, p. 101.)) 

Traditionally, these verses have been understood as a divine institution of government. Three times in verse 5, God says “I will require your life-blood” ¹² emphasizing the divine authority given to government to take life for murder. ¹³  The reason for capital punishment is stated in verse 6 as man being made in God’s image. 

The sanctity of human life and our understanding of it must always be related to God and his institutions and commandments.

The Covenant with Noah, Genesis 9:8-17

What was promised in 6:18, God now fulfills. The parties of the covenant are God, Noah and his family, Noah’s descendants and every living thing. The universality of the covenant is striking. The extent of the covenant relates “to your generations forever” (9:12), and ”so long as the earth endures” (8:22). The sign of the covenant is God’s “rainbow” (vv. 12-17). ¹⁴

This is a perfect covenant as far as man is concerned. The parties are God and all flesh. The extent is for all time. And the sign is for God to see and remember. There are no conditions for man to fulfill. He simply is to enjoy God’s perfect word and rest upon it.

Noah’s Blessing and Cursing of His Sons, Genesis 9:18-29

Verses 18-19 give the destinies of Noah’s sons.

The wording in verse 20 is terse, “And Noah–a man of the ground–began, and he planted a vineyard.” Some translations labor with “Noah began to farm,” or “Noah was the first one to plant a vineyard.” But the Hebrew is simply “Noah began.” Noah resumes life post flood; he began. And he began by planting a vineyard. As these verses unfold, the reader is caught off guard. Noah, who walked with God and found favor with God, plants a vineyard, grows grapes, makes wine, gets drunk and winds up naked in his tent.

Yet, the Bible makes no moral comment on Noah’s action; rather it is his son Ham who acts untowardly. The Bible gives us something of the origins of the Canaanites in the father of Canaan. The sin of Ham is acting disrespectfully of his father. ((Moses points forward to the forth commandment: Honor your father and your mother. There is no indication of implied sexual action on Ham’s part. Ham saw his father’s nakedness, not uncovered his nakedness as we have later in the law concerning illicit sexual activity. Noah uncovers himself probably because he was hot from his drunken state. )) Perhaps he came into his father’s tent, saw the scene, and ran outside to tell his brothers in a mocking tone, “You should see the old man now–the man who walks with God!” Shem and Japheth act within the bounds of decency and respectfully cover their father’s nakedness.

Noah’s curse falls on Canaan, the youngest son of Ham. This emphasizes a line of succession from Ham through Canaan.

Mention of Ham/Canaan in Genesis 9:18-27

This emphasis is meant to show the origin of the Canaanites who will become so prominent throughout the Pentateuch and Joshua and Judges. Soon, mention will be made of them in Genesis 12:6 and 13:7 where they are introduced as a potential threat to the Abrahamic promise.

In the blessing of Shem and Japheth, we discover Shem is the chosen line. The latter is blessed of Yahveh, the covenant name of God. We see the lines developed more fully in chapter 11.

© 2008, Scott Branyan

1. Genesis 5:22, 24; and here in 6:9. There is a similar expression used metaphorically of Levi’s descendants in Mal. 2:6, but the instances mentioned in Genesis are unique. Others in the Bible are said to be have been righteous. There was righteous Job. It is also said of him that he was blameless, and he feared God and shunned evil. Luke says of Zacharias and his wife Elizabeth (the parents of John the Baptist) they were ”both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” God calls Abraham his Friend (Isaiah 41:8). But Enoch and Noah are the only persons in the Bible of whom it is said they “walked with God.” ↩
2. This is the meaning of the passive niphal stem of shahet which is used here twice. ↩
3. Shahet means “to ruin,” ”destroy” or “annihilate” in the causative hiphil and piel stems. The word is used 5 more times, making a total of seven in this narrative. The correspondences between the first creation and this re-creation are many. ↩
4. God’s patience with disobedience is a point Peter uses in 1 Peter 3:20, and Paul in Romans 9:22-23 says God endures with much patience the vessels of wrath in order to have mercy upon his elect. The patience of God is always misinterpreted by the unbelieving. Compare Jesus’ statement in Matthew 24:37-39. Super Bowl partiers will continue to revel, the Razorbacks will play more Cotton Bowls, and Abercrombie and Fitch advertisers will probably continue to promote lusty, “All-American” clothing right up until the Lord comes. These, and many others things, simply distract the unbeliever from God’s promise of his Son coming in judgment. They are the same things found in Vanity Fair of Pilgrim’s Progress. ↩
5. The term “ark” or shebat is used 26 times in the Flood passage, and twice again in Exodus 2:3, 5 of the “vessel” which delivers Moses safely through the water. It may be an Egyptian loanword meaning “chest,” ”sarcophagus” or “box.” ↩
6. Gleason Archer says:

   One notable feature of the biblical account sets it off from all other Flood narratives discoverable among other nations. Flood sagas have been preserved among the most diverse tribes and nations all over the world: the Babylonians (who called their Noah by the name of Utnapishtim), the Sumerians with their Ziusidru, the Greeks with their Deucalion, the Hindus with their Manu, the Chinese with their Fah-he, the Hawaiians with their Nu-u, the Mexican Indians with their Tezpi, the Algonquins with their Manabozho. All these relate how this lone survivor (with perhaps his wife, children, and a friend or two) was saved from the destruction of a universal flood and was then faced with the task of repopulating a devastated earth after the flood waters had receded. But of all these accounts, only the Genesis record indicates with the exactitude of a diary or ship’s log the date of the inception of the Deluge …”

   [Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p.83.] ↩

7. The Hebrew word is machah and is found in 6:7; 7:4 and twice in 7:23. It is different from the term shahet (see footnote 3). The New American Standard version translates the word by “blotted out.” ↩
8. The verb in the phrase Noah “only remained” is sha’ar. It refers to what remains or is left over. ↩
9. Compare Gen. 19:29; 30:22; Exod. 2:24; 1 Sam. 1:19. ↩
10. The anthropomorphism used here of God smelling the aroma of sacrifice is intended to convey his acceptance of it. ↩
11. The phrase, “And the LORD said to himself” is literally “And the LORD said to his heart.” One wants to ask, How do we know what God said to himself? The obvious answer is: by revelation. Here Moses, as a prophet moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:20-21) gives us the very thought of God. ↩
12. Literally, seek. ↩
13. Compare Exod 21:12-14; Lev 24:17; Num 35:33; Mat 26:52; Rom. 13:4. ↩
14. While the Hebrew term qeshet is often used to refer to the “bow” of a warrior, the context makes plain it is the “rainbow” here. Compare Ezek 1:28 ↩

Genesis 6:1-8 PowerPoint Slides

This section should be viewed as part of the “Generations of Adam” started in 5:1. The Powerpoint slides contain a good deal of the expositional information for this section.

This short portion of the narrative details both the moral and physical corruption of Antediluvian man. The essential points of the passage are: the “Sons of God” marry the “daughters of men;” Yahveh’s Spirit will not always strive with man; ¹ the Nephilim ² are offspring of the sons of God and daughters of men; Yahveh sees the wickedness of man; He determines to destroy man, but have grace on Noah and his family.

The question of the interpretation of “the Sons of God” is one which has generated a lot of commentary over hundreds of years. See the slides. If one appraises the use of the phrase “sons of God” correctly and listens to Jude and 2 Peter, it is reasonable to conclude that what is described here is a rank of angels who rebel from their proper place and succeed in corrupting the human race.  This fits, whether by design or by opportunity, with a Satanic purpose to thwart the promise and prophecy concerning the seed in Genesis 3:15.

I acknowledge this view presents challenges, not the least of which is that the view appears closer to mythology than revelation. ³ While not without difficulty, its seems a true interpretation of the biblical text for three reasons: 1) The phrase “sons of God” clearly refers to the angelic community in its only other occurrences, ⁴ ; 2) the Bible does distinguish between good and evil angels; ⁵ and 3) the book of Genesis refers here to some grave offence and opposition to God’s world-order, and this is the reason for the punishment which comes in the Flood. ⁶

The verses give us the rationale for the Flood. Why would the Lord God decide to wipe out the creation which he had created and about which he had made the pronouncement, “It is good?” Genesis 6:1-12 gives the answer.

The race had become corrupt (v. 5; cf. 6:11-12). This corruption has a demonic source (cf. Jude 6-7; 2 Peter 2:4). The corruption threatens the godly line and the promise of the seed which will crush the head of the serpent. Satan from the beginning is attempting to make God out to be a liar while he himself is the father of lies (John 8:44).

The curious increase in figures of speech used here of God is designed to explain to us the seemingly sudden change in God’s revealed will. It would almost seem God is in crisis management mode here. He “sees that the wickedness of man was great,” is “grieved in his heart,” “repents that he made man,” and resolves to “blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land.”

Of course, the sovereign creator God does not govern the universe by whim, nor is anything here a real surprise to him. His will is only portrayed as affected by these things to emphasize the extreme seriousness the entrance of sin has had on his creation and his patience at being provoked. By the end of the flood narrative, the word of God to Noah is sealed forever “in a bow” and his promise to never destroy all creation again by flood remains firm to this day. 

As my father used to point out often to me as a child, never again will the world be destroyed by water; the next world cataclysm will be by fire (cf. 2 Peter 3:3-7). It would not be so if God’s plan was subject to an evolving with human interaction. The promises of God simply would not be certain.

The importance of the passage is seen in the verse 8, where it is mentioned that Noah obtained favor in the eyes of the Lord. This is the transition to the Flood narrative proper.

© 2008, Scott Branyan

1. The word rendered “strive” (yadôn) is a true hapax legomenon in the Hebrew OT, i.e. it only occurs once in the entire OT. The meaning must be determined from context. However, other issues also make the verse difficult to render. The general idea seems to be God gives men 120 years while Noah is preparing the ark until he brings the flood. By then the moral corruption of race is complete except for Noah, “For you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me in this generation” (7:1).

   The verse may be also construed to be a divine pronouncement upon the offspring of the angelic/human union expressing that they shall not be immortal. They shall die as appointed like the rest of the human race. “Spirit” would in this case be understood as “breath” as in Gen. 2.7 where the similar word neshamah is found. The sense would be, “My breath shall not always abide in these men in as much as they too are flesh.” ↩

2. The concept that these were giants stems from the Greek OT’s and Vulgate’s translation gigantes and the other use of the Hebrew term in Numbers 13:33 for the giant-like inhabitants of early Palestine. ↩
3. Cassuto says, “The interpretation in the sense of angels is the oldest in the history of exegesis … to which approximate the views of most contemporary scholars, who hold that we have here a mythological narrative, a kind of relic of the ancient mythological sagas, which was preserved as an alien element in the Book of Genesis… ,” Commentary on Genesis, Vol. 1, p.292. ↩
4. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 ↩
5. For example, see Daniel 10:10-14 and Matthew 12:24. Talmudic tradition also held the Lord’s ministering angels do not procreate, while the demons do. Tractate Hagigah (chapter 2) says, “The rabbis taught: Six things are said with regard to demons, three in which they are like the angels: they have wings, they float from one end of the world to the other, and they know what is about to be; and three in which they are like men: they eat and drink, they are fruitful and multiply, and they are mortal.” ↩
6. Genesis 6:1-12 ↩

Genesis 5 PowerPoint Slides

This is the second “generations” division we are introduced to–the first was in Genesis 2:4. This is the tôledôt of Adam, but it reads like a list for the Grim Reaper. There is a repetition throughout which consists of four parts: the name of the patriarch, his age unto his first born son (Seth in Adam’s case because of the curse upon Cain), how many years he lives afterwards, and the age at which he dies. The formula concludes with the statement “And he died.” The one exception is in the case of Enoch, “And he was not.” ¹

© 2008, Scott Branyan

1. Hebrew 11:5-6 give a commentary and application of the verses in Genesis on Enoch. ↩

Genesis 4 PowerPoint Slides

The narrative in Genesis 4 gives the account of the birth of three sons to Adam and Eve after the fall and their expulsion from the garden: Cain, Abel, and Seth, Seth being the replacement of the godly line after Abel’s murder. The immediate descendants of Cain are also listed.

The story of Cain and Abel begins on a hopeful note with Eve choosing the name “Cain.” She explains it as related to the word “I have gotten/acquired” a man with Yahveh’s help. This is a statement of faith and perhaps refers back to the promise of a seed who would deliver a fatal blow to the serpent (3:15). No explanation is give for Abel’s name. Abel becomes a “shepherd of flocks,” and Cain a “worker of the ground.”

Verses 3-5 set the stage for the unfolding of the beginning of the tragic effects of Adam’s sin. The first thing we notice in the narrative is a sacrifice.

There are no details given regarding why the sacrifice was brought or how it was to be offered. ¹  This leaves us to assume that the Lord’s clothing the man and woman in skins in 3:21 was more than the simple provision of clothing. The act must have been instructive concerning how God was to be approached now that sin had infected the race. Since the laws concerning the tabernacle and its service in the latter half of Exodus and the book of Leviticus form the heart of the Pentateuch, Moses appears to leave the reader to draw conclusions about the skins and the sacrifices of Cain and Abel. ²  

Verse 6-8 detail an admonition of Yahveh to Cain and Cain’s murder of Abel. Yahveh graciously condescends to warn Cain how sin must be dealt with in a fallen world. As the story proceeds we see Cain to be an unregenerate person ³ who does not master sin and who commits the first murder in history. Actually, I suppose we could argue that the first murder was committed by Satan when he deceived the woman and she persuades Adam to sin. Jesus calls the devil a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44).

Verse 8, “And Cain said to Abel” is perhaps the only occurrence in the OT ⁴ where the quote of what is actually said does not follow. A couple of ancient versions supply “Let us go into the field,” but it is clear these are additions to the text to clarify the meaning. ⁵  This is probably a figure of speech involving omission ⁶ where the actual words are left out in order to rush on to the action of Cain. Cain’s anger (lit., “he was hot” v. 5) leads him into a “crime of passion” where words, including even the words of Yahveh, have no effect on him.

A comparison of Adam’s and Cain’s interrogation (see the slide) shows the remarkable indifference of Cain to what he has done (verses 9-15).

The line of Cain (see the slide) is given in verses 16-24 and end with the boastful self-proclamation of Lamech, another murderer.

Verse 25 is important for the transition to the generations of Adam in chapter 5 where Cain is left out. The birth of Seth is again heralded by a praise of Eve who again is looking in faith for the seed promised in 3:15. This time her hopes are fulfilled by the promise coming through the line God has chosen. ⁷

© 2008, Scott Branyan

1. The one thing which strikes us is Abel’s offering is described as from ”the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions.” Cain’s offering is merely called “an offering” of “the fruit of the ground.” The impression is that Cain’s offering is only a minimum to the Lord. ↩
2. The terminology of sacrifice is everywhere: “male child” pictures the redemption of the first born in Exodus 13:11ff; the term “offering” (Hebrew minchah) is used 3 times in the chapter and is frequent in Exodus and Leviticus; on the phrase ”from the firstlings of his flock” (4:4) compare Lev. 27:26; one also notices the “blood” of Abel crying out from the ground as that of a kind of sacrificial victim. ↩
3. Compare 1 John 3:10-12. The Apostle John argues in his epistle there are three signs to being born again: belief in Jesus the Messiah, practicing righteousness and loving one’s brother. ↩
4. There are around 250 occurrences of the phrase in the OT. I have only examined the ones in Genesis. ↩
5. One of the chief rules of textual criticism is to go with the simplest reading, since the tendency is for men to add to the text to resolve a perceived problem. ↩
6. One possibility is Aposiopesis, or sudden silence. Bullinger, in his Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, cites Genesis 3.22 as an example, where the exact consequences of eating the fruit in Adam’s fallen condition are left unrevealed after “and live forever.” They are too horrible to contemplate. ↩
7. The genealogy of our Lord in Luke 3:23-38 is traced back through Seth to Adam. This gives the actual lineage of Christ through Mary. ↩

Genesis 3 PowerPoint Slides (PDF)

So far in Genesis, only soliloquies have been recorded. God speaks when he creates man in his image, when he gives the command to the man, and when he gives his purpose in creating woman. Man also utters his poetic expression of the suitableness of his helper. However, the first dialogue Moses presents to us is between the tempter and the woman.

Serpents crawl, hide, bite, and hiss, but this one prior to the fall is shrewd and conversational. The serpent does not approach and tempt Adam directly, and this tells us something about his cunning.

There is a word play in the Hebrew text between “And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed” (2.25) and “The serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field” (3:1). The serpent uses the man’s innocence and inexperience as a springboard to his disobedience. Inexplicable as the sin of our first parents is, there is a hint of a cunning serpent of unbelief within the woman and the man, naked as they are. ¹  

The narrative uses the name “LORD God” throughout except for Satan’s conversation with the woman in verses 1-5. Since Yahveh (or LORD) is God’s name of covenant relationship with his people, it is not found on the lips of the serpent.

When the woman answers the serpent’s questions, she answers with subtle differences to the command of God given in chapter two. We see her falling for the serpent’s suggestion that God is terribly unfair in the restriction he places upon her. God had commanded:

Eat freely from every tree of the garden, but do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because you will certainly die the day you eat from it (2:16-17).

The command of God emphasizes the abundance available with the limitation put in the least restrictive way, and a good reason for it. Satan, through the serpent, portrays God stingily to the woman with his question:

Did God really say, you must not eat from any tree of the garden? (3:1)

The woman should have replied, “No, God did not say that at all.” One wonders if Adam would have made the point had the serpent directed his question first to him (compare 3:13 and 1 Timothy 2:14). The unique points in the woman’s response are:

• She seems to give a little to the serpent’s suggestion. She says “We may eat,” not “We may freely eat.”
• From the tree which “is in the middle of the garden.” Again, she seems to follow the serpent’s lead in suggesting an unfair restriction, namely, we can’t eat from the most prominent tree in the garden.
• She adds “neither touch it” which suggests a harsher restriction.
• “Lest you die,” she again drops the emphasis “lest you certainly die”

That she falls for the serpent’s bait is evident in its bold and emphatic denial of God’s warning–”You shall certainly not die” (3:4). The serpent closes the conversation with another lie (3:5). The hope of outwitting God and gaining God-like knowledge is the delusional hallmark of Satan’s career (see the slide).

The seeds of unbelief sown, the narrative shifts to the woman’s sin in verse 6 and the enticement of Adam’s sin in verse 7. ² All the elements of temptation mentioned in 1 John 2: 15-17 are found here. Jesus words in John 8:44 also should be noted.

Notice “the eyes of them both” were not opened until Adam eats (v. 7). This suggests his headship of the race (see the slide). The serpent’s half truths are now evident. They now see they are naked, are ashamed and know good and evil but not as God knows it. They now know evil experientially.

The resulting interrogation of the man and the woman by God and the judgments upon them and the serpent follow in verses 8-19. One sees the immediate results of Adam’s sin: an experiential knowledge of sin (eyes open and ashamed), spiritual death which leads to fear of God and his judgments and a loss of intimacy and fellowship with God (they hid themselves), and the introduction of religious self-works (the fig-leaf coverings). One can begin now to gain an understanding of exactly what was lost by Adam’s sin.

The prophecy in verse 15 is the sunbeam of hope in this episode. This is more than a mere etiology ³ of hostility between humans and snakes. There is a future promise here to be fulfilled by an individual. We would expect “The seed of the man” but are surprised by “The seed of the woman.” Ancient versions also interpret the Hebrew singular personal pronoun, which can be masculine or neuter, in the masculine, “He shall bruise thy head.” ⁴

Verses 21-24 show us the grace of Yahveh God. The provision of clothing suggests a type. ⁵  As Matthew Henry has noted, the first thing that died (physically) was a sacrifice. ⁶  The garments of skins show the need now of blood sacrifice and substitution. There is an interesting reference in Isaiah which uses the imagery found here (Isaiah 61:9-10). If there is a type, the Anti-type in the New Testament would be in the language of putting on Christ Jesus (Romans 13.14; Galatians 3.27). ⁷  

When God drives the man and the woman from the garden, he removes from them the access to the tree of life, but not ultimately the Life of God. True eternal life will now come through a different tree (Galatians 3:13). The Tree of Life is restored in the New Jerusalem (Revelation 22:2, 14, 19).

© 2008, Scott Branyan

1. Cassuto suggests this significance of the word play in his A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, by U. Cassuto, p. 143. ↩
2. The Puritan Benjamin Needler makes a memorable applicational point in one of his sermons when he says, “Learn to suspect the things that are delightful …, Christians, be careful: every one of us hath Eve’s sweet tooth in our heads.” Morning Exercises, I:65. ↩
3. An early literary account to explain the origin or cause of something ↩
4. The Greek OT uses the singular masculine pronoun autos. The Aramaic Targum interprets “it/he” as a reference to both the descendants of the woman (compare Adam’s naming of his wife as “the mother of all living” in verse 20) and to the Messiah. The Latin Vulgate here has “she,” an obvious interpretation and reference to Mary which is totally without merit grammatically as well as theologically. ↩
5. A figure or type is prophecy in symbol and points to the anti-type or fulfillment of the prophecy. ↩
6. “Thus the first thing that died was a sacrifice, or Christ in a figure, who is therefore said to be the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Is it unduly subtle and a distraction to see the atonement here as Kidner says (Genesis, p.72)? The language seems to demand it; and it certainly fits in the larger context of the Pentateuch whose Passover, and perhaps Day of Atonement, Moses would have had in mind while recording the early narratives of Genesis. What else can it mean when Jesus says, “All things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses … must be fulfilled” (Luke 24:44)? ↩
7. Hymnody is full of this language:

   Jesus, thy blood and righteousness
   My beauty are, my glorious dress. (Zinzendorf)

   ‘Tis he adorned my naked soul,
   And made salvation mine. (Watts)

   Can sinful souls, then, stand unclad,
   Before God’s burning throne,
   All bare, or, what is quite as bad,
   In coverings of their own?

   Robes of imputed righteousness
   Will gain us God’s esteem:
   No naked pride, no fig-leaf dress.
   How fair soe’er it seem.

   A sinner clothed in this rich vest,
   And garments washed in blood,
   Is rendered fit with Christ to feast,
   And be the guest of God. (Hart)

   ↩

I want to recommend an exceptionally fine resource–an exposition of the book of Genesis by Dr. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. (deceased) available on both MP3 audio and as PDF text files. The are available from Believers Chapel online ministry. It was my pleasure to hear some of Dr. Johnson’s message on Genesis while in Dallas.

© 2008, Scott Branyan

Genesis 2:4-25 Slides (PDF)

Genesis 2:4 starts a new section. The section is not a second creation account. Rather, Moses moves from a general view in the first chapter to a specific view of the creation—the creation of man.

The verse is the first of many tôledôt or “generations” division in Genesis. See the earlier Generations Snippet post. The name “LORD God” ¹ is used exclusively in this part of the narrative.

God creates man as both a material ² and a spiritual being. ³ As we saw in the first chapter, the mandate to rule is a part of Adam being made in God’s image. A continued part of the man’s mandate is to cultivate and maintain the garden. ⁴ Additionally, the man has communication and fellowship with the God of creation. ⁵ The garden is the heart of God’s provision for Adam. It is Adam’s home, his place of security, the place of fellowship with God.

The condition of the earth prior to the Lord’s creation of man is stated in verses 5-6, and verse 7 records the creation of Adam with more detail. Verses 8-14 give the historical setting for the placement of man in the garden. Eden, which means “land of bliss” or “happy land” is the name of what Isaiah describes as the “garden of the Lord.” ⁶

Two of the rivers mentioned in Genesis 2:10-14 are no longer identifiable. Geological changes in river systems are quite well established. For, example in North America, geologists tell us most all of the rivers and streams in North Dakota at one time ran northeast and into the Hudson Bay. Now, they run south, particularly the Missouri River–probably because of a period of glaciation. The source river for the four mentioned in Genesis and two of the rivers are not presently known. And it is possible either, continental drift, uplift or changes produced by the flood changed this area substantially.

Adam is created good and with an untested righteousness. In this setting, he is placed on probation, described in vv. 15-17.

Many commentators see a description of a covenant here. The parties of the covenant are a superior party, God, and a subordinate party, Adam. There is a stipulation (“From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat,” vv. 16-17). We have consequences for failure of the subordinate party (“…for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.”). Adam’s obedience to the command means his continued place in the garden and fellowship with God. Disobedience means death. Removal from the garden where the tree of life is located is implied here, but stated explicitly after the fall in chapter 3:22ff. Theologians have described this covenant as a covenant of works.

The Bible account of the creation of man differs from modern evolutionary theory in the very fundamental notion of man. Modern evolution holds man to be ascending in his development. The biblical account teaches the devolution of man. Scientists will never be able to understand man’s origins as long as they fail to reckon with man’s creation, sin and fall.

Verses 18-25 record the creation of the woman from Adam’s rib. It is significant that God here gives the pronouncement “It is not good.” Adam’s assignment of studying morphology and naming elements of God’s creation directs him toward the realization that he is alone in the world. While other species in the animal kingdom have mates, he does not.

An amazing surgery is described in vv. 21-22, and God creates woman and brings her to Adam. ⁷ Adam’s poetic description in v. 23 is the equivalent of “Wow.”

Moses adds an explanatory note here in v. 24 in which explains the origin of the institution of marriage as stemming from God’s intervention on Adam’s behalf. Verse 25 gives the happy condition of both Adam and his wife in the garden before the guilt of sin enters their existence in the next section of the narrative.

© 2008, Scott Branyan

1. Heb. Yahveh Elohim. Yahveh is God’s distinctive covenant name. It is his personal name while Elohim is a more generic name for God or gods. Cf. Exodus 3:15. Yahveh is rendered in English by the peculiar spelling of LORD with small caps. ↩
2. “Formed from the dust of the ground,” Gen. 2:7 ↩
3. God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” This detail is not mentioned in 2:19 of the creation of the animals ↩
4. Cf. 2:5, 15, 19 ↩
5. Cf. 2:16, 17; 3:8. The passage in 4:6, 7 also mentions communication after the fall ↩
6. Isaiah 51:3 ↩
7. It is noteworthy this is where we get our marriage ceremony tradition of a father bringing his daughter before her future husband. ↩

These are synthesis notes from a Bible exposition class. ¹  It is assumed readers will follow along with an open Bible.

I follow the normal sense of Scripture. ² The authority, inspiration, and inerrancy of the Old Testament is a given. If one holds the Pentateuch is God’s revelation to Moses, as our Lord did, there is really little to debate on these issues. These are my presuppositions for the class.

The book of Genesis is a book of origins—origins of the created universe, the earth, the plant and animal kingdoms, man, sin and redemption, and especially the origin of the patriarchal fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Genesis lays for us very important foundations, including the very first Messianic prophecies.

I hope you find the notes useful. Feel free to leave a comment.

The Creation in Seven Days, Genesis 1:1-2:3

Genesis 1:1-2:3 Slides (PDF) 

The cosmology of the Bible is rather simple. It includes the fiat creation of the universe by God, the preparation of the earth for habitation, and the creation, probation and fall of man. The Bible’s view of origins is important because it sets the stage for all that the rest of the Bible teaches concerning redemption and the purpose of God.

The theme of biblical creation is not evolution but devolution from a state of blessing and good into sin. Man and the whole of creation is quickly plunged under a curse because of Adam’s disobedience.

The Bible account of creation portrays man as the pinnacle of God’s creation. “Let us make man in our image” is the last of God’s creative work in the seven days of creation. Man is created distinct from lower animals and given the capacity of fellowship with God and a unique mandate to rule and subdue the earth. From Genesis 3 onward, re-creation becomes the continuing work of God’s grace-redemption.

Genesis 1:1 holds for us the marvel of the creation of all matter. It includes the natural forces which hang matter together: gravitational, electromagnetic, atomic and molecular bonding. Traditionally, the verse has been taken as the creation of the universe. ³

Verse 2 speaks of the results of this immediate creation. Three phrases are joined with simple connectives, “and ….” This sets the stage for the distinctly different construction which introduces God speaking in verse 3 and begins a pattern which is repeated on each of the six days of creation, followed by concluding words concerning the seventh day. See the table in the slides.

Note the term “God” ⁴ is used throughout. This is the general account of creation by days. A formula recounts the statement of God calling the particular part of creation into existence, a description of the action of God in performing the creation, followed by God naming the created part and the name of the day and/or pronouncement, “It is good.”

A dramatic change in the rather monotonous repetition of the first five days is introduced in verse 26. We read there, “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image after our likeness.’” One wants to ask, what does it mean to be made in God’s image? ⁵  What is the nature of the correspondence between God and man? The Bible seems to place the emphasis primarily upon the exercise of dominion over the earth. Adam is given a mandate to subdue and rule the creation. ⁶ This sets him apart from the lower creation, and gives us some idea of what it means to be made in the image of the sovereign, creator God. He is to be God’s governor on earth.

As always, it is helpful to look towards Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of true man in God’s creation. In Colossians, Jesus is called “the image of the invisible God. ⁷ It is his dominion which ultimately fulfills God’s determination to make man in the image of God.

The imagery of Light and Darkness is frequent in this narrative, and it pervades the rest of scripture. From the beginning, there is no confusion in God concerning light and darkness. Later scripture uses this to teach us about God’s nature. John tells us, “God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.” It is an easy matter for him to separate the light from the darkness. Every believer in the Lord Jesus is also “light in the Lord”, according to Paul; and the one who is Light and said, “Let there be light” has shone in our hearts in a re-creation, bringing forth spiritual light in the chosen of God.

The creation account closes with God resting from his work and blessing and sanctifying the seventh day. This becomes the rationale for the Sabbath in Exodus 20:11 and is interpreted in the epistle to the Hebrews as an illustration of rest from human works and an act of faith/rest in God for salvation (Hebrews 4:3-4, 9,10).

© 2008, Scott Branyan

1. Questions of the history of Old Testament studies, divergent views of OT authorship following the early church period, the development of source-criticism, reaction to source-criticism, OT text and textual criticism, the canon of the OT, archaeology, and problems of OT history and chronology are usually left to the domain of Old Testament introductions. For those wishing to delve into those subjects, a very fine introduction is Introduction to the Old Testament, by R. K. Harrison. For a more popular introduction, General Introduction to the Bible, by Norman Geisler and William Nix is recommended.  ↩
2. By “normal” sense I mean interpretation within a grammatical-historical exegesis such as is characterized by the method of the Protestant Reformers. Scripture has one meaning, and the job of the interpreter is to determine what the human author intended to say. An allegorical interpretation, on the other hand, may see several levels of meaning and may include a “higher” meaning that goes beyond the author’s intent. ↩
3. Some interpreters feel what is described is a re-creation of original matter. These views are often put forth to accommodate “theistic” evolution. However, the text is so clear on the meaning of 7 days and the creation of an individual man and woman distinct from the animal kingdom, original parents of the race, and the parties responsible for the entrance of sin into the world that it is entirely impossible to harmonize the account with an evolutionary view of origins. Our Lord’s geneology lists him as the “son of Adam,” and Paul uses the man “Adam” in a theologically significant role as federal head which makes it impossible to understand man’s development from an evolutionary viewpoint. ↩
4. Heb. elohim ↩
5. The term ‘image” found here, twice in verse 27 and again in Genesis 9:6 is tselem. I find it interesting that in this verse where the person shift of the verb and the pronouns is to the plural, here we have 3 instances of the term image. Not to make too much of this theologically, but it does harmonize with man’s trichotomous nature of body, soul, spirit very well. The term “likeness” is a different word, demuth, which is also found in Genesis 5:1, 3. ↩
6. Compare 1:22, 26, and 28 ↩
7. Col. 1:15. There the context also mentions the dominion of the son over all creation, v. 16. Cf. 2 Cor 4:4 which is also in a creation context. ↩