To the Reader: this was essentially the first commentary which I have done (1995), and for that reason, it is much shorter and filled with typographical errors. The length of this commentary is approximately equal to 3 or 4 chapters of any book which do now. In any case, I do periodically refer back to the work which I have done here, and some may prefer this to later commentaries which I have done, as I deal with less minutiae in this commentary.

Maps, Charts and Short Doctrines:

           Genesis Introduction  Great Themes of the Bible found in Genesis

           Genesis Introduction  Genesis, the Book of Beginnings

           Gen. 1:2                     The Judgement of Satan

           Gen. 1:2                     The Trinity in Genesis

           Gen. 1:13                   What Does the word Day Mean in Genesis?

           Gen. 1:26                   We are the Shadow Image of God

           Gen. 1:27                   The Creation of Man

           Gen. 22:14                 The Offering of Isaac Foreshadows the Offering of Jesus Christ

Outline:

I.         Creation of the heavens and the earth; and Restoration of the earth. Gen. 1:1–2:25

           A.        Original creation: 1:1

           B.        Restoration, days 1 through 7: 1:2–2:3

           C.        The sixth day revisited: 2:4–25

II.        The Fall. Gen. 3:1-24

III. 

Genesis Introduction

Genesis Introduction:

The Title: Γένεσις (transliterated, Genesis) is a Greek word which means origin, beginning, source, birth, or even of that which follows birth; life, existence. This word is found in Matt. 1:18 and James 1:23 3:6. It is not the first word of the book of Genesis in the Septuagint (the original Greek translation of the Old Testament), but it is found in Gen. 5:1 10:1 6:10 40:20. It is an appropriate title for this book. However, this is not the word found in John 1:1 nor is it found in the Septuagint of Gen. 1:1. However, a related word from the Hebrew, sometimes referred to as synonymous to Genesis is b^erē̕shīth, which is the first word(s) of Gen. 1:1, properly translated In a beginning.

Author: Moses likely wrote the better portion of the next four books of the Bible, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Genesis is absolutely necessary as a foundation of these books. Moses very likely compiled and edited the records available to him and the final product was Genesis. Although Moses is called the author of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) and although the Pentateuch is given status as inspired by our Lord, nowhere in the Bible is it said directly that Moses actually wrote Genesis (Josh. 8:31 2Kings 14:6 Ezra 6:18 Luke 16:31 24:44 John 5:45–47). This does not mean that he did not write it, but there are indications that these are records put together by other authors. There is some foolishness about how there are several authors of the Pentateuch itself because in some areas we have the predominant use of Elohim (a name for God in the plural) and Yahweh (the singular name for any member of the Godhead). These theologians also cite differences in vocabulary throughout the Pentateuch. This is superficial nonsense, not worth addressing at length, although several have done so (see Josh McDowell's Second Evidence Which Demands a Verdict). However, let me simply point out that differences in vocabulary are easily explained by (1) differences in subject matter, (2) differences in emphasis, and (3) the text of the source material for Genesis, which at times was probably recorded verbatim (this last point will be covered in more detail below).

Another problem that higher critics have with Genesis are the "contradictory" accounts of the creation of man. Parallel accounts in near Eastern language are common. A second account is often added to provide a detailed account. This will be found not just in the second account of the creation of man, but several times just in the first chapter of Genesis.

The real problem that these aforementioned theologians have is the Bible being God's Word . They would like to make God in their own image so they would like to pick and choose from the Bible. I recall one Sunday school teacher emphasizing the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" one morning and pointing out that this commandment does not list any exceptions. Had he read a few other chapters ahead or behind, he would have found several "exceptions." If he knew a smattering of Hebrew, he would have known that there are ten words in the Hebrew all translated by the simple word kill; furthermore, all of these could occur in several different tenses, each tense actually modifying the meaning of the verb. God kills and God mandates man to kill under certain conditions. This Sunday school teacher's problem was that he had a mindset and he chose to make God in his own image. These higher critics are the same way. They do not want to be under God's authority and they do not acknowledge the God in the Bible, who is the only God. For those who have doubts and are uncertain, there are a great many books and articles which help us to understand that the Bible is really God's Word and that to believe that, one does not have to suspend his intellect. These books come under the heading apologetics. For further information, see the Doctrine of Canonicity, the Doctrine of Inspiration and Proof that the Bible is God's Word.

In a similar vain, some critics attempt to "demythologize" Genesis. That is, they will claim that portions of Genesis that they do not like are myths and attempt to explain or replace these portions with the "lesson" or the "moral" that these passages were to teach. These critics, who are somewhat different from the ones above, have been intellectually overpowered by years of schooling and brainwashing. Having been personally taught evolution in a child development class, in a math class and in an education course when I was getting a BA in mathematics, I recognize that it is easy to believe that evolution is true because so many educated people believe it. These people, therefore, have problems with the Genesis account of creation. It is easier to believe the Genesis account of creation once one understands that evolution is not a science, it is a false theory to which unsaved man clings in order to avoid being answerable to God. See the Doctrine of Evolution.

Concerning Moses' authorship of Genesis, a reasonable hypothesis by at least two theologians is that the various authors of the source material for Genesis always began with the phrase and these are the generations of...(Exodus generation, Gen. 6:9 24:44). I intend to explore that hypothesis as I exegete this book. Writing from source material does not compromise the Divine authenticity of the Bible . The original records employed do not have to be inspired even though the resultant writing is inspired. God moves through men via the Holy Spirit, so that what results is completely God's Word, although the writer has not compromised his writing style, vocabulary or viewpoint. Just as the Lord Jesus Christ was fully man and fully God as the Living Word, so the Bible is completely inspired and yet still completely the individual work by the individual author.

Because Moses was brought up in the Pharaoh's court and was brought up to be Pharaoh, he would have had the necessary educational background to write what the Pentateuch and he would have access to the source material, both in the library of the Pharaoh and through the Jews that he lead through the desert. There is a reasonable possibility that his father-in-law provided him with some of the source material either through his training (the great oral tradition) or through written documents.

It is very likely that the Pentateuch was originally all one book which the translators of the Septuagint divided into five volumes . The Jewish Bible still presents this as one unbroken document. This is further evidence that Moses was likely the writer of Genesis (as well as the other books). The contiguousness (contiguity?) of the five books of Moses and Moses authorship of Genesis are is further attested to by one little conjunction which begins the book of Exodus: now. This is the conjunction in Hebrew most commonly translated and or but and it indicates that this writing is a continuation of some writing which has preceded it. In other words, Moses did not begin by writing Exodus; something had to precede it. However, this would be a good way to begin what was exclusively Moses' work as opposed to what he compiled and wrote as an divinely inspired editor.

Authenticity: Jesus Christ quoted Genesis in Matt. 19:4–6 24:37–39 and the author of Hebrews alludes to it as accurate in Heb. 11:4–22, indicating that it is rightfully part of Scripture. The Old Testament also alludes to the books of Moses as being of vital spiritual importance in I1Chron. 34:14. Genesis is, in fact, quoted over sixty times in seventeen books. Further evidence of the authority of Genesis is that God speaks directly to man several times throughout this book. This is known as an internal claim of inspiration. That is, Genesis from the outset claims to be God's Word. Very few books in man's literature ever make such a claim.

Time of Writing: Moses did not seem to have a grasp of his direction in life until he was eighty and God came to him. Actually, it was probably not until the third or fourth plague when his destiny and calling in life really began to become clear to Moses. Therefore, it is unlikely that he wrote anything until the time of the exodus. Scofield estimates this to be 1450-1410 bc (as does Packer, Tenney and White in the Bible Almanac).

Progressive Revelation: God reveals His attributes and His plan and His relationship to us throughout Scripture. The God of Genesis is the God of Job is the God of Jeremiah is the God of Matthew is the God of Revelation. God is immutable—this means that He does not change; or, more accurately, His attributes do not change. His revealing of His attributes, our perception of His attributes, and the application of His attributes may vary from time to time, but His attributes do not change. What we find in the book of Genesis is what is often called the seed of every major doctrine in Scripture (this isn’t quite true, but it is close to being true). So, when we meet God in subsequent books, what we find is often an affirmation of His character and essence, and, just as often, an additional shade of meaning or an application of His perfect character to a slightly different situation. This is true of essentially every major doctrine of Scripture, apart from those which are specifically Church Age doctrines, which are going to be found in a more concentrated area of the Bible (specifically, the New Testament epistles). Now, it is still the same God, with the same character and attributes, but the application of His attributes change to some degree, as Church Age itself represents a different dispensation from the Age of Israel. However, despite these doctrines specific to the Church Age, the God of Genesis is the God of Paul, the Apostle. God’s essence remains in tact, perfect, and identical throughout every dispensation.

What God reveals of Himself, at any given time, is sufficient to those of that time period. A few generations into the antediluvian period of time, men still knew about the flood, about Noah, and about Adam, as well as about the infiltration of the demons in Gen. 6. They knew about Cain and Abel’s very different offerings, and they knew that God sacrificed an innocent animal in order to clothe Adam and the woman after their fall. Personally, I believe that a lot of this was recorded, and very likely, by Noah. He recognized that the flood, which destroyed all that he could see, was an event unparalleled in human history, and that much would be lost from the era. So, he either kept alive the prediluvian era to his sons verbally or he recorded this information. Whether written records existed before Noah or not; we do not know. Whether he was the first to write these things down, we do not know. However, much of this history was common knowledge and what we know today was passed down, either in written or oral form. In these first few chapters of Genesis, we know a great deal about God and His character, about the Angelic Conflict, and about our relationship to God. There is enough there, in seed form, for us to read and be saved.

During this same era, Job lived, and the Angelic Conflict was a going concern, and we observe in the book of Job a theological discussion between Job and his friends. This gives us an idea as to how far some have drifted from the knowledge of God, and yet, at the same, how much about God was known. At the heart of the book of Job is a discussion of God’s character, His essence, and how He interacts with us, His creation. This gives us an idea what men knew prior to Abraham, who lived during a time of great spiritual adultery. Although there appears to be a general knowledge of God, and His interaction with man, there is no mention of the existence of Scripture at that point in time. Whether portions of Genesis existed at that time or not is one thing; and whether it was recognized as God’s Word is another thing entirely.

Overview: Genesis gives us the only accurate view that we have of antediluvian civilization (what civilization was like prior to the flood). We do have some extra Biblical information about man's life on earth before the flood in Mythology. However, like most history, mythology is distorted a great deal; however, there is more truth to mythological stories than we realize. Genesis acts as a funnel and concentrates upon a particular family and follows this line through the flood, through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. There are side trips to be certain, but the focus of Genesis continually narrows (as does much of the Bible).

God's grace, totally unmerited favor, is evident throughout Genesis. It is revealed to Adam and Eve, to Cain, to Noah, to Lot, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and to the twelve sons of Jacob. We often have a very incorrect understanding of these Old Testament saints that they were good and wonderful men with few defects, men who earned God's respect and love. To the contrary, we find that many of the persons in Genesis were men with feet of clay, with many shortcomings; men who were given grace from God far beyond anything that they could ever deserve.

In Genesis, we are presented with God's covenant to certain men. We will see the Edenic, Adamic, Noahic and Abrahamic covenants. This is where God makes certain promises to man, many of which we have seen fulfilled throughout history. One of the most amazing and most easily verified promise that God has made is the proliferation of the Jewish race. In the later books of Moses, we will see that God will scatter the Jews throughout the world and yet maintain their identity as a race. Today, every major ancient world nation has lost its national identity, whether it be the Assyrians, the Chaldeans or the Hittites. Even the Romans and the Greeks of today bear little or no resemblance to those of the ancient world, and there is certainly no real ancestral tie. Their only tie to their ancestors is one of geography. They now occupy roughly the same territory that the ancient Greeks and Romans occupied. As for being blood descendants; not hardly. However, the Jews, even in nations where physical characteristics are extremely similar, still are a race which stand apart from the rest of the national entity, even when they chose not to.

Additional Background Material: Allow me to quote from The New American Standard Bible in its introduction to Genesis: Another important feature of Genesis should not be overlooked, namely, the eminently satisfactory way in which it answers our questions about origins. Man will always want to know how the world as a whole came into being. He also will want to know how man originated. Moreover, he feels rather painfully that some major disorder has come upon the world and would like to know what its nature is; in short, man must know if a basic and sure hope of redemption exists for this world and its inhabitants, what that hope is, and how it came into the possession of man.

The scope of Genesis exceeds that of any other book in the Bible. It begins in eternity past, several billion years ago, and takes us to the Jews in Egypt several hundred years prior to the exodus. The human history alone begins anywhere from 6,000 bc or possibly even 10,000 bc to approximately the mid 1400's bc. Only Revelation rivals this scope by taking us from the beginning of the church age all the way to the creation of the new heavens and the new earth. It would be hard to imagine having the Bible, God's Word to us, without the inclusion of the book of Genesis.

Genesis 1

Genesis 1:1–2:3

A great deal of the Old Testament is narrative and, with few exceptions, requires very little in the way of exegesis. However, Genesis is different; it is narrative and requires a great deal of exegesis; particularly in the beginning. We are dealing with issues which are emotionally charged and history which pre-existed man's appearance on this planet. We are dealing with history for which this is the only document of any sort dealing with that history.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. [Gen. 1:1]

Two times in the Bible we have the phrase "In the beginning;" here and in John 1:1 in the New Testament. John gives us the first cause, Jesus Christ, the actual beginning. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..." (John 1:1, 12a). Gen. 1:1 may or may not have been the very first thing created by God, but both verses reach further back into antiquity than we can imagine. We have various scientific instruments which give us the age of the earth as anywhere from five billion to eighteen billion years old. This is time which goes beyond our comprehension and the disagreement is not very trivial. See the Doctrine of Scientific Dating Methods—not finished yet!!.

In the Hebrew, God is the word Elōhīm (םיה ל א), which has a variety of meanings. It can stand for judges or rulers as divine representatives, for pagan gods or goddesses, for superhuman beings, for angels, and for God. The Hebrew has a singular, dual and plural for nouns. Elohim is plural (this is because of the im ending).There is at least one "Christian" cult which teaches that there are only two members in the Godhead, God the Son and God the Father. In that case, the name for "God" here should be in the dual (two) rather than in the plural (three or more). Other cults, including Judaism, presume that this is plural in all cases but when referring to God and then it is singular. The accompanying verb is in the masculine singular. However, for "Christian" cults, this ignores John 1:1,12a and for all cults with that viewpoint, it ignores the "Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness..." (Gen. 1:26a) (make in that verse is in the plural). The point which I am making here is simple. In the Hebrew, we begin the Bible with God in the plural, not the singular or the dual. In other words, the Bible begins by teaching the trinity. God is three in personality—God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit—but God is one in purpose, hence the verb in this verse is in the singular (as the verbs will be throughout most of Genesis 1). As has been said, the seeds for all the major doctrines of the Bible are found right here in Genesis and right from the beginning we have the Trinity.

Notice that this has begun without naming a human author, without claiming divine inspiration, without the kind of beginning which man would have affixed. We do not know who wrote the original draft of this document, whether it was Adam or Moses. Certainly, it was finalized by Moses, who likely wrote all of Genesis by examining previous historical documents in his possession. It is my opinion that several different authors wrote the book of Genesis, each one beginning where the previous one left off. We will examine that in the future.

Also, very likely, this portion of the Word of God was dictated. God allows throughout the Bible the style of the human author to shine through. However, this chapter of the Bible, along with the next dozen or so, go beyond style and contain a beauty and a grace and a flow found nowhere else in the Bible.

The verb precedes "God" in this verse. It is the Hebrew word bārā' (א ר ב) and it means to shape, to fashion, to create to carve, to engrave, to bring into existence and to create out of nothing. The Qal stem is only used with God as the subject. It refers to the creation of anything new: Gen. 1:1 (the heavens and the earth), 1:21 (water animals), 1:27 (man), Ex. 34:10 (miracles ), Num. 16:30 (a specific miracle), Person singular. 51:10 (a clean heart in a man who has sinned), Isa. 4:5 (a cloud/smoke by day and a flaming fire by night for guidance), 41:20 (a desert wilderness is transformed), 43:1(Jacob), 65:17,18 (a new heavens and a new earth and a new Jerusalem), Jer. 31:22 (right man/right woman), and Ezek. 28:13,15 (Satan, in his innocent state).

Bara is in the Qal perfect, third masculine singular (as mentioned before, it is used with the plural form Elohim. The Qal is the basic form of all Hebrew verbs and the perfect tense is not necessarily completed action (although this context indicates that it is) but if observes the action as a whole without reference to duration or completeness. This creative act is viewed as a whole and if there were any steps or graduations of creation, they are not noted or examined.

Heavens is in the masculine dual and earth is in the feminine singular. There are two heavens; that which is above us and the throne room of God. These are referred to as the second and third heaven, the first heaven, the atmosphere of the earth, has not been created yet. [I need to examine the use of heavens in the Bible, particularly the OT for the dual or plural usage]

The next verse will require some preparation. It says in v. 2 that the earth was without form and void. God, at some point in time, examined the earth and saw it as without form and void. However, Isa. 45:18 tells us that God did not create the earth as a wasted place (the same word as is found here) but He created it to be inhabited.

Verse 2 begins not with a conjunction but with a disjunction, which should be translated but or however rather than and. God created the earth and the heavens perfect, however, the earth became something. The verb in v.2a is the Qal perfect of hāyāh (ה י ה ) and it can be translated to come to pass, to become, to be, to happen, to be finished. As a Qal perfect, it is translated in most versions as it shall come to pass in Gen. 4:14b. What we have is an earth created by God which very likely was created perfect and able to be inhabited and yet it became without form and void.

The next words to examine are without form and void. In the Hebrew, these are the words tōhū (ו ה ת ) waboh

bôhûw (ו ה  ) (or tohu wabohu, with the Waw conjunctive). Tohu means desolate or a desert. It can indicate confusion, emptiness, empty space, vanity and nothingness. It is a very negative connotation and is found in Deut. 32:10 Job 6:18 12:24 26:7 I Sam. 12:21 Isa. 34:11 41:29 44:9 45:18 49:4 59:4 Jer. 4:23. Bohu is emptiness; it is the earth under judgement according to Brown-Driver-Briggs. and they cite Jer. 4:23, which should be read in context to see that this was part of a judgement . Isa. 34:11 is the only other place in the Old Testament where this word is found. As an educated determination, I would say that we are dealing with desolate and unable to be populated.

The Hebrew word for darkness here is extreme or extraordinary darkness. The same word is found in Ex. 10:22. This word, like desolate and uninhabitable, all imply judgement. What we must do is to try to reconstruct what has occurred here. We know there is an angelic creation and that they existed prior to our creation. We also know that one third of the angelic creation chose to follow Satan, once an angel, when he fell from grace. It is likely that God provided a place for the angels to dwell as He provided a place for us to live. It is likely that when God created the heavens and the earth that this was not an imperfect creation, but a creation which corresponded with His character. Therefore, it is easy to conjecture that God originally created the earth for the angelic creation. Along with it, there were animals (dinosaurs) and vegetation (prehistoric plant life). When Satan fell and took one third of the angels with him, God judged their place of inhabitation, the earth, and packed it in ice (the ice age). This allows us to make sense out of this passage along with Isa. 45:18 and Jer. 4:23. This also allows for the age of the earth to be what it is estimated as being yet for the age of man to be young, in fact, very young, by comparison.

But the earth became desolate and uninhabitable and [extreme] darkness was on the face of the deep. [Ex. 1:2a]

The deep is a reference to raging waters, especially those of the oceans and seas. The word is right next to tohu in Strong's, making this a very poetic sounding passage.

The next verb, the Piel participle of râchaph ( ף ח ר ) describes what the Spirit of God did. God's Spirit hovered over, cherished, brooded over the earth as an animal mother would brood over her offspring (it is used that way in Deut. 32:11). The earth is encased in ice and the Holy Spirit must warm the waters. Furthermore, none of this is a part of the first day. It is possible that v. 2 begins the first day of restoration of the earth but the rest of the restoration process all falls into a formula of "God said....God saw...God made...God called....(not always in just that order); and there was evening and morning, the nth day." However, what is clear from this and other passages is that Gen. 1:1–2 could comprise many billions of years.

We can conclude because Satan has been judged and sentenced to the lake of fire, but is not there yet—and because angels observe us (I Pet. 1:12) and Satan accuses us (Job 1:6-12 2:1 Rev. 12:10)—that Satan's sentencing has been appealed and that we are a part of the appeal trial to show that God is righteous in all that He has done.

and the Spirit of God gently hovered [or, brooded] over the face of the waters. [Gen. 1:2b]

In my estimation, this begins the first day of restoration (called, incorrectly, the first day of creation). There are many men of God who believe otherwise who, despite that mistake in their theology, are excellent teachers of God's Word. However, paraphrasing what J. Vernon McGee would say, "There are other viewpoints held by brilliant men of God; but if you're interested in the correct viewpoint, then here it is."

Then God said, "Let there be light," and light was [or, came to pass]. [Gen. 1:3]

The first act of the six day restoration, after warming the earth, was to provide light for the earth. This was light from God, not from any celestial star in the heaven, because God is light and in Him is no darkness at all (James 1:17 I John 1:5). This is a completely supernatural act as there was nothing physical, such as the sun or the stars, created to provide this light. All that would come later. The verb "was" is the same verb from Gen. 1:2, except that it is in the Qal imperfect. Vv. 3 and 4 are tied together by a Waw consecutive. This means that we are dealing with a continuous narrative in past time. In a Waw consecutive, the main verb in the previous verse should be in the perfect tense and the main verb in the next verse is in the imperfect tense. This is why we have the slight difference in tenses.

And God saw that the light was excellent [or, pleasant or good] and God distinguished [or, separated] the light from the darkness. [Gen. 1:4]

Tōv (ב ד ט ) has a variety of meanings: pleasant to the, good, excellent, joyful, fruitful, lovely, etc. Primarily it stand for moral goodness as against immoral evil. In this case, God declared that the light was as He expected it to be, morally good and perfect in the function for which it was invented since it came directly from His hand.

Bādhal (ד ד ב ) means to separate, disjoin, divide, discern, to make a difference or to divide into parts. So, what exactly does this mean in this context? God has invented darkness and light.. He will distinguish them by name and He will divide them into two parts by having a period of light (daytime) and a period of darkness (nighttime). God did not make darkness at this point in time because the earth was already enshrouded in darkness, having been packed in this ice, since it had been under judgement. He did not invent light here but returned it to the earth. The angelic creation had light before Satan sinned.

When it comes to a time frame, we can certainly allow that v. 2 could have taken a great deal of time. The brooding or hovering over the waters is in the Piel participle, indicating continuous action. However, the light being brought to the earth is instantaneous. Why do we not have the sun first and then the light? This is how many ancient religions saw things; the sun as the great life-giver. However, God, not the sun, it the originator of heat and light, which He provides in vv.2 and 3. This still does not explain why before anything else in restoration, God creates light on the earth. When the angels and the earth was under judgement, it was packed with ice and enshrouded with darkness. This was the last angelic vision of the earth. God has warmed the ice pack and now brings light to the earth so that the angelic creation, both the fallen and the elect angels, can see what God is doing. This is a part of Satan's trial. Under sentencing, Satan certainly objected to several points. (1) How can a loving God cast any of His creatures into a lake of fire? (2) How can I be responsible for my actions; You created me thus? (3) Is God really righteous? (4) Is God really love? (5) Does God really understand what I am subjected to? (6) Isn't this sentence too severe for the crime committed?

Recall the Satan is a genius and certainly had objections which numbered in the thousands. Human history will answer every objection and vindicate God's judgements and righteousness. So why did God provide light first? So that the angelic creation could observe from the very beginning what would transpire on earth.

And God called the light day and the darkness He called night. So evening had come to pass and morning had come to pass; one day. [Gen. 1:5]

Restoration began at night, so there Hebrew "day" begins at night. God warmed the earth in darkness and then provided light. We possibly could have translated the second sentence: And there had been evening and morning, one day. This, however, was not the first day of creation. This was one day. I know that the difference has eluded some. Note the end of v. 8: a second day; the end of v. 13: a third day, etc. V. 5 is not an ordinal number. V. 5 does not say the first day. Most translations catch this and the end of v. 5 is translated differently from the end of vv. 8, 13, 19, etc. What is the difference? V. 5 is not the first day; it is one day, invented by God. It is not the actually beginning. In other words, it is not the first day of creation. From that day, we will begin to number the days with ordinal, consecutive numbers. However, there was history prior to this verse. If this was the first day of creation, and if vv. 1-4 were all tied together under day one of creation, then God would have said the first day instead of one day.

I am struggling with a minor detail here; when evening and morning come to pass, is this a reference to the evening and morning just spoken of, or, have these events occurred, then evening and morning? This "one day" certainly refers back to what has already occurred (we can conclude that from examining v. 31). However, there are two ways of looking at a 24 hour day; a day as beginning with the evening and concluding with dusk or a day beginning with dawn and concluding with the end of night. The Hebrews took a full day as the latter and we look at a full day as the former. We do not know the length of time that God the Holy Spirit chose to brood over the earth. However, daybreak began with the creation of light over the earth. Night follows this day, there is daybreak, and that is one day.

The reason it is done like that can be explained by the beginning phrase in v. 1: In the beginning; that may also be translated At first... We find this word occurring elsewhere with similar meanings (e.g., chief or choice part), but we find it quite often in the phase first fruits (or, more literally, first of fruits ). Insofar as we are concerned, the beginning or the first thing was the creation of the earth. We have no concept of anything occurring prior to that. We theologians often refer to that as eternity past and, as far as I have studied, I do not see any light being shed upon that beyond what we find in the first chapter of John. So what occurred in v. 1 is "the first." However, because the earth became tohu wabohu, we have a period of restoration which begins in darkness. (when God the Holy Spirit warmed the earth) and the morning when God caused light to appear. The creation portion is instantaneous. That is, God brings light upon the earth, creates, and then lets the angels examine what He has done throughout the day during the daylight.

The next issue to deal with is the concept of "a day." (1) In the Old Testament (as well as in the New), the word day can refer to a period of time less than 24 hours. Gen. 1:5,16 are clear examples where God designates the daytime portion of a 24 hour period of time as a day. (2) Day can be used for a period of time which exceeds 24 hours (Gen. 2:4 Lev. 23:27). (3) And day can be a period of 24 hours (Gen. 2:3 Ex. 20:8–11). Why do some theologians interpret this use of day as being greater than 24 hours? (1) Science has convinced many of them that the earth is quite a bit older than 10,000 years, so this will allow us to add in some extra millenniums. (2) A day is to the Lord as a thousand years, a quotation from II Pet. 3:8. (3) Some have been so brainwashed with evolution that they would like to allow time for plants and animals to evolve, yet still hold to the Genesis account. However, throughout this portion of Genesis, we have no indication that creation was anything other than instantaneous, with the exception of the Holy Spirit brooding upon the face of the waters and the creation of Eve. The very use of the word morning suggests that God, at dawn, created what He intended to create, and then allowed the angels to examine for a period of time what it was that He had done. Our Lord said, "Let there be light," and light was. However, if I were trying to designate that these were twenty-four hour days, I would have used the same construction as we see here and tie six days of restoration with six days of work, and the seventh day of rest for God to the seventh day of rest for man. Throughout the Old Testament, when a day is shorter or longer than 24hours, the context is clear. The examples given for periods of time less than or exceeding 24 hours are clear to any reader. However, if the context does not dictate that we are dealing with a period greater or less than 24 hours, then I see no reason to interpret this set of six days of restoration as being any different than six 24 hour periods of time. In no wise did God require 24 hours of time to create anything which was created and the Bible does not indicate that there was a longer process of creation with the two exceptions noted. That time gave the angels the opportunity to examine what God had done, and then time to discuss it. After all, our world is here for a purpose and the purpose is tied directly to the angelic creation which preceded us.

Furthermore, in this verse, God designates that the darkness will be called night and the light will be called day. He has set up a specific set of times or period of time and has labeled them. If we want to think that the "creative day" is thousands of years long, that means that the creative night would similarly be thousands of years long. And, if we have a "creative period of time" which exceeds a day, then why does God, immediately from the outset of restoration, classify day and night and then tells us that one night and one day have just transpired when thousands of days and nights would have transpired in such a creative period of time? If God's Word tells me or implies through exegesis that we are dealing with creative periods of time, then I have no problem with that viewpoint. But the clear teaching is that God first classifies the concept of night and day, tells us that one night and one day have just passed and that was one day. I don't think that He could be any more clear than that. Now, what we should cover in greater detail is the Doctrine of Days—not finished yet!!

The God said, "Let there be an expanse [or, a firmament] in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." And God made the expanse and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse, and it was so. [Gen. 1:6–7]

All of angelic creation is intently watching the restoration of their previous home, which had been packed in ice. God brought light again to this planet and when the light appeared, the ice pack had been melted. However, the earth is covered entirely in water. God lifts an appreciable amount of water above the earth, giving the earth a belt of water vapor . This is an interesting point. If this were mythology or the product of Moses' imagination, why have one kind of atmosphere here in the beginning of Genesis and a different atmospheric conditions after the flood? This idea is certainly not beyond the realm of human imagination, but why develop this in a fictional account of history and then change it a few chapters later?

The expanse or firmament is not land, although, according to Brown-Driver-Briggs, the Hebrews viewed it as solid, but atmosphere or the first heaven (in v. 1, the two heavens are space and the throne room of God. So, we now have an earth covered still in water, an atmosphere, and a band of water vapor, very likely thicker and more distinct than what we have now. The word we are dealing with in the Hebrew is râqîya׳ (-עי.קָר) [pronounced raw-KEE-aģ], which means extended surface, expanse. It is that which has been beat down and spread out above the earth and refers to the earth’s atmosphere. The related verb is used to overlay something with a thin plate. The precision of this term is amazing. The earth itself is 3960 miles in radius. 99% of the atmosphere is within 100 miles of the surface of the earth. I, with the rudimentary understanding of the earth and its atmosphere, if I had to choose the best noun from the Hebrew for this word, I would have chosen râdîya׳ myself. The writer of Genesis not having the resources and background that I have, chose the same word. Strong’s #7549 BDB #956.

By interpretation, God the Father is speaking here and God the Son is performing the action. The early readers of this would not know this; we have learned the functions of the various members of the Godhead by information which we have distilled from the New Testament; particularly the gospels. We know that God the Father does the planning, God the Son is the visible member of the Godhead who acts in accordance with God's will. The Holy Spirit provides the divine power, although He is the unseen member of the trinity that does not speak of Himself.

And God called the expanse heavens. And evening had come to pass and morning had come to pass; a second day. [Gen. 1:8]

Heavens, or shāmayim, is always found in the dual. I can refer to the earth's atmosphere (as it does in this passage), to a location which is far removed from the earth's atmosphere (Gen. 1:14 Isa. 34:4), to the entirety of creation (Gen. 1:1) and to the throne room (or, dwelling place) of God (Deut. 26:15 1Kings 8:30 Person singular. 2:4). God has placed over the earth a shield of water vapor to hold in the atmosphere but, unlike every other day, He does not stand back and observe that it is good. This will be the source of judgement in Noah's day and the way that God will water the earth and this thick water vapor barrier will no longer exist after the great flood. So God does not observe that this is good, or fully functional, or will fulfill the purpose for which it was designed until the end of human history.

Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place and let the dry land appear" and it was so. [Gen. 1:9)

As I was typing this, I thought to myself that it would be dramatic if, rather than this occurring instantaneously, that God allow these waters to recede slowly and the earth to emerge slowly, for dramatic effect. Keep in mind, we have an audience. Although no man was a witness to this, all of angelic creation was able to observe this. It just so happens that the verbs for gathered and appear are in the Niphal imperfect tense. The Niphal is simply the passive stem of the Qal, but it goes beyond that. It can be used to describe action which is in progress; with the imperfect, since we are dealing with a completed action, this indicates that this was perhaps not instantaneous but a process. It did not take a full day, but it may have occurred over the period of a few hours. It had been perhaps several billion years since the earth had been habitable and this dry land appearing indicates that it will be inhabited again.

And God called the dry land earth and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. [Gen. 1:10]

Notice how God has caused the dry land to occur. The dry land is not brought up but the water is caused to recede. This must mean that tremendous amounts of water were stored under the earth's surface. This is where this water went to.

Then God said, let the earth sprout grass, herbs yielding seed, fruit trees bearing fruit after its kind, with seeds in them on the earth"; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grasses, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with seeds in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. [Gen. 1:11–12]

Sprout is the Hebrew word אֶצֶי (yâtsâ), which has more meanings than you can shake a stick at. It is used in so many ways in the Bible, that B-D-B devotes over six columns to it. It generally means to go out, or to march, to go forth, with an emphasis upon origin. The translation given to it is suitable, in context. It is in the Hiphil imperfect. The Hiphil is the causative stem. The way this is used is the subject (in this case, the earth) participates in the action of the verb. That is, God causes the grass to grow but the earth is a participant in this action. Imperfect sometimes refers to incomplete action, sometimes to action which is a part of the whole and to continuous action. Here, all are involved. These plants did not grow and that was the end of plant growth. Trees and grasses continue to grow even to this day. Therefore, this action is incomplete and it is only a part of the while action. Like the dry land emerging, this probably was not instantaneous, but similar to time-lapse photography, although this is only conjecture on my part.

What grew precisely was this: א ש  , which is grass or fresh shoots springing out from the earth. It would not be a classification of thing created with the following two words being examples of it, but a separate category. ב ש צ is herb, herbage or (possibly) plants. It is a particular type, the kind yielding seed. Some plants and grasses are spread by runners, primarily and some are spread primarily by seed. After their kind could be rendered after their species. We also have trees (ץ צ —which is also translated wood); in this case trees which bear fruit and the seed is in the fruit. This, very likely includes pine trees and the like. Fruit does not have to be something that we eat. It is what the tree produces. The reason I mention this things, which otherwise would seem patently uninteresting, is because of Gen. 2:5, one of the many alleged contradictions found in the Bible. You would think that Moses, being the genius that he is, would have caught this a corrected it a long time ago; or perhaps we are talking about slightly different things.

God the Father observes what He has created and declares that it is morally good; it is exactly what He chose to create exactly suited for the purpose for which it was created. Whether there is a relationship between this vegetation and that from prehistoric times, I do not know. Certainly, naturalists would prefer to see this occur over a longer period of time. The dry land appears over a period of several centuries and then, slowly but surely, the seeds buried in the ground begin to bring forth vegetation, which spreads throughout the land. However, that is not the picture we are given here; therefore, that is not how God chose to restore the earth.

And evening had come to pass and morning had come to pass; a third day. {Gen. 1:13]

Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be fore lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. [Gen. 1:14–19]

Up until this point during these restoration days, light had been provided directly by God and He removed the light for the evening. Except for vv. 15b and 17b, the word for lights (ר א מ ) refers to a luminous body (and also to a lamp stand). The word is related to that found in Gen. 1:4–5, but it is not the same word. My question here as whether these luminous bodies had already existed and had not shown upon the earth because it was packed in ice and then because it was covered by a thick water vapor or whether they were created instantaneously during the third day. Both viewpoints will have their problems, adherents and detractors.

There are actually three possible viewpoints here, accepting the accuracy of what I have presented so far. (1) These lights could have always existed (and it would have been logical for them to have existed since angelic creation occupied the earth). Our problem is that it sounds as though God just made them on this day. (2) Another viewpoint is that He made them on that day and instantaneously provided the light from these stars to the earth, bypassing the speed of light concept. Why would that have been necessary? We have stars which are millions of light years away from our planet which we can see; therefore, their light would have taken a million years to reached us, from the inception of the star, pushing back this date for restoration beyond the time frame of the Bible. In the latter scenario, God would have had to have supernaturally provided the light from these stars. The problem here is that scientists, when they come to the point of being able to measure the speed of light and the distance of the earth from these stars, then this does not jive with what they understand to be Biblical creationism. The upshot of that is God has, in His creation, given us scientific information which is misleading. It appears as though the stars are billions of years old when, in fact, they are only ten thousand years old. (3) A third possibility is that He had created the stars billions of years ago as a part of Gen. 1:1, yet just created the sun and the moon for the earth during the fourth day. My natural inclination is the accept the last viewpoint.

Since God has created certain forms of plant life in vv. 11–12, when night comes, we can have an absence of light but not an absence of heat. God, the Holy Spirit provided the warmth to melt the ice pack and that warmth is held in place by the highly vaporous atmospheric belt around the earth (along with the temperature of the waters and the earth. Furthermore, there is no indication that the Holy Spirit has stopped brooding over the earth yet.

V. 14 begins with the waw consecutive Qal imperfect of said, the imperfect being part of the waw consecutive construction (meaning, we can add the word then to this translation. The imperfect also indicates that we do not have the complete action (God will continue to issue commands concerning His plan for restoration). The Hebrew word of lights, as pointed out before, means luminous bodies, and it is in the plural of three or more. This means that God commanded for there to be three or more light bearing bodies to come to pass or to come into existence. These light-bearing (or, light-reflecting) bodies were to be in the expanse of the heavens. The purpose of the lights would be to separate the day from the night, previously defined in v. 5. The Hiphil stem means that the subject participants in the action of the verb (but is not the sole causative force). In addition to the lights separating the day from the night, they are to be a means of our ability to distinguis